• vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    As an American, I’m betting on the US. The likely argument is that the person using their neighbor’s hose still owes money to the utility company and allowing them to use water for free is allowing them to avoid consequences of non payment.

    Ridiculous, but the logic seems like something I’ve seen many times in the US.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve seen it in Poland in certain places too. Some residents of a multifamily block of flats have their heating turned off at all times, but the block owners still demand money of them because “they got passive heating from their neighbours heating”

      ffs as if this wasn’t a service you buy but a privilage to use it

      • UnityDevice@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I mean that makes sense at least, because otherwise the adjacent neighbours will be having to pay more as they’re still heating their apparent. You do have to make some sacrifices when living in a block, that’s one of them.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          you have to make some sacrifices when living in a block, like paying for extra heating if others have it turned off :)

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Access to water should be a human right. But how would Nestlé make money if it were? Think about the shareholders!

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nah, the attitude expressed here makes the water utility less money, and hence makes no sense in the US.