My Bike Path in the News

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/30/2018 3:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to
Texas. Lots of jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it
does cut the housing expenses in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not
part of the "smart ones"?



I wouldn't know from smart but ten years ago Joerg could
make that case easily.

Texas and California are no longer the extreme examples:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...-state-map.png

I wasn't really doubting the direction of migration. I was just noting that
the guy who claimed the smart ones are moving was not among those moving.

- Frank Krygowski

On 30/07/2018 8:57 PM, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the table.


You ever been to Houston?


Sure. And I've got three clients there. I have not seen homeless issues
anywhere close to what we see here in the Sacramento region. Part of the
reason may be that they invest their money less in wanton welfare but in
more useful things such as a sobriety center.


I spent weekends at my friends’ place in Galena Park for quite a while. I
expect you don’t know the town that well. Houston is a large city.


... I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there. The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up stakes.


Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.homelesshouston.org/2017-...-homelessness/

Why is it that their trend is exactly the opposite of Sacramento?


A decrease in homeless in one year isn’t a trend. I doubt that the answer
is as simple as you think.


I misread your link and it isn't the last year but a trend since 2011.
But how does this agree with your argument that the liberals are the
problem?

From your link:
“The Way Home partners have been focused on permanent housing with
supportive services as they key to solving homelessness, and the 2017
Count results show that this strategy is working,� said Marilyn Brown,
President/CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless. “Since the system
transformation work of The Way Home began in 2012, we have seen the
number of unsheltered, chronically homeless individuals continue to
shrink. This shows that our focus on ending chronic homelessness is
working. With the support of local partners, The Way Home is committed
to ending chronic homelessness and continuing down the path to creating
a system where no one has to be without permanent housing for more than
30 days.�

Finding permanent housing with supportive services sure seems like a
liberal concept.

On 2018-07-30 17:40, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:49:07 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:14, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:45, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning
states such as California there is also the myriad rules
and costs to developers of housing. The result is that we
now have many places where $1000/mo in rent will not even
get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there. Therefore, a lot
of people fall off the financial cliff. After some
couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they lose the
car, then they are on the street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the
market not development costs, ...


Not true when regulatory hurdles become onerous.



... particularly since much of the rental stock in most
cities is old construction. ...


Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious
affordable housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing
shortage in general and not just the "affordable" kind. Now
body politicus in its infinite wisdom is demanding that every
new building must have solar. That will add at least $10k to
the construction of the space that would house a family. This
borders on daftness.

Why? $10K is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a
house, and it probably comes with tax rebates, the federal ITC
and whatever the California commies are willing to hand out.


That's already after all that. It's the net impact. There are many
more drops in the bucket. Common wisdom says that once a certain
numvber of drops dropped into a bucket the bucket runneth over.


... Plus, it results in cost savings for energy and is not
polluting like your dreadful pellet stove.


Just like our wood stove it is an EPA-certified stove, no smoke,
no smell and it burns wood that would other wise be wasted. Plus
for the warmingists it is almost CO2 neutral. Environmentally a
very good thing. The only negative side of pellet stoves is their
poor design quality and the resulting number of hours I have to
invest in maintenance. My favorite job ... not. The occasional
auger jam is great fun as well.


What do you guys use for heat?

Gas radiant -- I've got an over-grown hot water heater qua "boiler".


Now think about how this gas is produced, how it is transported and how
much net CO2 it produces which in contrast to wood is not offset by CO2
consumption during new growth.


No duct work. NO air conditioning. Gak! It was fine until global
warming and all the consecutive days over 90F. We have a little
rolling air conditioner or we hide in our daylight basement which
doubles as our summer home. It's a nice space, but I miss the good
old days of two or three stinky hot days and then mild summers in the
80s.


A swamp cooler will probably not help up there because of the humidity.
Rolling air conditioners are more of a gimmick, you'd need to at least
rough in a window unit. Take the Sawzall, make a hole in a wall and then
trim that up nicely.

I justr got used to the heat. After all, my bikes are lacking an A/C button.


And unlike the giant, never-used Jacuzzi tub and the
other supposed creature comforts that used to come with new
homes, it actually reduces your energy bills and pays for itself
over time and produces a net savings over its life expectancy, at
least according to the literature.


Amortization takes well over a decade and does not mitigate the
upfront cost which will be plowed into the rent, all of it. Renters
who live paycheck to paycheck (plus the occasional payday loan)
only care about the here and now, they do not have the luxury of
thinking about long term amortization.

Well, for home buyers, if we're talking about amortization, a change
of fifty basis points in the mortgage rate has a far greater impact
-- and you never recoup that cost in other savings. Home buyers get
quite a deal with solar since the money comes back over time.


But they do have to cough up north of $10k more than usual. Meaning
getting a bigger loan. This can make of break a deal since most
Americans do not have a meaningful downpayment at the ready (which I
always found scary).


For renters, its loss to the owners and not the renters since rent is
set by market forces and not building costs -- unless the cost is so
high that there is no building. For multi-family new construction,
solar is a half-a-drop in the bucket.


No, every $10k cost increase is not a drop in the bucket and market
rents will simply go in one direction after such a mandate: Up. There is
no free lunch, certainly not in that market.


... A teeny, tiny cost for new
construction and maybe a selling point for the right demographic. In
Portland, we have apartment buildings with wind turbines.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davere...&new_session=1
Total chick-magnet, "hey, I live in the building with wind turbines .
. . would you like to come over for a drink?" I bet the renters even
get a break on their electricity bill. Better than granite
counter-tops and stainless steel appliances.


Probably only lawyers, dentists and investment bankers can afford to
rent there.


If it were truly bad, you can bet the building
industry lobby would crush it.


They tried to but didn't succeed. So they just slap it onto the
home price or the rent.

Well, it looks like the building industry saw it coming and worked
with the regulators.
https://www.builderonline.com/design...olar-mandate_c


Well, quote "... wasn't thrilled about the solar mandate, but realized
it was going to happen regardless." That sez it all. Quote "... and
ultimately we were able to support the adoption of the standard", is
code for "We are outgunned by the left so we'll just raise prices
accordingly and be done with it, as usual".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:58:45 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 17:40, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:49:07 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:14, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:45, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning
states such as California there is also the myriad rules
and costs to developers of housing. The result is that we
now have many places where $1000/mo in rent will not even
get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there. Therefore, a lot
of people fall off the financial cliff. After some
couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they lose the
car, then they are on the street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the
market not development costs, ...


Not true when regulatory hurdles become onerous.



... particularly since much of the rental stock in most
cities is old construction. ...


Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious
affordable housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing
shortage in general and not just the "affordable" kind. Now
body politicus in its infinite wisdom is demanding that every
new building must have solar. That will add at least $10k to
the construction of the space that would house a family. This
borders on daftness.

Why? $10K is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a
house, and it probably comes with tax rebates, the federal ITC
and whatever the California commies are willing to hand out.


That's already after all that. It's the net impact. There are many
more drops in the bucket. Common wisdom says that once a certain
numvber of drops dropped into a bucket the bucket runneth over.


... Plus, it results in cost savings for energy and is not
polluting like your dreadful pellet stove.


Just like our wood stove it is an EPA-certified stove, no smoke,
no smell and it burns wood that would other wise be wasted. Plus
for the warmingists it is almost CO2 neutral. Environmentally a
very good thing. The only negative side of pellet stoves is their
poor design quality and the resulting number of hours I have to
invest in maintenance. My favorite job ... not. The occasional
auger jam is great fun as well.


What do you guys use for heat?

Gas radiant -- I've got an over-grown hot water heater qua "boiler".


Now think about how this gas is produced, how it is transported and how
much net CO2 it produces which in contrast to wood is not offset by CO2
consumption during new growth.

Far less particulates, and my radiant system also heats my water. What are you using to heat your water? Are your pellets delivered or do you run around in your car buying them. My NG has its own pipe right into my house! My heating system is also very efficient, although the house is not particularly energy efficient -- which is typical of '50s houses.

No duct work. NO air conditioning. Gak! It was fine until global
warming and all the consecutive days over 90F. We have a little
rolling air conditioner or we hide in our daylight basement which
doubles as our summer home. It's a nice space, but I miss the good
old days of two or three stinky hot days and then mild summers in the
80s.


A swamp cooler will probably not help up there because of the humidity.
Rolling air conditioners are more of a gimmick, you'd need to at least
rough in a window unit. Take the Sawzall, make a hole in a wall and then
trim that up nicely.

I justr got used to the heat. After all, my bikes are lacking an A/C button.

The rolling AC provides some benefit. I made (commissioned TAP plastic) a plexiglass insert for the casement windows with a cut-out for the exhaust hose fitting.



And unlike the giant, never-used Jacuzzi tub and the
other supposed creature comforts that used to come with new
homes, it actually reduces your energy bills and pays for itself
over time and produces a net savings over its life expectancy, at
least according to the literature.


Amortization takes well over a decade and does not mitigate the
upfront cost which will be plowed into the rent, all of it. Renters
who live paycheck to paycheck (plus the occasional payday loan)
only care about the here and now, they do not have the luxury of
thinking about long term amortization.

Well, for home buyers, if we're talking about amortization, a change
of fifty basis points in the mortgage rate has a far greater impact
-- and you never recoup that cost in other savings. Home buyers get
quite a deal with solar since the money comes back over time.


But they do have to cough up north of $10k more than usual. Meaning
getting a bigger loan. This can make of break a deal since most
Americans do not have a meaningful downpayment at the ready (which I
always found scary).

Really? Even assuming the $10K became a line item and not lost in the noise of market pricing, getting a loan for a $350K house versus a $360K house is a deal killer? Now scale that up to $500K versus $510K which is more representative of what those houses in Folsom will go for. Looking at total monthly out of pocket, taking into consideration cost savings and tax credits, monthly cost may be lower for the solar house. These folks are also looking at a $100K versus a $102K down payment. Your average American probably doesn't have the $100K in cash for the non-solar house and is already priced out of the market.


For renters, its loss to the owners and not the renters since rent is
set by market forces and not building costs -- unless the cost is so
high that there is no building. For multi-family new construction,
solar is a half-a-drop in the bucket.


No, every $10k cost increase is not a drop in the bucket and market
rents will simply go in one direction after such a mandate: Up. There is
no free lunch, certainly not in that market.

Rents are market driven and not based on construction costs unless costs prevent construction which reduces inventory and drives up rents.

An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house. The sale price of a building is determined based on its net cash flow which is related to building quality only to the extent that it increases rents and decreases expense, e.g. new building doesn't need a new roof, immediate maintenance, etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it will produce, and a lot goes into that calculation -- including tax benefits. Don't look at those massive complexes as actual homes. They are cash flows for giant insurance companies and institutional investors who hold them as part of a portfolio. Rents are set at market rates, and if it cost more to make a solar building, then owners will take a hair-cut unless they can justify a rental rate above market, like a big savings on energy for tenants. Assuming adequate supply, a big bump in rent will have tenants going elsewhere.

The market is complicated, so I'm not ruling out some impact -- particularly if it strangled supply. Clever investors, however, would just build up and avoid the regulation.



... A teeny, tiny cost for new
construction and maybe a selling point for the right demographic. In
Portland, we have apartment buildings with wind turbines.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davere...&new_session=1
Total chick-magnet, "hey, I live in the building with wind turbines .
. . would you like to come over for a drink?" I bet the renters even
get a break on their electricity bill. Better than granite
counter-tops and stainless steel appliances.


Probably only lawyers, dentists and investment bankers can afford to
rent there.

I don't know who rents there. I'm sure its not cheap. I can see it from my dentist's office, so I only associate it with annoyance and discomfort.



If it were truly bad, you can bet the building
industry lobby would crush it.


They tried to but didn't succeed. So they just slap it onto the
home price or the rent.

Well, it looks like the building industry saw it coming and worked
with the regulators.
https://www.builderonline.com/design...olar-mandate_c


Well, quote "... wasn't thrilled about the solar mandate, but realized
it was going to happen regardless." That sez it all. Quote "... and
ultimately we were able to support the adoption of the standard", is
code for "We are outgunned by the left so we'll just raise prices
accordingly and be done with it, as usual".

They were also not thrilled about the insulation, window and all the other building standards -- but they were not industry killers. Go to their web-site and look at the killers: labor costs, defect litigation and some other big ticket items. Solar is not one of them. And again, the cost is recouped -- assuming the literature is correct, and the savings is probably more pronounced than insulation and windows, but who knows.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-07-31 05:27, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 8:57 PM, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas.
Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing
expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I
mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter
when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the table.


You ever been to Houston?


Sure. And I've got three clients there. I have not seen homeless issues
anywhere close to what we see here in the Sacramento region. Part of the
reason may be that they invest their money less in wanton welfare but in
more useful things such as a sobriety center.


I spent weekends at my friends’ place in Galena Park for quite a
while. I
expect you don’t know the town that well. Houston is a large city.


... I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there. The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to
the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up
stakes.


Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.homelesshouston.org/2017-...-homelessness/


Why is it that their trend is exactly the opposite of Sacramento?


A decrease in homeless in one year isn’t a trend. I doubt that the
answer
is as simple as you think.


I misread your link and it isn't the last year but a trend since 2011.
But how does this agree with your argument that the liberals are the
problem?


Texas has only very few liberals and most of them seem to flock to the
Austin area.


From your link:
“The Way Home partners have been focused on permanent housing with
supportive services as they key to solving homelessness, and the 2017
Count results show that this strategy is working,� said Marilyn Brown,
President/CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless. “Since the system
transformation work of The Way Home began in 2012, we have seen the
number of unsheltered, chronically homeless individuals continue to
shrink. This shows that our focus on ending chronic homelessness is
working. With the support of local partners, The Way Home is committed
to ending chronic homelessness and continuing down the path to creating
a system where no one has to be without permanent housing for more than
30 days.�

Finding permanent housing with supportive services sure seems like a
liberal concept.


That's what such advocates always say. The reality is a bit harsher,
like this:

http://abc13.com/federal-judge-houst...ities/2839783/

This is also what happened here in Placerville while Sacramento is much
more lenient in that respect. Hence a (predictable) migration has taken
place.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/30/2018 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious affordable
housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing shortage in general
and not just the "affordable" kind. Now body politicus in its infinite
wisdom is demanding that every new building must have solar. That will
add at least $10k to the construction of the space that would house a
family. This borders on daftness

Joerg, the cost of adding solar during construction is minimal. It's
nowhere near $10K for a single family home. The wholesale cost of a 325
watt panel is less than $100. Putting sixteen of them on a home, and
adding the inverter and other hardware would cost the builder about
$2500 at the time of construction, but that same system would cost a
homeowner about $20,000 to add on after construction.

Whether there needed to be a law about that is questionable, but with
builders it's often a race to the bottom to cut costs during
construction, with the buyer left to purchase, at retail, all the stuff
that was left off.

What they could have done is to require that the new construction be
prepped for solar, with all the mounting hardware for panels, and the
electrical distribution system being in place, then made the panels and
inverter a $5000 add-on option.

It's like a bicycle manufacturer including a kickstand, dynamo hub
wheel, lighting, racks, etc., at the time of manufacture, versus the
end-user buying each of those items at retail price, and paying for
installation.

Stop talking like a Trump Republican.

On 2018-07-31 09:43, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:58:45 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 17:40, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:49:07 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:14, jbeattie wrote:


[...]

... Plus, it results in cost savings for energy and is not
polluting like your dreadful pellet stove.


Just like our wood stove it is an EPA-certified stove, no
smoke, no smell and it burns wood that would other wise be
wasted. Plus for the warmingists it is almost CO2 neutral.
Environmentally a very good thing. The only negative side of
pellet stoves is their poor design quality and the resulting
number of hours I have to invest in maintenance. My favorite
job ... not. The occasional auger jam is great fun as well.


What do you guys use for heat?

Gas radiant -- I've got an over-grown hot water heater qua
"boiler".


Now think about how this gas is produced, how it is transported and
how much net CO2 it produces which in contrast to wood is not
offset by CO2 consumption during new growth.

Far less particulates, ...


Particulates from wood fire are coarse and stay in the traps that these
stoves have. The wood stove burns them in hot chambers after the
"normal" burn process. Others have catalytic converters though they
don't really beat ours. There is a huge difference between the
smoke-belching stoves from the last century and newer EPA-compliant ones
like ours.

Those traps cause work since I have to clean them out with a special
soot-proof vacuum while the wood stove needs remarkably little
maintenance. When I go up the roof after the season and open the flue
cap there's nothing in there, it's clean.


... and my radiant system also heats my water.
What are you using to heat your water?


Propane but very little. About 100 gallons per year.


... Are your pellets delivered or
do you run around in your car buying them.


One SUV load. The fire wood for the main stove is brought via truck. It
comes from almond orchards where grown out trees are felled and new ones
planted. Nicely renewable.


... My NG has its own pipe
right into my house!


For which they had to tear up the whole neighborhood. What you forgot to
mention is the fracking that happens nowadays to get the stuff out of
the ground in the first place. That's not healthy at all. Plus it's not
renewable while our wood fuel is.


... My heating system is also very efficient,
although the house is not particularly energy efficient -- which is
typical of '50s houses.


Same here. Single pane windows and all that. Tat's how things were done
in 1970.


No duct work. NO air conditioning. Gak! It was fine until
global warming and all the consecutive days over 90F. We have a
little rolling air conditioner or we hide in our daylight
basement which doubles as our summer home. It's a nice space, but
I miss the good old days of two or three stinky hot days and then
mild summers in the 80s.


A swamp cooler will probably not help up there because of the
humidity. Rolling air conditioners are more of a gimmick, you'd
need to at least rough in a window unit. Take the Sawzall, make a
hole in a wall and then trim that up nicely.

I justr got used to the heat. After all, my bikes are lacking an
A/C button.

The rolling AC provides some benefit. I made (commissioned TAP
plastic) a plexiglass insert for the casement windows with a cut-out
for the exhaust hose fitting.


As long as you can make sure the heat exhanger has good access to the
outdoors you should be fine but such units can only cool a small area.



And unlike the giant, never-used Jacuzzi tub and the
other supposed creature comforts that used to come with new
homes, it actually reduces your energy bills and pays for
itself over time and produces a net savings over its life
expectancy, at least according to the literature.


Amortization takes well over a decade and does not mitigate
the upfront cost which will be plowed into the rent, all of it.
Renters who live paycheck to paycheck (plus the occasional
payday loan) only care about the here and now, they do not have
the luxury of thinking about long term amortization.

Well, for home buyers, if we're talking about amortization, a
change of fifty basis points in the mortgage rate has a far
greater impact -- and you never recoup that cost in other
savings. Home buyers get quite a deal with solar since the money
comes back over time.


But they do have to cough up north of $10k more than usual.
Meaning getting a bigger loan. This can make of break a deal since
most Americans do not have a meaningful downpayment at the ready
(which I always found scary).

Really? Even assuming the $10K became a line item and not lost in
the noise of market pricing, getting a loan for a $350K house versus
a $360K house is a deal killer?


It is in many cases. At any rate it pushes the average threshold higher.
Again, this is just one of myriad mandates. Some like bike paths make
sense, many don't.


... Now scale that up to $500K versus
$510K which is more representative of what those houses in Folsom
will go for. Looking at total monthly out of pocket, taking into
consideration cost savings and tax credits, monthly cost may be lower
for the solar house. These folks are also looking at a $100K versus a
$102K down payment. Your average American probably doesn't have the
$100K in cash for the non-solar house and is already priced out of
the market.


The bank isn't interested in monthly energy saving on paper, they only
look at people's income streams.


For renters, its loss to the owners and not the renters since
rent is set by market forces and not building costs -- unless the
cost is so high that there is no building. For multi-family new
construction, solar is a half-a-drop in the bucket.


No, every $10k cost increase is not a drop in the bucket and
market rents will simply go in one direction after such a mandate:
Up. There is no free lunch, certainly not in that market.

Rents are market driven and not based on construction costs unless
costs prevent construction which reduces inventory and drives up
rents.


Cost increases will reduce inventory. Then stronger demand kicks in,
prices go up, inventory increases again but now at a higher price level.
Meaning those $10k will in the end be paid by the buyers or renters. The
$10k don't just go away.


An apartment building is not a commodity item like a house. The sale
price of a building is determined based on its net cash flow which is
related to building quality only to the extent that it increases
rents and decreases expense, e.g. new building doesn't need a new
roof, immediate maintenance, etc.

Whether a building gets built depends on what net cash it will
produce, ...


Bingo! And that depends on the cost of construction. If it goes up for
all developers, and with this mandate it does, then the market move up
in price.


... and a lot goes into that calculation -- including tax
benefits. Don't look at those massive complexes as actual homes.
They are cash flows for giant insurance companies and institutional
investors who hold them as part of a portfolio.


Think about what happens to the cash flow if the cost is now $10k higher
per unit.


... Rents are set at
market rates, and if it cost more to make a solar building, then
owners will take a hair-cut unless they can justify a rental rate
above market, like a big savings on energy for tenants. Assuming
adequate supply, a big bump in rent will have tenants going
elsewhere.


They will not take a hair-cut. They aren't stupid. They will instead
invest elsewhere where there is no such mandate or invest in other
assets. That in turn puts upward price pressure on the market because
inventory drops. Until a new and now higher equilibrium is reached,
meaning the extra $10k are now 100% factored in.


The market is complicated, so I'm not ruling out some impact --
particularly if it strangled supply. Clever investors, however, would
just build up and avoid the regulation.


When it is a mandate they cannot avoid the regulation. Clever investors
will look whether they can price it into the rents and if not they will
move on.


... A teeny, tiny cost for new construction and maybe a selling
point for the right demographic. In Portland, we have apartment
buildings with wind turbines.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davere...&new_session=1


Total chick-magnet, "hey, I live in the building with wind turbines .
. . would you like to come over for a drink?" I bet the renters
even get a break on their electricity bill. Better than granite
counter-tops and stainless steel appliances.


Probably only lawyers, dentists and investment bankers can afford
to rent there.

I don't know who rents there. I'm sure its not cheap. I can see it
from my dentist's office, so I only associate it with annoyance and
discomfort.


The main discomfort at the dentist usually occurs at the cash register :-(

It seems there is a hidden inflation. About five years ago I had a crown
done for $600. Last year I had a crown done for $1000. Now I should have
one on the opposite tooth (so not much difference) and the "discounted"
price is $1200. That is 20% inflation, not the 2% our government wants
us to believe.


If it were truly bad, you can bet the building
industry lobby would crush it.


They tried to but didn't succeed. So they just slap it onto
the home price or the rent.

Well, it looks like the building industry saw it coming and
worked with the regulators.
https://www.builderonline.com/design...olar-mandate_c




Well, quote "... wasn't thrilled about the solar mandate, but realized
it was going to happen regardless." That sez it all. Quote "...
and ultimately we were able to support the adoption of the
standard", is code for "We are outgunned by the left so we'll just
raise prices accordingly and be done with it, as usual".

They were also not thrilled about the insulation, window and all the
other building standards -- but they were not industry killers.


No, it "only" resulted in the fact that people now must shell out half
or more of their income for rent or mortgage payments. Spouses had to
start working and make their kids latch-key kids. 2nd shifts had to be
pulled.


... Go
to their web-site and look at the killers: labor costs, defect
litigation and some other big ticket items. Solar is not one of them.


Sure, tort law in America is completely screwed up. That is the main
cost driver, just like it is in medical and almost everywhere else.


And again, the cost is recouped -- assuming the literature is
correct, and the savings is probably more pronounced than insulation
and windows, but who knows.


In reality it is recouped by higher prices/rents. That's what people in
the trade said.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-07-31 10:18, sms wrote:
On 7/30/2018 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious affordable
housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing shortage in
general and not just the "affordable" kind. Now body politicus in its
infinite wisdom is demanding that every new building must have solar.
That will add at least $10k to the construction of the space that
would house a family. This borders on daftness

Joerg, the cost of adding solar during construction is minimal. It's
nowhere near $10K for a single family home.


It is way higher than that. Everyone I know who got solar this year paid
north of $20k.


... The wholesale cost of a 325
watt panel is less than $100. Putting sixteen of them on a home, and
adding the inverter and other hardware would cost the builder about
$2500 at the time of construction, but that same system would cost a
homeowner about $20,000 to add on after construction.


You need licensed installers, a licensed electrician, a fat mark-up for
the company that installs it, and so forth. $10k is what came out as the
bargain basement cost if a whole slew of new construction buildings is
equipped with solar. There is hardly any difference new versus old
construction. They must wait until the roof is done and then the install
is just the same.

The reason an individual retrofit install is way more expensive than
$10k is that there is no quantity site discount, they can't truck in 500
panels and 30 inverters in one swoop.


Whether there needed to be a law about that is questionable, but with
builders it's often a race to the bottom to cut costs during
construction, with the buyer left to purchase, at retail, all the stuff
that was left off.


Yup, and that's also why solar in never standard. Now that it becomes
standard they'll just slap the cost onto the total.


What they could have done is to require that the new construction be
prepped for solar, with all the mounting hardware for panels, and the
electrical distribution system being in place, then made the panels and
inverter a $5000 add-on option.


On a composition roof there is no prep. You drill through to the
rafters, seal and bolt the stuff down, that's it. With metal shingles
like on our house it is way different or next to impossible to install
solar but you don't get that sort of roof on a cookie-cutter home. They
have composition, and for reasons you outlined above not always the top
notch kind.


It's like a bicycle manufacturer including a kickstand, dynamo hub
wheel, lighting, racks, etc., at the time of manufacture, versus the
end-user buying each of those items at retail price, and paying for
installation.


Bicycles in the US are notoriusly incomplete and thus, as bought, quite
useless to utility riders until completed. I think it's always been like
that, at least the last 30 years.


Stop talking like a Trump Republican.


I don't like the guy from a personailty POV but he sure gets stuff done
and understands things that previous presidents didn't or didn't want
to. Some of his decisions like the tariffs I don't like but mostly he is
right on.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 31/07/2018 12:54 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-31 05:27, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 8:57 PM, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas.
Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing
expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of
the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I
mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter
when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the
table.


You ever been to Houston?


Sure. And I've got three clients there. I have not seen homeless issues
anywhere close to what we see here in the Sacramento region. Part of
the
reason may be that they invest their money less in wanton welfare
but in
more useful things such as a sobriety center.


I spent weekends at my friends’ place in Galena Park for quite a
while.Â* I
expect you don’t know the town that well.Â* Houston is a large city.


... I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there.Â* The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to
the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up
stakes.


Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.homelesshouston.org/2017-...-homelessness/



Why is it that their trend is exactly the opposite of Sacramento?


A decrease in homeless in one year isn’t a trend.Â* I doubt that the
answer
is as simple as you think.


I misread your link and it isn't the last year but a trend since 2011.
But how does this agree with your argument that the liberals are the
problem?


Texas has only very few liberals and most of them seem to flock to the
Austin area.



Hillary got 43% of the vote. Not sure what denotes "very few"...

Â*From your link:
“The Way Home partners have been focused on permanent housing with
supportive services as they key to solving homelessness, and the 2017
Count results show that this strategy is working,� said Marilyn Brown,
President/CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless. “Since the system
transformation work of The Way Home began in 2012, we have seen the
number of unsheltered, chronically homeless individuals continue to
shrink. This shows that our focus on ending chronic homelessness is
working. With the support of local partners, The Way Home is committed
to ending chronic homelessness and continuing down the path to creating
a system where no one has to be without permanent housing for more than
30 days.�

Finding permanent housing with supportive services sure seems like a
liberal concept.


That's what such advocates always say. The reality is a bit harsher,
like this:

http://abc13.com/federal-judge-houst...ities/2839783/


This is also what happened here in Placerville while Sacramento is much
more lenient in that respect. Hence a (predictable) migration has taken
place.


Hopefully this is not what you are suggesting.

On 2018-07-31 12:11, Duane wrote:
On 31/07/2018 12:54 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-31 05:27, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 8:57 PM, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas.
Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing
expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part
of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I
mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter
when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the
table.


You ever been to Houston?


Sure. And I've got three clients there. I have not seen homeless
issues
anywhere close to what we see here in the Sacramento region. Part
of the
reason may be that they invest their money less in wanton welfare
but in
more useful things such as a sobriety center.


I spent weekends at my friends’ place in Galena Park for quite a
while. I
expect you don’t know the town that well. Houston is a large city.


... I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there. The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to
the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up
stakes.


Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.homelesshouston.org/2017-...-homelessness/



Why is it that their trend is exactly the opposite of Sacramento?


A decrease in homeless in one year isn’t a trend. I doubt that the
answer
is as simple as you think.


I misread your link and it isn't the last year but a trend since 2011.
But how does this agree with your argument that the liberals are the
problem?


Texas has only very few liberals and most of them seem to flock to the
Austin area.



Hillary got 43% of the vote. Not sure what denotes "very few"...


Adn 52.2% for Trump. This is the real life out the

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/03...018-primaries/


From your link:
“The Way Home partners have been focused on permanent housing with
supportive services as they key to solving homelessness, and the 2017
Count results show that this strategy is working,� said Marilyn Brown,
President/CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless. “Since the system
transformation work of The Way Home began in 2012, we have seen the
number of unsheltered, chronically homeless individuals continue to
shrink. This shows that our focus on ending chronic homelessness is
working. With the support of local partners, The Way Home is committed
to ending chronic homelessness and continuing down the path to creating
a system where no one has to be without permanent housing for more than
30 days.�

Finding permanent housing with supportive services sure seems like a
liberal concept.


That's what such advocates always say. The reality is a bit harsher,
like this:

http://abc13.com/federal-judge-houst...ities/2839783/


This is also what happened here in Placerville while Sacramento is
much more lenient in that respect. Hence a (predictable) migration has
taken place.


Hopefully this is not what you are suggesting.


If they behave, no. If they totally trash the place with poop on the
bike path and stuff then yes, I support removal.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/