The market we are in is largely the creation of well meaning politicians who promoted home ownership by lowering the requirements for home ownership through the community reinvestment act. Historically home ownership rates have run in the mid 60’s as a percentage of households. In the bubble years it blossomed to 72%. This gave President Bush a great success story and all of the politicians patted themselves on the back.

The market is likely correcting itself back to the 62% to 67% homeownership rates at which time prices and the market in general should stabilize. I would rather see middle income tax incentives since they are much more likely to use them for the intended effect on the economy. Demographically they are more financially disciplined, more likely to improve on the properties once they own them, and are much more stable in a socio economic sense.

We’ve seen what banks have done with our bailout money. The mega builders like Quadrant would likely get the lion’s share of the tax incentives while the smaller builders who have taken a devastating blow are unlikely to be saved by the incentive. We would simply be putting money into the pockets of big corporations leaving the state to make up the difference by coming after the middle class tax payers who need the help the most.

I apologize, as I said I am not very “green” oriented and am hoping to learn more from people who are. Unfortunately I often see the term as an “ad” gimick, and so am hoping to learn more from someone who is true advocate.

It may seem like common sense to you, but there is so much being pushed as “green” just to make a sale…it’s hard for me to wade through the insincere.

Or, maybe if someone is going to do thousands of dollars completely renovating a place, then should hire people who are going to do it right and actual do something simple making sure there is proper ventilation.

People can keep the character of a house, yet still make it more comfortable (less drafty, more stable temperatures, less noise) and energy efficient. That is exactly what I’m advocating – the updates that make sense in context.

I have no idea why you jumped to tear downs as that seems like a completely separate conversation. If you want to talk planning/zoning and green rebuilding, that’s cool. We can talk urban density, walkability, mass transit, beautification and (rooftop even) gardens, permaculture, etc, but I was just trying to stick to the simple stuff.

Gene

When the house doesn’t have a lot of insulation and double pane windows, it also often does not have the type of ventilation in the roof that you need for these improvements.

What I have seen is an owner at different times get new windows, new siding with added insulation, without increasing the roof ventilation. Sometimes even a new second shingle, so it looks like a brand new roof. But without the added ventilation needed, caused by the upgrade in windows siding and insulation, the moisture builds up in the attic space and rots out the wood under the roof. Black mold.

I think any house built from the 50s to the 90s when ridge vents became more common, can have these problems if one is not careful. I’ve heard many an inspector say “this house was not built to be this air-tight. It was meant to “breathe” more.”

Perhaps a little old bunglaow left alone is better off than tearing it down and putting up a 3,500 sf “energy efficient” home in its place. Maybe “the little cottage that could” is more “green” in the long run. Just a thought.

If you go for sealing the building envelop completely, then you can add air exchangers to bring fresh air into the house without losing our heating/cooling.

I can’t imagine how putting new windows/siding/etc. in (properly) would cause the entire roof to rot out… unless the roof is not properly ventilated with ridge or soffit vents.

See my previous message about many builders/renovators not following “best practices”… And as I mentioned, programs like BuiltGreen tend to provide some of those best practices – though more education is needed no doubt.

Gene

I’ve seen a lot of “cons” to air-tighting a house that was meant to “breathe”. I’ve seen the entire support system of the roof rot out when new windows, insulation and siding were added to homes built in the 70s and 80s. So I have mixed feelings on these types of improvements, if the attic ventilation is not improved to support the extra moisture and air flowing up, and not out.

1. Low flow toilets (since you brought it up)

2. Replacing – or installing – weather stripping

3. More, better or “some” insulation if needed (could just be in the attic, could be blow-in if there is none in the walls, etc.)

4. Windows would be a big ticket item, but might be worth going with double pane/low-E it if the old ones are not double pane

5. Higher efficiency appliances or furnace (or even geothermal)

6. Higher efficiency light bulbs (CFL, LED, etc.)

For residential homes in the Pacific Northwest, you’ll get less bang for your buck on savings – but a good ROI is certainly possible.

In general if you do “enough” improvements (say windows, insulation, weather stripping, etc.), you can actually save big bucks by then being able to use a much smaller heating (and cooling if you have it) system the next time that needs replacement. This is especially true in commercial spaces where the costs involved are higher for larger systems, though there can be up front savings on a large retrofit/remodel.

The BuiltGreen program in the region is actually not bad, though in many ways it is just a guide to “best practices”. Unfortunately many builders/renovators do not know or simply do not follow best practices – even when they are more cost effective.

Oh yeah, the federal tax incentives for new windows/etc. are pretty tiny/pathetic at this point. I think the best you can do is save a few hundred dollars, and have to spend thousands to do so. So while we’re cutting taxes… that would be a nice place to see more tax benefits…

Gene

That’s another reason I call these things second time buyer programs. Even when the market was going up it wasn’t clear you were doing the first time buyer a favor. Especially some of the state programs that looked more like an option arm with the payment set at the least prudent payment level. Like the option arm, they were dependent on future appreciation for success.

Going back to comment #1, I have seen mandatory “retrofits” at time of sale imposed in Santa Monica. The one I recall was “low flow toilets”. Every time a property sold, it had to be retrofitted with all low-flow toilets.

I’m not sure if that is along the lines of what Gene had in mind. All new windows would be hard to push as a retrofit requirement of sale. Massively intrusive. I’ve never seen it, and there is already a tax incentive (I believe) in the Federal Tax Code for energy efficient improvements for owners.

I have seen areas impose a “Certificate of Occupancy” requirement on resale properties, that push local agendas. I’ve seen “must have new curbs”, “must have deadbolt with no key needed on the inside, for fire safety”. I have seen improvement agendas pushed in this manner as a condition of sale in various areas around the Country, but at the seller’s expense, and as a condition of sale imposed by the local governments vs. Federal Government.