I am all for managing our non-renewable resources more carefully. However, this wordy and complicated document “Decision and Order’ prepared by the regulator is just that – “a complicated and wordy document” that should have simplified the very important issue of managing our resources more responsibly, but didn’t. This document complicates the issue in a way that only a government or quasi government body could. Can you imagine the bloated bureacracy this programme will require in order to implement and manage this system! KEEP IT SIMPLE! Old fashioned common sense should tell you that ‘old buildings’ should not be part of the ‘smart meters’ initiative as it it NOT viable. It is far too costly to implement. I can also see a serious deterioration in the already tenuous & adversarial relations between landlord and tenant in these older buildings if this is implemented. ‘New buildings’, however, should have these ‘smart meters’ installed but very close attention must be paid to these buildings meeting municipal building standards so that they are constructed to be energy efficient.

As another viewer wrote … many of these older buildings were constructed mostly with TAXPAYERS MONEY, not the landlords’ money!!! Landlords/property developpers went ‘cap in hand’ to get our money from governments. If landlords used ‘their money’ to construct these buildings then landlords should expect a fair return on their investment. But did they use ‘their’ money? These older buildings are simply ‘cash cows’ for many landlords. The actual rent and annual rent increases in older buildings more than cover annual repairs and maintenance costs in older buildings. Landlords for older buildings just had to find a way to get around that 1.8% rent increase ceiling! The best thing that came out of that “Decision and Order’ is that tenants must consent to have these devices installed in their unit. I will not give my consent to these ‘smart meters’.

PS. The Ontario Govt. requires that every home and business have a ‘smart meter’ by 2010. Has anyone given much thought to how ‘smart meters’ will apply to ‘subsidized housing’?

I am also skeptical about the landlords motive. I think it’s a means of gouging tenants — unloading their monthly utilities expenses of running a rental busines over to tenants in order to increase their profit margin. In my building we are still paying for the external repair and maintenance done to our building …. in fact it has become part of our rent permanently. If you request for major repair or replacement inside your Apt. they want to increase your rent by certain amount. If they go ahead with this new — “smart sub-meters” I have no doubt that the cost of the retro-fitting will be passed on to tenants. The cost of retro-fitting an old building is astronomical. The 18-20% increase we paid years ago will be considered peanuts to what the retro-fitting will results. I have to wonder, if tenants end-up paying for everything, will the buildings continue to be classified as “rental properties”?

If they want to implement the “smart sub-meters” for brand new buildings, the cost will be considered part of the capital expenditure. Then the landlords have to determine at what price to rent the new units; and it will be the new tenants choice whether to move into this new building or not. However, implementing the “smart sub-meters” on old buildings, which had their return of capital many times over, and passing the cost to existing tenants would be down-right unfair.

If landlords want to reduce the cost of utilities, I think they should control the number of people living in one or two bed room apt. Or charge usage per person — that way 3 or 4 people living in one bed room will pay higher utility fees than a single person in one bed room unit. If you also have a washer and dryer inside your apt. your share of the cost of the utility bill should be higher.

I wonder who tabled or motioned this idea — “smart sub-meters” — let me guess…they must be the tenants good friends……….. Tories???