Editor: Everyone agrees tenants should be safe during extreme heat. The question isn’t whether cooling is important – it’s who should bear the responsibility and cost.
A heat max bylaw places that burden almost entirely on private landlords while overlooking the reality of Ontario’s aging rental housing stock.
Many rent-controlled apartment buildings were constructed 40, 50, or even 60 years ago. They simply weren’t built for today’s electrical demands. Installing air conditioning isn’t as simple as plugging in a unit. Many buildings require dedicated circuits, electrical upgrades, or significant infrastructure improvements.
Who is expected to pay for that?
The article, “Heat max bylaw? Not yet,” in the July 9 Chatham Voice suggests electricity costs for all-inclusive units would only increase by about $10 to $15 per month. With today’s hydro rates, that estimate seems optimistic. It also ignores the costs of purchasing air conditioners, upgrading electrical systems, maintaining equipment, and replacing units over time.
The proposal also raises practical questions. If a maximum indoor temperature of 26°C is adopted, how will it be enforced? Will landlords be expected to install smart thermostats or monitoring systems?
The report itself discusses additional municipal enforcement resources. That means taxpayers will also be paying for another layer of bureaucracy.
This issue doesn’t stop with private landlords. Many publicly funded and non-profit housing providers operate older buildings facing the same electrical limitations. If those buildings require upgrades, air conditioning units, and increased hydro usage to meet a new standard, those costs don’t disappear – they are ultimately paid by taxpayers.
If governments believe cooling standards are now a public health necessity, they should also be prepared to help fund the infrastructure required to achieve them.
Ontario landlords already operate in one of the most heavily regulated industries in the province. We comply with the Residential Tenancies Act, the Ontario Building Code, Fire Code, municipal property standards, health and safety legislation, and numerous other regulations. Every year brings another rule, another fee, another inspection, and another administrative burden.
The unintended consequences of policies like this are rarely discussed. Some landlords simply won’t be able to afford costly upgrades. Some will defer other maintenance, while others will leave the rental market altogether.
That doesn’t increase affordable housing – it reduces it.
Good housing policy should encourage investment, preserve existing rental housing, and recognize the realities of older buildings. Well-intentioned policies are only successful when they’re practical, affordable, and sustainable. Unfortunately, this proposal falls short.
Sarah Molnar
Chatham
