[protocolture]

>then you'll probably run the AC for way longer than if you went to the office 5 days a week for at least 6 hours each day, you'll user more internet and/or we might need a higher speed internet/bandwidth, you'll use more power, etc.

This also covers adult children playing games all day, or a variety of other situations. Seems weird to single out work from home.

[NearAP]

The point I think the landlords are trying to make is that if you spend majority of your time at home, they assume (expect) the utilities to be higher.

Keep in mind this is a 1 bedroom ADA and so they’re probably targeting a specific type of tenant.

[protocolture]

IF you are worried someones using too much of the utility bill, find a more equitable way to split it. Flat rate + a massive jump implies that the bills are potentially profit generation for the landlord. Targeting workers makes it seem like its targeting those who are known to be able to pay.

[therealpygon]

I think the point being made is how this is different from stay-at-home parents? I would also add another example: home-bound elderly or disabled people? Is it acceptable to charge those categories a different rate, given the reasoning being applied is simply “being home more”?

[NearAP]

I'm afraid I don't understand this logic.

Their own logic seems to be - the rent covers all utilities (they have assumed a certain cost for utility based on some logic that assumes the tenant not being at home majority of the time; they're then saying - if you're going to spend more time at home, we assume you're going to go over our utility estimate).

Also, it's a 1 bedroom and they have a target renter in mind. Maybe they aren't expecting (planning) to rent to elderly folks or disabled people; Maybe their target is a working professional.

[therealpygon]

Elderly and disabled people don’t ever live in one-bedrooms or ADUs? Also, where did you find all this information on their targeted renter — did I miss that in the article or did you make it up for your argument?