Greater Boston Real Estate Board members should expect more from their leader than pronouncements of economic gloom, should the city require commercial building owners to report annual energy and water use (“Menino takes on Boston buildings’ energy use,” Business, Feb. 22). Rather, Gregory Vasil, chief executive of the board, and its members should embrace this proposal. They would reap millions from energy savings and good public relations, and would cut carbon emissions — a sure way to postpone the day a Hurricane Sandy rams into our harbor, causing damages to their properties in the billions of dollars.
I would leap at the opportunity that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is proposing. The nonprofit I manage in the Four Corners neighborhood of Dorchester invested in an innovative roof for its warehouse six years ago; our energy use is down by two-thirds. This summer we begin work on a solar dehumidifier and heating system designed and manufactured in Boston. (Listen for the sound of industries returning to our city.)
Comments
Factoring in upfront costs and maintenance, what is the ROI on your investments. I have evaluated many of the technologies out there but when a 30 year payback is found they die right there. Unless it is a public project or the government (or utility) is going to give a major incentive.
The writer has his intentions in the right place as do the property owners who he so casually critizes. Except for those who deny global warming, no one is against conserving energy. Neither is anyone against lowering energy costs. The problem is with the implementation. It would be a great burden on smaller property owners without the benefits. Most of the larger property owners already do much of what is being asked and might handle the paperwork. The issues are far more complex than that. Scoring itself stigmatises properties with no other incentives or assistance in the expense of improving energy efficency. Moreover, there is no rational basis upon which to score. The Greater Boston Real Estate Board represents large and small property owners, investors and tenants alike. It is doing the right thing in cautioning us against the unintended consequences of a program that needs much more thought before anything like it can be successful.