Dear Editor:
I am a Marineview Plaza tenant and believe the sub-metering program should not be discontinued. Ideally, this program should deter tenants (since those who operate their air conditioning/heating units 24/7 would have very large bills) from using an excessive amount of electric, and reward tenants who consume electric responsibly. (Note: Tenants who reside in one bedroom apartments receive a $91 monthly credit to offset the monthly bills they pay, which is a fair amount.)
I have anecdotal evidence, based on overhearing conversations in the Marineview Plaza elevator and lobby, that many, many tenants leave their air conditioning/heating units on when they aren’t home. Clearly, these tenants have no reason to complain after they receive large bills.
Letters which were submitted to the Reporter by Castellano and Bhalla on November 8th include errors and inconsistencies. Specifically, Bhalla states that monthly utility bills range from $30 to $500, while Castellano claims the range is from $10 to $600. Which one is it? Can’t they get their story and facts straight?
In the November 8th Reporter, within the section “Turning up the heat at Marineview” it says “The state found that 32 percent of the units in the building had significant variances in the billing”. So that means that 68 percent of the units do not have “significant variances”. Castellano also states that “a majority of your neighbors have been suffering”. Can 32 percent represent a “majority”? I think not.
Finally, if “suffering” tenants (presumably a subset of the aforementioned 32 percent) can’t afford to pay large electric bills, they should simply be more responsible when it comes to electric consumption. A small number of vocal tenant complainers and politicians who continuously seek attention should not be allowed to jeopardize a worth-while program.
Sincerely,
A responsible MVP tenant