California to Become First US State Mandating Solar on New Homes

[Dion]

Great... more unnecessary increased costs in housing. I swear our generation has it harder than our parents' (i'm 31). I don't see myself ever owning a house.

Houses are a long term investment. It will have paid for itself and saved you money over the years of being in your house. This is a good thing. Have a feeling you're a republican :O

 

[sfsuphysics]

While I support solar mandates in theory, the housing crisis in CA is insane.

A desire to have something, yes even a basic necessity, that is not available as YOU want it is not a crisis.

 

[Mchart]

I hope home solar panels have a lifespan far superior to those solar pathway lights I buy. After two years, the panels cloud up and are useless.

Contractors will be using the cheapest crap the state will sign off on, and i'm sure the state will decide what a certain panel should be worth which will further drive up prices.

Regulations like this have rippling effects that in the end only fuck over the lower/middle-class who can barely afford a home out there to begin with.

The problem is that good-to-do rich dipshits who can pay to play and/or not deal with their own policies are making decisions for the rest of the state.

 

[SLee]

Houses are a long term investment. It will have paid for itself and saved you money over the years of being in your house. This is a good thing. Have a feeling you're a republican :O

As generous net-metering disappears and is replaced by billing that splits electricity generation and distribution, time of day billing or the utility only paying wholesale pricing, payback becomes harder and harder.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Contractors will be using the cheapest crap the state will sign off on, and i'm sure the state will decide what a certain panel should be worth which will further drive up prices.

Regulations like this have rippling effects that in the end only fuck over the lower/middle-class who can barely afford a home out there to begin with.

The problem is that good-to-do rich dipshits who can pay to play and/or not deal with their own policies are making decisions for the rest of the state.

You and so many others in this thread are VASTLY over estimating the number of lower/middle-class who can afford to buy a home in California as it stands, much less a newly built home.

 

[Mchart]

You and so many others in this thread are VASTLY over estimating the number of lower/middle-class who can afford to buy a home in California as it stands, much less a newly built home.

Oh, I completely agree. They can't afford it to begin with.

This will crank the dial from 10 to 11 though and is a step in the wrong direction.

Since they can't already afford homes, what do folks think will happen to rent prices now that all new builds will require solar?

I can assure you the prices won't be going down.

I have a solution for all of this though. The state and these rich assholes ruining it can't compel you to stay. Move.

 

[86 5.0L]

Houses are a long term investment. It will have paid for itself and saved you money over the years of being in your house. This is a good thing. Have a feeling you're a republican :O

Not sure how I’m saving money paying a million dollars for a house I bought under $400,000

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Great... more unnecessary increased costs in housing. I swear our generation has it harder than our parents' (i'm 31). I don't see myself ever owning a house.

I just bought a mobile house last year and called it a day.. affords me privacy and it is not that expensive to own. Paid for it in cash a new 2017 Northern Advantage. worst heating bill I had was $110 when we had nearly a month of -25 temps at night. I am 20 years away from retirement and I plan on living in this house until then...

 

[sfsuphysics]

Not sure how I’m saving money paying a million dollars for a house I bought under $400,000

Depends on your neighborhood, maybe it was a poor investment you made, or one that tanked due to unforseen reasons. About 15-20 years ago the house sold next door for about 420k, today it's worth over a million. Now sure it's had money put into it with maintenance and what not, but at the end of the day there's a million dollars worth of capital there today. So if the loan costs added up to a million bucks on the home, and they sold it today they effectively lived rent free for the past 15-20 years (gross over exaggeration I know.. but you get the point). Now if your house is still only worth $400k after 30 years then yeah investment didn't pan out, which can be said about many types of investments.

 

[86 5.0L]

Depends on your neighborhood, maybe it was a poor investment you made, or one that tanked due to unforseen reasons. About 15-20 years ago the house sold next door for about 420k, today it's worth over a million. Now sure it's had money put into it with maintenance and what not, but at the end of the day there's a million dollars worth of capital there today. So if the loan costs added up to a million bucks on the home, and they sold it today they effectively lived rent free for the past 15-20 years (gross over exaggeration I know.. but you get the point). Now if your house is still only worth $400k after 30 years then yeah investment didn't pan out, which can be said about many types of investments.

That’s the thing, I’m paying a million dollars for a house that will probably be a million dollars after 30-40 years...

Not sure how that’s a good investment.

 

[Joust]

Depends on your neighborhood, maybe it was a poor investment you made, or one that tanked due to unforseen reasons. About 15-20 years ago the house sold next door for about 420k, today it's worth over a million. Now sure it's had money put into it with maintenance and what not, but at the end of the day there's a million dollars worth of capital there today. So if the loan costs added up to a million bucks on the home, and they sold it today they effectively lived rent free for the past 15-20 years (gross over exaggeration I know.. but you get the point). Now if your house is still only worth $400k after 30 years then yeah investment didn't pan out, which can be said about many types of investments.

Maybe tomorrow it's worth 200k. Tons of people got caught up in this the last cycle. 400k note on a 200k house. Many, many, MANY people walked away from such a note.

 

[Joust]

As generous net-metering disappears and is replaced by billing that splits electricity generation and distribution, time of day billing or the utility only paying wholesale pricing, payback becomes harder and harder.

One might say, the compensation received more accurately matches the net benefit conferred to the system.

 

[vegeta535]

M

That’s the thing, I’m paying a million dollars for a house that will probably be a million dollars after 30-40 years...

Not sure how that’s a good investment.

Could be worth less. I seen good towns go to shit in as little as ten years.

 

[SLee]

One might say, the compensation received more accurately matches the net benefit conferred to the system.

And I completely agree and support that change.

And if California does go ahead with mandatory solar panel scheme, I'd expect the new owners will be in for a huge surprise when they realize how little they're going to get from the electricity they're selling at noon and how much they have to pay for electricity at 7-8PM.

 

[sfsuphysics]

That’s the thing, I’m paying a million dollars for a house that will probably be a million dollars after 30-40 years...

Not sure how that’s a good investment.

Well how much does it cost to live in your area? Is it less than your mortgage payments? If it is then it's a good investment because you're living for cheaper than the local rent which will presumably increase over time and then at the end of said time you still have the value of your property regardless of how much the value you changes on it.

Even if rent isn't higher than your mortgage payment that's something that's a fixed value now, effectively "your rent" for the next 30-40 years is your mortgage payment, while others will continue to go up. Just as an example if rent for a similar type of property in that area is $1750/month today, and rent increases are on average 3% per year, then after 30 years the renter paid a million dollars in rent, and they don't have anything to show for it other than they lived there, after 40 years they would have paid almost 1.6M in rent, and this doesn't take into account the value of a dollar aka inflation, which to give you an example over the last 30 years (1988 to today) inflation was about 115%, meaning that $1750 buys the same stuff as $3775 today.

Now sure this is an extremely simplified view at looking at it, and there are other variables to consider that differ for each case (the big one is probably cost of maintaining a home), but it's not that hard to see how it could be a good investment.

 

[86 5.0L]

Well how much does it cost to live in your area? Is it less than your mortgage payments? If it is then it's a good investment because you're living for cheaper than the local rent which will presumably increase over time and then at the end of said time you still have the value of your property regardless of how much the value you changes on it.

Even if rent isn't higher than your mortgage payment that's something that's a fixed value now, effectively "your rent" for the next 30-40 years is your mortgage payment, while others will continue to go up. Just as an example if rent for a similar type of property in that area is $1750/month today, and rent increases are on average 3% per year, then after 30 years the renter paid a million dollars in rent, and they don't have anything to show for it other than they lived there, after 40 years they would have paid almost 1.6M in rent, and this doesn't take into account the value of a dollar aka inflation, which to give you an example over the last 30 years (1988 to today) inflation was about 115%, meaning that $1750 buys the same stuff as $3775 today.

Now sure this is an extremely simplified view at looking at it, and there are other variables to consider that differ for each case (the big one is probably cost of maintaining a home), but it's not that hard to see how it could be a good investment.

True, and the market I’m in(San Diego) is always hot. But if I were to do it again, I would have rented a cheap studio/1 bed apt and use the income to invest in the stock market or rental properties

 

[sfsuphysics]

True, and the market I’m in(San Diego) is always hot. But if I were to do it again, I would have rented a cheap studio/1 bed apt and use the income to invest in the stock market or rental properties

San Diego and your home is only going to be worth a million after 30/40 years? Planning on Mexico making a northern incursion?

That said, other option you possibly could do, is turn your home into a rental home and live somewhere cheaper, net gain in capital, a lot of San Francisco homes are exactly like that bought then turn them around as rentals to pay off the mortgage.

 

[86 5.0L]

San Diego and your home is only going to be worth a million after 30/40 years? Planning on Mexico making a northern incursion?

That said, other option you possibly could do, is turn your home into a rental home and live somewhere cheaper, net gain in capital, a lot of San Francisco homes are exactly like that bought then turn them around as rentals to pay off the mortgage.

the way the politicians are running this state, yes

thats another option too. Im just tired of Excramento mandating shit to tax paying, law abiding citizens, and the "we're better than you and know whats best" mentality

 

[opfreak]

You may want to research the history of home prices and why they're so high today. Regulations like CA's are a small fraction of why housing prices are ridiculously high in our country where there's more empty homes than homeless citizens, or people living in subpar housing. In short and oversimplified terms, it's largely due to greed.

government not allowing more building , or high density housing is a major reason why CA housing is so expensive

 

[tybert7]

government not allowing more building , or high density housing is a major reason why CA housing is so expensive

I am hoping that is true (as it would then be fixable) but it reminded me of a lingering worry over housing costs. What is more supply did not make it cheaper? Consider NYC, much more dense than Los Angeles, and even more expensive to live.

It could be similar to a phenomenon I read about related to traffic congestion NOT being alleviated by wider freeways with more lanes. Increase capacity, and you actually increase the number of people who will bother to use the freeway in the first place.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/


So I realize in the short term if housing supply massively increased costs would either stay steady or go down, but wouldn't that just lead to more people wanting to come to the area because they could afford it now and winding up in the same place we were before? But perhaps that is still better overall because more density = more resilient economic areas.

 

[TwistedAegis]

A desire to have something, yes even a basic necessity, that is not available as YOU want it is not a crisis.

Give me a break. You don't think the level of homelessness, or rents being too damn high for people we need to live here to do vital jobs (teachers, police, firefighters, etc) isn't a crisis?

Only 28% of California households could afford to purchase the median priced home. That's simply unsustainable and is indeed a crisis.

 

[OutOfPhase]

Give me a break. You don't think the level of homelessness, or rents being too damn high for people we need to live here to do vital jobs (teachers, police, firefighters, etc) isn't a crisis?

Only 28% of California households could afford to purchase the median priced home. That's simply unsustainable and is indeed a crisis.

Devil's advocate - is it a right to live in one of the most desirable places on earth? (speaking in terms of opportunities, climate, other things which makes a place 'desirable').

 

[sfsuphysics]

Give me a break. You don't think the level of homelessness, or rents being too damn high for people we need to live here to do vital jobs (teachers, police, firefighters, etc) isn't a crisis?

Only 28% of California households could afford to purchase the median priced home. That's simply unsustainable and is indeed a crisis.

Ok let me break this down, not all homelessness is due to lack of affordable housing, in many cases you have homeless that have major issues (mental, drug, etc) which is not due to cost of living, in many cases you'd have homeless who would be homeless in cheap parts, and in many cases you have homeless that make their way here because this is a pretty nice place to be homeless, mild winters, mild summers, and handouts galore, bottom line is most of the homeless would probably be homeless in other parts of the country as well, translation: the homeless population is by and far not directly connected to the cost of housing.

Ok rents being too damn high... yet we have teachers, police, firefighters, etc actually living here. In fact lots of people of poorer means live here, how ever do they do it? Now lets circle back around on this, because I wouldn't mind housing for all those public service jobs ... HOWEVER, affordable housing doesn't go to those people, hell those jobs don't even get any sort of preferential treatment. I'm all for having a huge apartment complex that's strictly for teachers working in the city, and you can only live there if you continue to be a teacher, but that sad reality is that is not how it works, it literally is a random based on how many people apply for below market rental units and most of which are not in the category of teacher, police, nurse, firefighter, etc. in fact in most every case all those jobs simply make too much money to qualify for any city based affordable housing unless they're like the single income earner in a family of 5 or something non-realistic. So ok affordable housing is simply going to the poor, those who don't make much money at all for whatever reason, NOT those who fill service jobs.

Ok fine, build more houses and the prices will come down. MAJOR fucking fallacy there, because the fact is for every person who wants/needs cheaper housing, there's 5 more who don't need it and will pay it. Houses for sale? Remember that's EXACTLY what this solar roof thing is about, those with more money will be able to outbid those with less money. Buying houses is not a first come first serve business. So the net result is it still won't be affordable. In cities like San Francisco there simply isn't any room for new houses so there's literally nothing that can be done other than Manhatanizing the city by going vertical and I'm sorry but fuck that, allowing more people to live here just fucks up the quality of life for everyone who already lives here. And the state as a whole? Yeah it is affordable.

So yeah, requiring builders to put solar panels on a house isn't going to drastically slow down the construction of new houses at all, and the net result is there is no crisis of housing. Again just because someone can afford something doesn't mean that there's a crisis, I have way too many fucking neighbors and see too many people around the city for me to believe that only the rich can afford to live here.

 

[Tsumi]

Let's not forget that California is extremely generous about their government worker pension plans. I know of cops retired at 55 making over 140k a year because of how they manipulated the pension system. Now that is truly unsustainable.

 

[opfreak]

Ok fine, build more houses and the prices will come down. MAJOR fucking fallacy there, because the fact is for every person who wants/needs cheaper housing, there's 5 more who don't need it and will pay it. Houses for sale? Remember that's EXACTLY what this solar roof thing is about, those with more money will be able to outbid those with less money. Buying houses is not a first come first serve business. So the net result is it still won't be affordable. In cities like San Francisco there simply isn't any room for new houses so there's literally nothing that can be done other than Manhatanizing the city by going vertical and I'm sorry but fuck that, allowing more people to live here just fucks up the quality of life for everyone who already lives here. And the state as a whole? Yeah it is affordable.

So yeah, requiring builders to put solar panels on a house isn't going to drastically slow down the construction of new houses at all, and the net result is there is no crisis of housing. Again just because someone can afford something doesn't mean that there's a crisis, I have way too many fucking neighbors and see too many people around the city for me to believe that only the rich can afford to live here.

Yes you need to go up. You just proved the bullshit you are arguing against. Its NIMBY. Build everyone but here. California has a housing crisis you are just too blind to see it. And its because of snot nosed assholes like you that refuse to allow more construction.