5 ms·

Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?

by trimbo 8y ago

Analemma_ 8y ago
My cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing, but if the NIMBY's are going to have their way, I can at least extract more money from them for useful purposes.
- slededit 8y ago
  California is not just LA and San Francisco. People wonder why rural voters vote differently.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 15155 8y ago
    Imagine if "winner takes all" weren't the strategy used to elect officials.
- nv-vn 8y ago
  Death by a million paper cuts
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) The actual dynamics of the SB827 defeat don't really clearly support that. There is certainly an opportunity for a YIMBY/PHIMBY convergence on density policy.
NickM 8y ago
If the cost of the PV is now baked into the mortgage, then depending on payback periods, interest rates, etc., the reductions in utility costs may meet or exceed the increase in your typical monthly home payment. This could effectively make housing more affordable via lower electrical bills. Without knowing the numbers, I'm really just speculating, though; my point is just that it's not a given that this will increase everyone's cost of living.
- lootsauce 8y ago
  In the hearing someone cited the numbers of $40 increase in mortgage cost and $80 of savings per month
  - ghouse 8y ago
    But only if the current design of utility rates remains the same. But it won't, because utilities are regulated monopolies which are permitted to recoup the costs of their investments. So, they will lower the price of power during the day, and raise it during the night.
    - brixon 8y ago
      Residential electricity is less than half of the electricity used in California. Solar may slow down the electrical generation growth needs, but I doubt it will shut down any generators. (Except for some peak usage gas generators). http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx
- common_sense123 8y ago
  Your point is that regulation is needed for people to make decisions that will save them more money. Basic econ/finance will tell you this isn't how the world works.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Well, the simplified Econ 101 models (which might be described as “basic econ”) will tell you that, but actual studies of human behavior will tell you those models don't represent reality in broad swathes of real economic activity.

Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?

by trimbo 8y ago

Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?

My cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing, but if the NIMBY's are going to have their way, I can at least extract more money from them for useful purposes.

slededit 8y ago
California is not just LA and San Francisco. People wonder why rural voters vote differently.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 15155 8y ago
  Imagine if "winner takes all" weren't the strategy used to elect officials.
nv-vn 8y ago
Death by a million paper cuts
dragonwriter 8y ago
> if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) The actual dynamics of the SB827 defeat don't really clearly support that. There is certainly an opportunity for a YIMBY/PHIMBY convergence on density policy.

NickM 8y ago

If the cost of the PV is now baked into the mortgage, then depending on payback periods, interest rates, etc., the reductions in utility costs may meet or exceed the increase in your typical monthly home payment. This could effectively make housing more affordable via lower electrical bills. Without knowing the numbers, I'm really just speculating, though; my point is just that it's not a given that this will increase everyone's cost of living.

lootsauce 8y ago
In the hearing someone cited the numbers of $40 increase in mortgage cost and $80 of savings per month
- ghouse 8y ago
  But only if the current design of utility rates remains the same. But it won't, because utilities are regulated monopolies which are permitted to recoup the costs of their investments. So, they will lower the price of power during the day, and raise it during the night.
  - brixon 8y ago
    Residential electricity is less than half of the electricity used in California. Solar may slow down the electrical generation growth needs, but I doubt it will shut down any generators. (Except for some peak usage gas generators). http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx
common_sense123 8y ago
Your point is that regulation is needed for people to make decisions that will save them more money. Basic econ/finance will tell you this isn't how the world works.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Well, the simplified Econ 101 models (which might be described as “basic econ”) will tell you that, but actual studies of human behavior will tell you those models don't represent reality in broad swathes of real economic activity.