mark handler
SAWHORSE
SB 32 would worsen California’s housing affordability crisis
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150909/sb-32-would-worsen-californias-housing-affordability-crisis-guest-commentary
09/09/15,
California is facing a severe housing affordability crisis, made even more difficult by the highest poverty rate in the country. But instead of heeding this reality, the Legislature is considering legislation that will drive housing costs further out of reach for Californians.
Sen. Fran Pavley’s Senate Bill 32 seeks to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050 — essentially decarbonizing California’s economy.
Our organizations have been strong voices for affordable, environmentally friendly communities. We have stood with policymakers, supporting the nation’s first green building standards and stronger energy and water conservation regulations. With California’s current building standards, today’s new homes use 50 percent less water indoors than a home built prior to 1980 and are approximately 50 percent more energy-efficient than new homes built to national energy standards.
Senate Bill 32, however, will have enormous implications on housing affordability
This is not fear mongering; this is a reality that none of SB 32’s proponents have addressed.
Just last spring, the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) warned that the state’s low supply and high cost of housing are increasing poverty and commute times while lowering homeownership rates. According to the report, the median price of an average California home is $440,000 — two and a half times greater than the national average. These costs are even higher in coastal, urban areas like San Francisco, where the median-priced home is $1.25 million and rents easily exceed $4,000 per month. The wildly escalating cost of housing in California is disproportionately affecting poor and working-class families. Teachers, first responders, and wage workers are being displaced from the communities they serve and are increasingly being forced to endure long commutes to more affordable bedroom communities. The LAO also found that California’s increasing housing costs are a result of well-meaning but burdensome policy and regulatory mandates that make new housing construction more expensive and driving up the cost of resale homes and rents. The report concluded that in order for California to alleviate the housing strain, the state would have to significantly increase the pace of new construction — adding at least 100,000 new units annually.
SB 32 will most likely exacerbate housing affordability and further constrain the housing industry. In order to meet the goals of SB 32, the building sector will be forced into a de facto requirement that all new construction be built to zero net energy (ZNE) standards. This means that every new house and unit will need to produce as much energy onsite as it consumes. This goal comes with a steep cost. A recent analysis conducted by the highly respected and nonpartisan firm Capitol Matrix Consulting tags the incremental cost to achieve ZNE at over $58,000 per home. It’s unkown what SB 32’s goals mean for the existing housing stock, but what is known is that existing housing simply cannot afford price increases associated with point-of-sale mandates deemed necessary to meet SB 32’s targets.
California represents only one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. At what cost should California homeowners and buyers have to bear a global crisis while other states and countries are refusing to address their own greenhouse gas emissions.
SB 32’s supporters mean well, and we share their goals to protect our environment through the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, it is the responsibility of the Legislature to explain to California families how the legislation will not result in more of their incomes being spent on more expensive housing. Studies by experts at reputable organizations, including the United Way of California, found that housing costs occupy a disproportionate share of household budgets in California.
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150909/sb-32-would-worsen-californias-housing-affordability-crisis-guest-commentary
09/09/15,
California is facing a severe housing affordability crisis, made even more difficult by the highest poverty rate in the country. But instead of heeding this reality, the Legislature is considering legislation that will drive housing costs further out of reach for Californians.
Sen. Fran Pavley’s Senate Bill 32 seeks to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050 — essentially decarbonizing California’s economy.
Our organizations have been strong voices for affordable, environmentally friendly communities. We have stood with policymakers, supporting the nation’s first green building standards and stronger energy and water conservation regulations. With California’s current building standards, today’s new homes use 50 percent less water indoors than a home built prior to 1980 and are approximately 50 percent more energy-efficient than new homes built to national energy standards.
Senate Bill 32, however, will have enormous implications on housing affordability
This is not fear mongering; this is a reality that none of SB 32’s proponents have addressed.
Just last spring, the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) warned that the state’s low supply and high cost of housing are increasing poverty and commute times while lowering homeownership rates. According to the report, the median price of an average California home is $440,000 — two and a half times greater than the national average. These costs are even higher in coastal, urban areas like San Francisco, where the median-priced home is $1.25 million and rents easily exceed $4,000 per month. The wildly escalating cost of housing in California is disproportionately affecting poor and working-class families. Teachers, first responders, and wage workers are being displaced from the communities they serve and are increasingly being forced to endure long commutes to more affordable bedroom communities. The LAO also found that California’s increasing housing costs are a result of well-meaning but burdensome policy and regulatory mandates that make new housing construction more expensive and driving up the cost of resale homes and rents. The report concluded that in order for California to alleviate the housing strain, the state would have to significantly increase the pace of new construction — adding at least 100,000 new units annually.
SB 32 will most likely exacerbate housing affordability and further constrain the housing industry. In order to meet the goals of SB 32, the building sector will be forced into a de facto requirement that all new construction be built to zero net energy (ZNE) standards. This means that every new house and unit will need to produce as much energy onsite as it consumes. This goal comes with a steep cost. A recent analysis conducted by the highly respected and nonpartisan firm Capitol Matrix Consulting tags the incremental cost to achieve ZNE at over $58,000 per home. It’s unkown what SB 32’s goals mean for the existing housing stock, but what is known is that existing housing simply cannot afford price increases associated with point-of-sale mandates deemed necessary to meet SB 32’s targets.
California represents only one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. At what cost should California homeowners and buyers have to bear a global crisis while other states and countries are refusing to address their own greenhouse gas emissions.
SB 32’s supporters mean well, and we share their goals to protect our environment through the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, it is the responsibility of the Legislature to explain to California families how the legislation will not result in more of their incomes being spent on more expensive housing. Studies by experts at reputable organizations, including the United Way of California, found that housing costs occupy a disproportionate share of household budgets in California.