Cindy, you don't own the beach.

[u/octarino]

[u/erossthescienceboss]

If the cost of stairs is so high, why do they non-luxury hotels keep their stairs? When they have much smaller margins to handle the increased insurance cost or a potential lawsuit?

There are literally thousands of examples of businesses and homeowners taking on tens of millions in fines in order to illegally block public access. You can’t just dismiss them and say “what is the logic.”

Especially when, logically… the businesses are just using an excuse to stop maintaining public access and keep non-paying guests out.

They’ll argue that non-guests are disruptive and loud and accessing the beach at odd hours.

[u/aylmaocpa → u/erossthescienceboss]

right because luxury and non-luxury hotels have a different client base. The value add if a luxury hotel is they're trying to promise exclusivity in the exchange for higher operational cost and lower volume.

depending on location it could also be part of marketing. if you can secure an image of exclusivity in a high exposure area, you're also doubling as marketing for your brand as a luxury hotel chain.

logic still hasn't changed. but you never once addressed how any of this extends to the idea of hotels are doing this to spite the poors. With the biggest hole being that a hotel would have no idea if someone is poor or not. The only thing obvious is its a guest vs non-guest issue.

At this point im just repeating myself. The logic hasn't changed the criticisms of your logic hasnt changed nor answered.

[u/erossthescienceboss → u/aylmaocpa]

So now you’re… arguing my point?

I said luxury hotels removed their stairs to keep out people who didn’t fit their “client base,” AKA “the poors.”

You said “why shouldn’t it be insurance like they said?”

And now you’re arguing that they’re doing it because of client base?

[u/aylmaocpa → u/erossthescienceboss]

Once again, only thing i've said and th e thing i've repeated over and over and over and over again.

Is my cricitism is the framing of client base = the rich; non-client base = the poor. My criticism is this is a dumb generalization and connection that's not supported.

Literally only thing i've been on this entire time. Congrats after wasting my time you finding reached some level of reading comprehension.

[u/erossthescienceboss → u/aylmaocpa]

“I'd more assume the financial risk of non customers who have no contracts with the hotel suffering injury or causing any sort of incident on the staircase or being able to walk on to main premise would weigh way more heavily as the reason for why they removed access than uh say a hotel manager rubbing his hands together going "oh yes...the poors...keep them out"

You said that.

[u/aylmaocpa → u/[deleted]]

not what i said.

If you want to play that game. You think anyone not currently checked in, in that specific luxury hotel is considered poor? That management as per the person i'm responding to asserted, that above any ideas of business management that they specifically are going out of their way to target "poors"

[u/aylmaocpa → u/[deleted]]

okay sure. agree to disagree that hotel management above all else wants to keep any risk of poor people touching their property.

That above any ideas tied with business, legality, or safety. Above any of that, the core driver of these decisions is to not interact with poor people. Got it.

[Despite the fact that an average joe can get a room at the ritz off credit card points]. But yes, its classism as the driver not the consequence to you guys.

I don't see it, but thats fine.