If you’re a homeowner, a builder, or a landlord who owns a condo or two for investment purposes, the cap-and-trade bill is ready to screw you over royally:
That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection.
Many politicians are upset about depressed housing prices. And true, environmental inspections are one way to raise them. But this is not the way to do it. Sen. Boxer should see to it that the Senate version of cap and trade leaves the environmental inspection provision out.
Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law.
But wait, there’s more:
Suppose you have a window that isn’t quite airtight or your appliances are a little too old. Maybe they’re not Energy Star certified. You’d have to replace them before you would be allowed to sell your home.
The result could be the end of fixer-upper homes; surely, this is not what Congress has in mind. Some families prefer to buy a home in less-than-stellar condition on the cheap and make repairs and upgrades themselves.
But, of course, consumer choice doesn’t really matter to Congress, does it ?
To sum up: Inspecting homes for sale for their environmental friendliness would raise home prices. Buying or selling a home would become an even more onerous process than it already is. And there’s an easy way to dodge the bullet: Rent instead of own. If enough people did that, the inspection requirement would fail to achieve its goal of making homes more energy efficient.
If the TARP bill was a “crap sandwich”, cap-and-trade is an entire crap buffet.
This will do for the real estate market what the health care bill will do for health care providers.
My God Doug, do you even try to check these before you post them?
Factcheck.org already debunked these outlandish claims back in July!
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/energy-bill-and-existing-homes/
Essentially, there are *no* point-of-sale mandates for owners of existing homes. Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false.
The National Association of Realtors have even issued a point-counterpoint rebuttal.
1. Section 202 does not require that buildings be retrofitted. Rather, it provides federal funding for states to offer financial incentives, such as loans or grants, for property owners to voluntarily decide to improve energy efficiency. In order to receive the funding, there are conditions on how states can spend the money, such as verification of energy improvements performed by private contractors, but that is only to ensure that taxpayer dollars are actually spent on the purpose for which it is intended (building efficiency improvements).
2. There is no point-of-sale guideline or any other requirement of any sort in the House passed bill. Nowhere does this bill create a federal requirement that a property owner would have to retrofit a property to any guideline at any time – let alone at point of sale. The bill does stipulate federal guidelines to ensure that states spend and verify that bill funding goes to financial incentives for property owners to voluntarily make improvements. An entirely separate bill would have to be drafted, introduced, passed by committees and both houses of Congress, and signed by the President into law in order for the Federal government to go beyond section 202’s financial incentives for voluntary energy improvements.
NAR says it was partly responsible for making changes to the [proposed] version of the bill that passed on June 26, and it has emphasized that this [passed] version “does not create a federal energy audit requirement for real property,” “exempts existing homes and buildings from any federal guidelines for new construction energy labeling,” and “specifically prohibits any labeling during a sales transaction.”
I can’t remember how I came up on your blog to add it to my subscription list, probably a link someone else’s blog made. I keep up with it because I sometimes agree with your postings, but this laziness disappoints me.
Please add mediamatters.org and factcheck.org to your daily read, or at least double-check some of these outrageous claims before you post.
It really hurts your credibility I think, to not do the basics or even the minimum of verifying information before you post a chicken-little like screed of ” the sky is falling, the sky is falling”!
I am not an expert on legislation and policy effects, so, yes, I do tend to trust some authorities/subject matter experts without going straight to the sources. But mediamatters and factcheck do post there sources. So I will put my foot in my mouth if it turns out they are wrong and I relied on them…but at least I try.
Could it be a preamble to a “cash for clunker” house to condo conversion program?
Sorry to say, but it “fits the bill”.
Just one more reason why cap and trade legislation is bad for America. It will raise prices in all sectors. Write your Senators and voice opposition to this disastrous legislation at http://tiny.cc/pxIgi.
Robert,
I guess you are omniscient and are an expert on regulation — you know exactly how these new requirements are going to be implemented by the rule making processes that follow a law’s enactment. And know exactly what will be in a final enrolled bill as it comes out of Conference Committee vs what will not. And I bet you’ve never regreted pulling that first thread from a garment that totally unraveled.
Thanks but no thanks for your references to so-called arbiters of truth.
What Doug posted here clearly represents the intent of two of the most influential lawmakers in the land — and most likely, before his resignation at least, the White House green jobs czar. Can you explain to me how it was that Van was going to create Green Jobs if not by Federal regulation?
@Let’s Be Free:
I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You ramble on like I made some sort of outlandish claims that can’t be checked. We know what the facts are in regards to the claims the article made.
You sarcastically claim that I believe that I am some kind of know-all legislation expert, when you seem to trust this article’s author (the one linked to) as one.
I pointed out the errors in the article and actual facts of the case in question. The article he linked to/quoted made claims that were not true. The bill that was passed by the House did NOT include any of the provisions the article claimed it did, and in fact, included provisions exactly counter to those claims.
These are facts. They are not disputed as we have the actual passed bill to refer to.
And I don’t know why you are so positive about the “intent” of the lawmakers. If you can read minds or have some other passed legislation that re-enforced this perspective of the supposed greening of existing homes at huge cost (lets call that “evidence”), please let us know. Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass.
You might be one of those persons who only reads or references material and people that support a conclusion you have already reached or prefer. It would do those kind of people some good to refer to sources outside of their “comforting” zone, just to make sure that they don’t fall into a trap of only hearing one side to a topic and miss pertinent, relevant *facts* and perspectives. That’s why I read some conservative blogs and news sources.
And what has legislation to create green jobs got to do with this article and its debunked claims? Non-sequitor.
What was you question even supposed to mean, re: legislation used to help create green jobs? In fact, yes, legislation is used, in that it includes incentives in grants or money to the states when they enact certain programs to encourage job creation in the green sector. States can pass legislation as well,authorizing funds and programs to support green job creation. Is your problem with Federal regulation?
Robert in SF,
factcheck.org is a left-wing website.
Doesn’t surprise me, you’re from San Francisco I’m guessing.