4 ms·

I understand the desire behind this sort of regulation, but it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run: https://www.redd

I understand the desire behind this sort of regulation, but it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run: https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...

melling 9y ago
I don’t think mandating ground parking is the same as requiring solar panels on the roof. Solar will eventually pay for itself?
- ars 9y ago
  > Solar will eventually pay for itself In 10 to 30 years. In the meantime you have to pay the capital costs upfront, so the home will be more expensive upfront.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    I wonder how hard it would have been to have partnered with FPL so FPL puts up the capital for the panels, the resident pays their electric bill as usual, but a portion goes to pay back FPL for the panels. FPL is allowed to make, say 10% over on the panels.
  - dx034 9y ago
    The whole house will take that long to pay for itself. Any new home that pays off earlier points towards a bubble. So if you assume that it takes 30 years until the house has amortised (via rent or saved rent), why not assume the same for the solar roof?
  - graetzer 9y ago
    Can't you get solar panels essentially for free and just pay for the generated electricity? I thought that was the business model of companies like SolarCity
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Perhaps in aggregate. The linked article discusses the logic and math of a home builder. "Eventually pays for itself", even if indisputable, doesn't magically get you more investors. You're still building fewer affordable units.
roel_v 9y ago
Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  You could also just raise the price of unclean energy and do it directly. A better bang for the buck might be better home design (windows, insulation, etc.) but designing homes in city hall won't get you that sort of creative problem solving.
  - Sleeep 9y ago
    Florida already has energy efficient building codes https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida
  - roel_v 9y ago
    Well yes, you can; as the other posted has linked, it happens already. Requiring some technology over another can have other goals too though; for example reducing the load on the electricity grid. Or you can set parameters beyond 'new building are required to have energy efficiency of x' because it's too hard or expensive to quantify certain elements that make buildings more efficient. How you do it exactly in the end is a political decision, and it's fine to disagree with it. The GP however complained about adding to the cost, which is a different point, and one to which the answer is very clear and simple. So I'm not sure what we're arguing here - or whether we're even arguing at all :) Maybe you're just bringing up an additional point, I can't quite tell, but if so, then yes.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I'm GP and I'm disputing the implicit false choice: that we must pick between low cost home construction or greener lifestyles. If the problem is that consumers aren't internalizing costs, then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax. Working and middle class families can do things (cut energy usage, dry laundry on a clothesline, live in smaller homes, etc.) to adjust to those prices changing. Families don't have control over developers, so they have limited ability to adjust to the economics of affordable housing development.
metaphor 9y ago
> it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run Considering the locality, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of their underlying agenda.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  It's largely built out already (population has been fairly stable since 1970). And the economic demographics aren't what you are implying, they are about the national average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami,_Florida#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami,_Florida#Demograph... (probably even slightly below the national average)
fulafel 9y ago
Its better to do social income transfers than to keep energy unsustainable energy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

melling 9y ago

I don’t think mandating ground parking is the same as requiring solar panels on the roof. Solar will eventually pay for itself?

ars 9y ago
> Solar will eventually pay for itself In 10 to 30 years. In the meantime you have to pay the capital costs upfront, so the home will be more expensive upfront.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  I wonder how hard it would have been to have partnered with FPL so FPL puts up the capital for the panels, the resident pays their electric bill as usual, but a portion goes to pay back FPL for the panels. FPL is allowed to make, say 10% over on the panels.
- dx034 9y ago
  The whole house will take that long to pay for itself. Any new home that pays off earlier points towards a bubble. So if you assume that it takes 30 years until the house has amortised (via rent or saved rent), why not assume the same for the solar roof?
- graetzer 9y ago
  Can't you get solar panels essentially for free and just pay for the generated electricity? I thought that was the business model of companies like SolarCity
humanrebar 9y ago
Perhaps in aggregate. The linked article discusses the logic and math of a home builder. "Eventually pays for itself", even if indisputable, doesn't magically get you more investors. You're still building fewer affordable units.

roel_v 9y ago

Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.

humanrebar 9y ago
You could also just raise the price of unclean energy and do it directly. A better bang for the buck might be better home design (windows, insulation, etc.) but designing homes in city hall won't get you that sort of creative problem solving.
- Sleeep 9y ago
  Florida already has energy efficient building codes https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida
- roel_v 9y ago
  Well yes, you can; as the other posted has linked, it happens already. Requiring some technology over another can have other goals too though; for example reducing the load on the electricity grid. Or you can set parameters beyond 'new building are required to have energy efficiency of x' because it's too hard or expensive to quantify certain elements that make buildings more efficient. How you do it exactly in the end is a political decision, and it's fine to disagree with it. The GP however complained about adding to the cost, which is a different point, and one to which the answer is very clear and simple. So I'm not sure what we're arguing here - or whether we're even arguing at all :) Maybe you're just bringing up an additional point, I can't quite tell, but if so, then yes.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I'm GP and I'm disputing the implicit false choice: that we must pick between low cost home construction or greener lifestyles. If the problem is that consumers aren't internalizing costs, then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax. Working and middle class families can do things (cut energy usage, dry laundry on a clothesline, live in smaller homes, etc.) to adjust to those prices changing. Families don't have control over developers, so they have limited ability to adjust to the economics of affordable housing development.

metaphor 9y ago

> it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run Considering the locality, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of their underlying agenda.

maxerickson 9y ago
It's largely built out already (population has been fairly stable since 1970). And the economic demographics aren't what you are implying, they are about the national average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami,_Florida#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami,_Florida#Demograph... (probably even slightly below the national average)

fulafel 9y ago

Its better to do social income transfers than to keep energy unsustainable energy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]