3 ms·

This would be a subsidy for builders and purchasers of new homes - overwhelmingly people with money. Why would we do this? Set higher building code standards in

by patmcc 4y ago

This would be a subsidy for builders and purchasers of new homes - overwhelmingly people with money. Why would we do this? Set higher building code standards instead. Same outcome but now the people who benefit pay for it. At the same time you could offer grants or loans to upgrade existing structures. Which many jurisdictions do for energy efficient appliances, heat pumps, etc. edit: also, very minor correction of a pet peeve of mine. Lumber is not a "low R-value item". It has a much higher R-value than other construction materials like concrete, masonry, and steel. Of course it should still be insulated.

imgabe 4y ago
You subsidize things you want people to do. If you simply set the standards higher they will cost more to build, fewer new homes will be built and they will be more expensive, which means only "people with money" will be able to afford homes at all. Things have costs. Mandating additional costs and plugging your ears and pretending like market economics for those costs don't exist does not help anyone.
- germandiago 4y ago
  I am against both subsidizing and setting hugher standards. However, what you say is true. But why not let the market show what there is demand for? Is it so bad that we always have to call for coercitive intervention?
kwere 4y ago
>Set higher building code standards instead. the opposite should happen to incentivize to build, too much single family zoning in USA, there should be only residential zoning /mixed use with the freedom to build whatever on owned lots. like having duplex and condos in SF and LA from existent inventory
- patmcc 4y ago
  You can have very high building standards and freedom to build duplexes/condos/whatever, those aren't at odds. We should probably disincentivize (or at least not incentivize) single family homes in many places, higher density is much better for most things.

by patmcc 4y ago

imgabe 4y ago

You subsidize things you want people to do. If you simply set the standards higher they will cost more to build, fewer new homes will be built and they will be more expensive, which means only "people with money" will be able to afford homes at all. Things have costs. Mandating additional costs and plugging your ears and pretending like market economics for those costs don't exist does not help anyone.

germandiago 4y ago
I am against both subsidizing and setting hugher standards. However, what you say is true. But why not let the market show what there is demand for? Is it so bad that we always have to call for coercitive intervention?

kwere 4y ago

>Set higher building code standards instead. the opposite should happen to incentivize to build, too much single family zoning in USA, there should be only residential zoning /mixed use with the freedom to build whatever on owned lots. like having duplex and condos in SF and LA from existent inventory

patmcc 4y ago
You can have very high building standards and freedom to build duplexes/condos/whatever, those aren't at odds. We should probably disincentivize (or at least not incentivize) single family homes in many places, higher density is much better for most things.