Greetings Councilors,
By now, I anticipate most residents have received, or seen, the City’s HomeWorks Energy communications. Receipt would have been on, or about Monday, June 23rd. The signatory of the documents is George J. Proakis, Watertown City Manager.
Many of you are aware; I do not rent-out the second unit of my East End family property. Therefore, I am very “house poor”.
My property received two different versions (attached) of the HomeWorks Energy letters. One envelope was addressed to: Kounelis, Angeline. The letter’s salutation is specific to: “Dear Watertown Property Owner.” Language within the document targets buildings with 2-4 units.
The second paragraph of the “owner” letter states as follows:
“While tenants express growing interest in energy-efficiency measures, challenges arise in obtaining approval from property owners such as limited information, cost concerns, and maintenance considerations. Overcoming these barriers is pivotal to realizing the untapped potential of energy efficiency in rental housing.”
There is no need for the City of Watertown to demean my principles of homeownership. I will not allow a municipal partner in my financial interests.
The second envelope was sent to: “Current Resident”. The Current Resident envelope identifies both unit numbers. The letter’s salutation is specific to: “Dear Watertown Resident,”.
If the “Current Resident” scenario were applicable; the resident would have been my tenant. I have major concerns with the initiative set forth by the City of Watertown.
In essence, the City is encouraging non property owners to engage in a Home Energy Assessment. It is implied, that without authorization from the property owner, the tenant has carte blanche to contact HomeWorks Energy to engage on property, they do not own. WRONG!!!
A possible contentious situation between the property owner and tenant could be imminent. The owner of a two unit, owner occupied residence, should not be subjected to internal tenant strife; created by the City of Watertown.
What is Watertown’s Administration thinking? In my opinion: legal boundaries have been breached.
On Monday, June 23rd at 5:47 P.M., I left a very irate telephone message for Mr. Proakis, expressing my extreme displeasure with the City’s letters to residents. We have had no subsequent dialogue.
I expect that this matter will be properly reviewed and addressed. Thank you.
Best,
Angeline Maria B. Kounelis
Retired District A, East End, City Councilor
As the owner of an older single-family house, I have availed myself of MassSave with decent-to-good results. No complaints, except they were slow to issue rebate checks for work done and paid for out of pocket. But it was my choice. Mr. Proakis’s letters are poorly phrased, and likely to lead to just the confusion and/or strife that Ms. Kounelis fears.
Too many people in town take too strong an interest in private property. From housing density to heat pumps, we can make our own decisions—and vote accordingly.
Fortunately, my natural gas furnace identifies as a heat pump, so I will not have to change them.
Housing density is at the very essence of private property. An owner, except for safety, should be able to take up the whole lot especially when yards are hardly in use, build high, add an ADU, etc. if the owner so desires. Zoning laws are a form of extraordinary rent extraction.
Per outdated and arbitrary zoning laws, Neighbor A cannot put in a large driveway to accommodate his family of 4 because someone thought that would make the neighborhood look like a big garage and thereby reduce the property values. Meanwhile, Neighbor B who bought her house in 1970 for 5,000 will get an extraordinary profit close to a million simply for doing nothing to her lot or ensuring that the zoning laws stay in place. God forbid anyone needs to accommodate a disabled child or elderly parent. Let’s continue to atomize the family so that financial costs and time costs accrue.
I really dislike white picket fences, Massard roofs and flagpoles (there are two with the Vatican Flags nearby) but I wouldn’t take that away from current my neighbors. By the same token I wouldn’t want them to tell me what to do with my property, when I prefer an iron-gated villa look or Dutch colonial roofs sans flag
Though I do agree about the city not forcing the installation of certain technologies. I would want any technology thoroughly vetted, and heavily subsidized if the city insisted on installation. Sorry but I am sticking to my gas stove; an even cook like a good set of knives makes a huge difference. Make the corporate polluters pay not the consumers.
Thank you for noticing and speaking out. As a low income homeowner, I have tried to avail myself to the Mass Save insulation offers and the “heat pump” incentives. I still use “portable” air conditioners to cool my home and would loved to get one of these new heat pumps and insulation but it’s been years, literally, and no go. The insulation contractor they sent tried to scam me with unrealistic promises of insulation benefit in my attic while ignoring that it needs to be vented. I have seen where they have dome work on other houses and they do terrible work (unfinished shortcuts everywhere). They do not offer any guaranties or even a written contract.
The final insult to injury is that they require you to give up you high efficiency furnace to get the heat pump.
It’s all just a scam.
I am disappointed our tax $ are being wasted on the mailings and them to have it target renters too. Heating with a heat pump is much more expensive than a gas furnace and may get worse as time goes on.
When the heat pump is fiscally comparable to NG then I’ll make the change. No letter will be needed.
If you have forced air vents for heating, your high efficiency gas furnace may be fitted with an evaporator unit. Add a condenser unit outdoors, and you’re all set. I did it 20 years ago in my 130 year old house with limited insulation. It works very well.
Thank you for noticing this and referring it to the people involved! Also, making the public aware can help to avoid a potential issue. The devil is in the details, and if what our City government sends out is not carefully vetted, confusion and problems can and will occur!
These are valid points regarding government forcing people to do changes they either don’t want, can’t afford or don’t believe in the efficiency points constantly bombarding the public.
If you talk to some people who have installed heat pumps, they need to maintain their existing heating systems for the extremely cold days to supplement the heat needed. Installers, if they are up front, will tell you they will not be happy to come out on a frigid day to fix an outside heat pump and especially if the owners haven’t shoveled around the unit after a snowstorm. That’s just two of the problems with them.
Technology is constantly changing and, hopefully, improving. In the future there may be better options to consider. As a point of interest, the government has already upgraded the refrigerant type required in ACs from just a year or two ago. So if you have a relatively new unit, it may already not be up to the new standards and eventually will be difficult to find the needed refrigerant if you have a leak in your system.
As of now MA has no real ideas of how to lower our electric charges, and to mandate that people convert to all electric power in their homes in the years to come will just add to the expense woes now being experienced. At least now people have a choice of electric, gas, oil, wood burning and perhaps solar in some cases. Let’s ease up on the mandates and allow people to make their own decisions.
To send this type of letter from the city to tenants is going to open up a can of worms for some owners. Many owners of multi-family homes are older, don’t charge huge rents like our newest apartment budlings, and can’t afford to make a lot of changes. If their tenants now come forward and make demands, that creates friction and stress that owners don’t need.
Do the people downtown consult our legal representatives before they send important letters out? If not, it seems to make sense to do this going forward to avoid more issues in our city. We already have enough!
You ask for “freedom” to choose any source of energy. But where is the consideration for your impact on other members of our community? For example, burning oil creates dirty emissions into our air that others will breathe in. Sadly, such selfishness is a hallmark of the current political environment.
This seems to be a bit of an over reaction and has nothing to do with tax dollars. MassSave home energy assessment is a program paid for by all utility users of National Grid, Eversource and other utility companies that participate in the program. And tenants who are account owners have the right to get a MassSave energy assessment, and the city sent out communication about it. They will get free light bulb change outs and etc, which is their right to have since they are paying the electric bill. While they would not have the right to make larger changes like insulation installation or change out the heating system to heat pumps, which the MassSave energy assessor would explain to them, they have the right to inquire about it with their landlord. It’s not like MassSave would allow them to do work on the property without landlord authorization. Did you know MassSave also offers discounts on shower heads, digital thermostats, and more? Those are all services a paying customer of participating utility companies should have a right to, which they often don’t know about until they have a MassSave energy assessment. You’re a retired councilor so at one point you represented constituents. Are you saying that tenants who were your constituents are not supposed to be informed of their right to a free MassSave energy assessment?
Overation is a fair assessemnt. My previous tenants got this letter maybe three years ago, and they used some of the tips given to them during the assessment. My new tenants got it weeks ago and tossed it in the trash.
When it comes to property rights and climate protection mandates, however, I want more freedom, and more science and economically based climate protection programs. It would be better if coroprations manufactured less plastics than if eveyrone recycled their plastic. The supply side should be the focus.
As for taxes, if I am not mistaken, National Grid gets monies from the commonwealth to advertise. Being a monopoloy, National Grid doesn’ t need such money, Connectricut and Maine reduced bills by removing this allocation,and making it illegal.. And don’t get me started on the delivery fee – another junk fee dressed up a sevice.
So it’s fine to send out but maybe more information needs to be added to the letter.
Margaret, nothing is free. We are paying for this mailing, for this “free” energy assessments” and the “free” handouts of incidental stuff that could be mailed to people on request or made available from local sites.
It is clear from my experience, the “free” offers are costing us more than we are getting in big and small ways.
Oh for goodness sake! Saving energy is always a good goal (obviously), and the city is within its rights to send letters to tenants. The irony is that this writer and others in Watertown consistently force their “building design advice” on developers and property owners when they propose any new building or additions. If you care about property rights (as I do), then stop telling others what to do with THEIR property.