@alberto I see that you are deviating from the architects proposal on this one: you are proposing to adjust the price in function of the weighting, while the architects propose a flat fee. I would like to object to that on the grounds that I would like to keep following the architects advice (and also because I’m starting to stretch my limits).
More in general I would like to add some nuance to the proposal, by adding a definition of option as in “everything that is not in the casco”. This is because in the future there will be more options (example: light tunnel for those living under a roof), and I find it more fair to value these at cost price.
So to sum everything up: I object to weighting the options. The only thing we said we would adjust in solidarity was the price of the square meter casco. This is what the architects also propose (we already gave consensus to not weighting the coursives) and I would like to stick with that.
I am proposing to set the price to a weighted building cost, not a weighted flat fee. The issue of cross-subsidizing from the cheaper units to the more expensive ones is made more severe by the flat fees, because the building cost of a terrace for the ground floor units is a fraction of that of the balconies higher up.
Yes. What I’m saying is, what we are doing here is discussing the proposal before it’s finished and before the plenary where it is supposed to be discussed
