Search results

Yeah that was my point... I quoted incorrectly. As evidenced by my statement: I don't think RW should be charging people when all they are doing is cutting costs for themselves.

Why? It's like saying "I've done this to save myself money... now pay me for saving myself money"!

I would understand it to mean it places a slight upward pressure in the big picture. If it costs me more to hold my property, then it makes me re-look at the figures needed to make the investment viable. Not that $1.65 pcm makes a large difference... but if it starts going $1 here, $1.50...

Wait what? Which side of the fence are you on? How is it being tax deductible make it justifiable?

RW has invested in a system that has increased efficiency and reduced their operating costs. Then they charge tenants to use a system that benefits only RW, not the tenant. And now you're saying the landlord, who supposedly should benefit from the increased efficiency and lower running costs...