And they wonder why they have a housing problem.
And they wonder why they have a housing problem.
Literally has nothing to do with solar power.
That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.
Lol, the median home price in the state of California is over 500k. In places like San Francisco it is 1.3 million. For people that supposedly hate the 1%, those are the only people that can afford to live in their state.
When you require solar panels to be installed on new homes, What do you expect to happen to housing prices?
State subsidies, tax credits may have been a more reasonable approach that could have accomplished a modest amount of their goal.That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.
State subsidies, tax credits may have been a more reasonable approach that could have accomplished a modest amount of their goal.
But then again, I'm less interested in pursuing climate goals than other ends.
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...-require-solar-panels-on-new-homes/ar-AAx1Pjh
New homes and low-rise apartment buildings across California would include solar panels under first-in-the-nation rules approved Wednesday by the California Energy Commission.
The rules now go to the state Building Standards Commission, where they were expected to easily win approval.
===================================
This is a great step but there are also a number of utilities around the country that fine you for going solar by charging you more because you're using less. Their rationale is that they paid $$$ to put in their distribution network & you have to help them write off their investment. Welcome to capitalism.
Literally has nothing to do with how housing prices got so high in the first place.
Wind is good here, solar nah.I agree. I've looked at adding solar to my house as a cost saving measure, but at around $30K, it didn't make a lot of financial sense to do considering I live near Seattle.
Literally has nothing to do with solar power.
Literally has nothing to do with how housing prices got so high in the first place.
You don't think over regulation plays any part in California's housing crisis?
That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.
When you require solar panels to be installed on new homes, What do you expect to happen to housing prices?
And they wonder why they have a housing problem.
That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.
Lol, the median home price in the state of California is over 500k. In places like San Francisco it is 1.3 million. For people that supposedly hate the 1%, those are the only people that can afford to live in their state.
State subsidies, tax credits may have been a more reasonable approach that could have accomplished a modest amount of their goal.
But then again, I'm less interested in pursuing climate goals than other ends.
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Experience teaches actual costs go down. Read my response to the post prior to your own.
The median home price in California is $440,000 as of 2016, 2017 is still being computed, and it appears to have gone down by 3%. The average homeowner annual income in California for homeowners is $77,861. Without context these numbers mean nothing. More than 55% of homes in California were purchased at prices below $225k and have been owner occupied for more than 12 years. 46% of homes in California have mortgage loan balances below 30% of the current market values of those homes.
Cherry picking regional anomalies proves nothing. An anomaly such as San Francisco, is not explained with mere median pricing, but must be inclusive of the regional earnings which drives the competition forcing those prices to inflate.
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Median-income-soars-in-Bay-Area-but-some-are-12196055.php
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?