But it's a bad precedent to offer to pay cash, especially if they're not
asking for it.
I don't like it if it ends up feeling like we're just agreeing to an
arbitrary extra levy on the side and then still feel vulnerable to such
demands surprising us in the future.
If the terms of the current lease are unsatisfactory and putting us at
risk of being on our asses then we have to accept that the lease terms
will need to change. We then hope to change them in a way that can
actually be sustained over the term of the lease so that we can have
some predictability here. Surprises are bad.
That means either keeping electricity as an included service and paying
a higher rent or adopting a formula where we're responsible for a part
of the electric bill on a formula basis that changes with actual use.
(a flat rate "extra" for electricity is really the same as a rent
increase with electricity remaining a "included" service)
The first option entails our landlord and management coming to a
realization of the consumption reality -- that we're like a big, busy
office and not an low-activity storage warehouse. (manufacturing is on
an even higher level of magnitude)
Any reasonably smart landlord and/or management is not going to give
consumption or efficiency promises any credence if they're
re-negotiating on this basis. It wouldn't be wise. They'll simply jack
up the rent high enough so that their ass is covered within all
foreseeable scenarios allowable under the terms.
Nor are they going to get anywhere with us by trying to come up with
restrictive use terms as we're not going agree to anything that makes
Asset Works and Skullspace less than they already are. Our goals are to
grow and become places with more action and activity, not less!
Nor could I imagine it being in the interest of any party to have a
fixed list of 24/7 devices with a new negotiation each time that list
needs to change.
The second option is for a new lease to have an explicit part of the
electricity bill passed on the basis of a formula, such as subtract an
amount reflecting a Cre8tory estimate and a base amount that's
"included", and then we pay the rest.
Either way, we're going to pay in the end for the cost of having a big
hackerspace... if it's not done in a /new deal/ designed to last than
we'll see it in pieces through creeping demands.
As for energy savings and efficiencies...
> So we could start with a *long term* commitment to
> reduce power usage (with fans and better lights to bed installed
> soonish)...
I don't think we can make that commitment. We're going to grow, and so
too will our usage.
At best, conservation efforts and efficiencies will slow the long term
*rate* of growth.
At worst, efficiencies have a paradoxical effect where they actually
encourage a growth in use. (see jevons paradox)
This doesn't mean that conservation efforts and new efficiencies are not
worthwhile. I'm all for them and will make personal efforts to help.
(I have long hoped to move folks with light server room loads on to it
the vm server for example and I welcome the fact that folks are more
motivated to take up the offer now)
It just means we can't expect miracles. We have to realistically be
prepared to bear the true costs of operating.
Think about it -- we're at the point where a substantial electrical
upgrade is needed -- and this upgrade will make much more capacity
available. Even after new convservation and efficiency efforts, is a
growing hackerspace with more capacity coming online going to end up
using less once that becomes available?
As an example, one of the things we're all hoping will be enabled after
the big electrical upgrade is better summer climate control. (especially
if we want to attract and retain more members who aren't part of the
super loyal core)
It will be great if better summer climate control included the idea of
an automatic forced air system to draw in during cold nights (super warm
nights are useless, right?) and also featured high efficiency air
conditioners to fill in when air forcing isn't enough. (and to be more
efficient, A/C could be made to not kick-in during off peak times -- let
the small numbers of very late night or early morning hackers fry)
But we're not going use such an efficient system to just achieve the
status quo (server room and classroom so so and really bad everywhere
else) on a cheaper budget. Members are naturally going to want the
benefits of this system to be for the entire floor and want to use it to
ensure temperatures like 24c floor wide or something during peak times.
It would be pretty amazing if the efficiencies were so grand that we
ended up getting more for less on the subject of climate control or any
other area. But, life rarely gives such dividends.
Mark
_______________________________________________
SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List
Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss
Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
