So rental advocates are calling for maximum temperatures as well as minimums.
So by this logic if there’s a maximum permissible temperature, if I have AC installed in the rental unit it must run at whatever level is necessary 24/7 to not exceed that maximum temperature at any time, even if it adds hundreds of dollars a month to the renter’s utility bill?
Nobody would want to put someone’s health at risk by letting it get too hot.
Is that really what tenants want? Because I sure wouldn’t have wanted that kind of bill when I was renting, I would’ve just preferred a cheap fan I could turn on or maybe a home brew swamp cooler.
Or are they just clumsily wanting landlords to supply ACs with rental units now, which will drive prices even higher even before electrical upgrades….
Not sure if they want plentiful housing, affordable housing, or nicely outfitted suites.
Renters may pick 1 of the above options only.
Another person already noted that you are not required to run the air conditioner, just have the option to.
Air conditioners are also not a major factor in housing affordability. Very affordable places in the US and around the world have AC. This is more akin to having proper heating in the winter so that you can function. Just like winter heat regulation, without this sort of cooling regulation, people will suffer and some will even die. It’s not like renters have a lot of power in this market to shop for alternative housing.
Oh well, I guess landlords upgrade the electrical and install AC units and bump the rent up.
Landlords are already charging as much as they can possibly extract out of renters. They can’t charge more because their expenses go up; they charge what the market can bear.
deleted by creator
bylaws say heating systems need to be capable of maintaining every room at a temperature
“need to be cable of”
I wouldn’t feel comfortable with risking their welfare that way. If there’s a maximum temperature in the rules I wouldn’t want to get sued by ever exceeding it.
Then you’re an idiot.