No, it’s just what the usage/power/maintenance is. It’s not $1.99 times anything. $1.99 doesn’t enter into it anywhere. $1.99 was made up out of the whole cloth.
Right this is what I really mean. It’s a trivial cost in the grand scheme of things for a municipality to provide public drinking fountains. This shouldn’t be outsourced to a for profit private enterprise.
It’s going to sound like I’m defending them in some way, which I’m really not because the whole thing is stupid, but they’re not charging for the drinking fountain they’re charging for the cold filtered water, which is going to incur some kind of power and maintenance cost that’s while negligible at scale is beyond the norm. Room temperature tap water is still free here.
I also hate privatising costs for social services so we’re in agreement on that…
… but no cost faced by the municipality is trivial. They correct taxes to pay for it. You can go to the meetings and have your say in how it’s spent. More water fountains means more money.
If it were up to me we would increase taxes so we could have all the fountains.
Refrigerant and filter systems need to be powered, replaced and maintained, that DOES cost money. What math, if any of substance, was applied on top of that cost to reach the subscription price is debatable. Though perhaps ironically, if they didn’t expect many people to actually bite, then the cost per user would end up being abnormally high.
Refrigerated water fountains have been existing in parks, schools, libraries, and public buildings for decades with no on-demand cost to their end users. Our tax dollars paid for them easily and the cost is obviously trivial compared to everything else your local or state government spends money on.
There is no valid justification for this. It’s just greed.
Thank you for stating the obvious. I fucking hate this future where even the basics of the past are starting to seem unreal. Little gray cubes with a wide bar you push and out comes cold water from a spout at the top; used to be everywhere outdoors growing up.
Realistically the cost of filtration is already covered by the municipal water system’s budget, and the power and maintenance is already covered by the cities parks/public infrastructure budgets. So there is a small cost, but it’s at a scale where it’s negligible
Obviously it isn’t, if it was there wouldn’t be a user facing cost. The fact this is a private venture basically proves that wherever this is, the municipality or building owner is only committed to providing tap water (which we see here is “free”) the cost is for the extra, private, infrastructure that has been added in order to provide cold filtered water. If you aren’t US, I’ll note that municipal water treatment and filtering vs the more “Britta” level implied here are entirely different and very much a thing for some people.
The heart of what you’re saying is right, but it isn’t 1.99, it’s 1.99x whatever their expected ussage/power/maintenance metrics are.
No, it’s just what the usage/power/maintenance is. It’s not $1.99 times anything. $1.99 doesn’t enter into it anywhere. $1.99 was made up out of the whole cloth.
Right this is what I really mean. It’s a trivial cost in the grand scheme of things for a municipality to provide public drinking fountains. This shouldn’t be outsourced to a for profit private enterprise.
It’s going to sound like I’m defending them in some way, which I’m really not because the whole thing is stupid, but they’re not charging for the drinking fountain they’re charging for the cold filtered water, which is going to incur some kind of power and maintenance cost that’s while negligible at scale is beyond the norm. Room temperature tap water is still free here.
I don’t think the thing costs only $2 to install? $2 price per liter of refrigeration on your water does not imply the the system costs $2
Sorry I really hate this line of thinking.
I also hate privatising costs for social services so we’re in agreement on that…
… but no cost faced by the municipality is trivial. They correct taxes to pay for it. You can go to the meetings and have your say in how it’s spent. More water fountains means more money.
If it were up to me we would increase taxes so we could have all the fountains.
Refrigerant and filter systems need to be powered, replaced and maintained, that DOES cost money. What math, if any of substance, was applied on top of that cost to reach the subscription price is debatable. Though perhaps ironically, if they didn’t expect many people to actually bite, then the cost per user would end up being abnormally high.
Refrigerated water fountains have been existing in parks, schools, libraries, and public buildings for decades with no on-demand cost to their end users. Our tax dollars paid for them easily and the cost is obviously trivial compared to everything else your local or state government spends money on.
There is no valid justification for this. It’s just greed.
Thank you for stating the obvious. I fucking hate this future where even the basics of the past are starting to seem unreal. Little gray cubes with a wide bar you push and out comes cold water from a spout at the top; used to be everywhere outdoors growing up.
Realistically the cost of filtration is already covered by the municipal water system’s budget, and the power and maintenance is already covered by the cities parks/public infrastructure budgets. So there is a small cost, but it’s at a scale where it’s negligible
Obviously it isn’t, if it was there wouldn’t be a user facing cost. The fact this is a private venture basically proves that wherever this is, the municipality or building owner is only committed to providing tap water (which we see here is “free”) the cost is for the extra, private, infrastructure that has been added in order to provide cold filtered water. If you aren’t US, I’ll note that municipal water treatment and filtering vs the more “Britta” level implied here are entirely different and very much a thing for some people.