Mobile Toilet Charging 10 Yuan
There was once a mobile toilet charging 10 yuan per use on the seaside of Jinfeng Town, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province. Here are the details:
Charging and Usage Rules
The mobile toilet had signs on the door reading "Mobile Restroom" and "Scan Code to Open the Door". Users needed to pay 10 yuan through the "Xiaoxun Smart Control Center" mini-program to enter. The countdown displayed on the mini-program was not a limit on the actual usage time; instead, it prevented others from scanning the code to enter during that period, ensuring exclusive use for the current user. Inside the toilet, it was clearly marked that there was "no time limit", and the door lock would not open automatically after the countdown ended. People outside the door could not scan the code to unlock it either, and the user needed to manually open the door from the inside using a key. In addition, this facility also offered shower services, with a charging standard of 2 yuan per minute.
Business Background and Adjustments
The operator, Mr. Liu, initially set the charge at 6 yuan per use. However, due to a large number of tourists, the cleaning pressure on a single person was too heavy, leading to frequent sanitation issues and an increase in complaints. To control the flow of people and alleviate the cleaning burden, he raised the price to 10 yuan per use. According to him, this container-style toilet had an average daily income of about 100 yuan. Nevertheless, the price adjustment attracted public attention, and Mr. Liu subsequently lowered the price to 2 yuan per use. But as the incident continued to ferment, he finally moved the container away at night, and currently, the facility is out of service.
Controversy and Subsequent Impact
The core controversy of this case lies in the reasonableness of charging for mobile toilets in public areas. Although the operator used price as a lever to regulate usage frequency, the high charge might raise public doubts about "monopolizing public resources in disguise". In addition, the difference in wording between the countdown on the mini-program and the actual usage rules (for example, "remaining time" could easily be misunderstood as a usage time limit) might also lead to user experience conflicts. After the incident was exposed, the operator quickly adjusted the price and removed the facility, reflecting the difficulty in balancing compliance and public acceptance in such business models. At present, the local relevant departments have not yet made a further response to this matter, but such cases provide a reference for the management of public convenience facilities in public areas.
