Do environmentalists rent property?

Massachusetts rental forms have a provision stating that the tenant "must make sure that no fuel oil or utility service furnished by the Landlord is wasted." If a tenant is notoriously wasting water or whatever, a landlord could use it as a reason to terminate the agreement.

I think there is a difference, but I would define it this way: if I am in full control of a utility and its costs, I may be more willing to choose DIScomfort for economic gain (i.e. cold hands and sweaters to lower my heating bill if I'm tight for cash). If I'm sharing the resource and the costs (whether through landlord-paid utilities, roommates who may turn up the heat when I'm gone, or condo fees), I'll only choose discomfort if it's unanimous (i.e. I don't want to be cold and I certainly don't want to be paying for someone else's warmth if I'm being cold), however, I'll still make responsible choices... I'm not gonna jack up the heat to 75 or waste a lot of water, and if there is a programmable thermostat (which unfortunately my current landlord has NOT installed), I'll program it to a lower temperature for the hours I'm not usually home... both because it's responsible human behavior and it's better for the environment.

waste 90% if not 100% of the tenants,of course I am a landlord for 20 years,I know.

I don't think that people whose utilities are included in their rent usually waste energy on purpose, but it seems natural that they typically wouldn't be quite as concerned with saving energy as they would if they were paying the bills themselves. Anyone who's ever worked for a government agency/public company and also worked for a small private company knows that in the former, people are much more conscious about keeping expenses low in the later than the former. I believe it's the same phenomenon.

This is based on my observation of others... I've always had to pay the utilities at any place I ever rented.

I'd be interested in knowing if the provision that Susan mentions has any teeth at all. It seems like it would be very difficult to prove that someone is intentionally being wasteful.

Flip the question around and ask, why doesn't the landlord provide adequate and updated insulation in their old rental units. I'm currently living in a early 1900's apartment, and the walls have little to no insulation. Is he thinking about the environment since I am wasting my money and my oil to heat the place inefficiently. I'm sorry, but after years of renting, and having 1/5 good landlords, I have no pity, or no shame in using and abusing landlords to the fullest extent. I am indeed responsible of the environment, but if the landlord isn't, there is little one can do.

After living in both heat-included and heat-extra apartments in Allston, Cambridge, and Somerville, I've found it far easier to be an energy sipper when the landlord has financial incentive to properly insulate the unit. There's only so much you can do with a 1900 construction with single-pane windows and/or no wall insulation. I agree with Brad/#6.

First off I want to say I'm very thankful for the tenants I've had over the years. Some, maybe even most people, are concerned about the environment will go out of their way to conserve. However, there are many that will not conserve at all if they don't have to pay the bill directly. There are even people that will want to "stick it to the man" and purposely waste utilities. I'm willing to forgo some comfort in the winter and keep my apartment at that temperature where you need to wear some warm clothes in the house. I would probably keep my place a little warmer if energy was free. When gas prices go up, people drive less and start cursing their gas guzzling SUVs. It isn't so much about wasting for most, but how much will that extra connivence and comfort cost. And it's about choice and fairness. Why should a tenant pay for average energy consumption when that tenants uses less then average? Shouldn't the heavy users pay their more?

I think this post came up because I ranted about the law that required landlords to pay the water. As I said there was a renovation/condominiumization boom in Cambridge the last 10 years. It was a once in a generation (or more) opportunity to get submetering for water installed in most of Cambridge and this idiotic law prevented it from happening. Politicians simply wanted to hide the high cost of water from many voters to make it seem like we got that high tech sewage system for free and the expense of the environment and lower housing costs. There is a reason the change in the law to allow landlord to pass the water bill to the tenants for water was supported Audobon Society. It's still not legal for the tenant to get the water bill in his/her name, thus most landlords continue to pay the water bill.

As far as landlords that don't insulate, I'm not one of them. I've spent a lot of money insulating. Tenants should inquire about the cost of heating an apartment before they rent it and calculate this into their cost of renting. I wish more people would do this as it would be beneficial for me, but it's not really at the top of a lot of people minds. So I have no more sympathy for the people that rent such apartments then the landlords that fail to insulate. It takes two to tango here.

I rented in a large condo building where the windows and slider doors were so awful in terms of air leakage, I could actually see my curtains blowing in the wind when the windows and doors were shut CLOSED. From across the room. So we're not talking about tiny, imperceptible drafts. I could hold a candle near the sliding door on the patio and watch the flame flicker.

But I didn't pay for heat (although I had a thermostat, it was part of the condo fees which the landlord paid.) I was conservative in my heat usage; I'm one of those folks who doesn't mind putting on warm clothes in the winter, to sit around the house.

However, a question came up to all unit owners for a special assessment to have every door and window replaced (I think each unit had between 2 and 5 total) and it was voted down right away.

To me, the cost of doing the replacement seemed excessive (I wondered if they were insulating with gold bars or something), but I was dismayed that these windows and doors which were obviously wasteful were being allowed to stay. I know that a couple grand is a lot when it comes to an assessment, but that's also an assumed cost of living in a condo, and being part of an association. I can't help but wonder how long it would take to realize the cost savings in reduced heating bills, by installing more energy efficient windows. I would hazard a guess that it would not be very long. Doesn't everyone want lower heating bills and lower condo fees?

Ellen, that's exactly I won't buy a condo with communal heat. The cost of operating such units are too much with all the wasted heat. Most people are short sighted. If I install insulation that will save a tenant $600/year, I won't be able to get $50/month more in rent.

Landlords or tenants that don't instal programable thermostats blow my mind. The payback on them is about one month. Tenants that don't want to reward a bad landlord, just take it with you when you move.

To me, the cost of doing the replacement seemed excessive (I wondered if they were insulating with gold bars or something), but I was dismayed that these windows and doors which were obviously wasteful were being allowed to stay. I know that a couple grand is a lot when it comes to an assessment, but that's also an assumed cost of living in a condo, and being part of an association. I can't help but wonder how long it would take to realize the cost savings in reduced heating bills, by installing more energy efficient windows. I would hazard a guess that it would not be very long.

You didn't say if you were in a building from 1900 or 1980. If the former, the payback on replacing windows is a long time, probably beyond the lifespan of the replacement windows. There is rarely a need to replace old windows. They are made of better wood than modern construction materials. And as the Mass. state government website will tell you, modern double pane windows have little energy efficiency over modern windows--here's the big caveat--as long as the old windows are maintained or refurbished in good condition and you have effective, well-sealed storm windows.

Hey markel- good catch. Sorry fir leaving that out. It was a brick high rise built in the early 1970s. The windows weren't even wood- they were those aluminum side-to-side opening windows-- not sure what they are called exactly. I realize insulation wasn't a big concern in the 70's: I'm learning that lesson with my 70s house I purchased:) anyway, I think the replacement quote for my unit which was ONE window and one patio slider was something like 5k. Having just replaced all the windows in my home for less than that, it seemed like a ridiculous figure!