California to make "Solar "mandatory for new Homes!!!!!!
Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
California to make "Solar "mandatory for new Homes!!!!!!
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes
7yHi @Account Closed I'm happy to run numbers with you in AZ, because what you have posted is certainly no reflection of the reality I work with there. My latest customer, for example in Prescott Valley had a utility bill averaging $183. We eliminated that bill with a solar system that costs him $149/month for 20 years with no increase. If you factor in inflation on the utility at 4% annually then he will save tens of thousands over 20 years. He did not come out of pocket one cent to do that with the zero down loan.
For sure batteries are the next massive step that is and will happen in solar and renewable, but for now the utility is the "battery" through net metering. The over-production from solar is purchased by the utility. At night power is purchased back from the utility. The goal to offset that overall bill to zero - depending on the roof space etc.
There are some small utilities in AZ that have punitive conditions for solar, but for the overwhelming majority, the numbers for solar in AZ are excellent. Batteries are already economically viable in CA because of the cost of utility power. It will be around 24 months before that's the case in AZ
222 Replies
- Rental Property Investor · Nashville, TN · Member since 2017 · 38 posts · 15 votes7y
I'm generally against Government mandating things like this. Auto Insurance? OK, I get that but Government meddling usually creates problems. We're better off allowing the market to work. Why does everyone have Water heaters? People love to have hot water, right? Once something like solar, heck, even windmills on your property, once they're efficient and cost effective, people will demand them. I sympathize. I used to live in The Peoples Republic of California. LOL. Best of Luck.
- Specialist · Paradise Valley, AZ · Member since 2018 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Jim D. I agree with you fundamentally regarding solar being a mandate. Initially at first glance I was opposed to the CA solar mandate in fear of blowback (nobody likes having anything rammed down their throat). However the more I learn about the context of how it came about, the fact that the building association supports it,
As someone who is involved with lobbying....I wouldnt necessarily read into a group supporting something to actually believe they support it. That may sound counter intuitive, but just to give a brief explanation.
All the time we work with legislatures to try to restrict the damage we see that the government will do on a certain topic. So we support a bill, that was less worse than the alternative measures. Often also we need to support and endorse politicians simply because they will win, and we have to work with them for the next 2, 4, 6 years, even though we hate their guts and every thing they stand for.
So it is entirely possible they actually support it.....but having worked on this same exact issue here in Maryland with both the Realtor lobby, Home Builders lobby, and some other groups....my inclination to believe is the support for this was because of much worse legislation that was arising. Getting their voices in there and moving the bill more towards what they wanted was likely better than just opposing and having no voice and it going worse.
Sure Russell, I think there was definitely a “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” approach to it from the CBIA perspective. Their spokespeople have said as much. As soon as CA committed to go carbon free builders knew big changes were coming and since solar is practically standard on new builds there anyway they figured this was a concession they could swallow compared to possible alternatives. In my experience over the last 15 years builders have mostly been warm to the idea of solar, but extremely cold to new regulation of course. CA builders are certainly familiar with the solar installation process by now, most are partnered with an installer they work with regularly, so it’s easy to implement. “Supporting” this over some unknown requirement being concocted behind the scenes made shrewd business sense.
We love solar in the desert. This generating plant is near one of my properties in Gila Bend. The guy wouldn't sell his land so they built the solar farm around him. Just kidding. Those are generator buildings.
Originally posted by @Bill F.:
@Steve K. and @Andrew Smith thanks for adding industry insight to the discussion.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how this mandate will impact the TPO vs direct purchase ? Which model do you see getting the bulk of the new business come 2020?
Also, Andrew, you mentioned:
in an an earlier post. Where does that number come from? I read this Bloomberg article yesterday that says:
I'd also be curious to get your feedback on the story, which wasn't super pro TPO.
Thanks
Holy Cow Bill there's a lot packed into that article. The TPO model is such a lightning rod issue in the industry. On one hand it introduced the "$0 down, switch to solar, save money day one" option which allowed solar to scale quickly at a critical time period, bringing equipment prices down and bringing us to where we are today. On the other hand, the sales tactics employed by leasing companies, the "fixture filing" (lien) involved complicating transfer of ownership, and also (not mentioned in the article but visible in the photo to the trained eye) the install quality of leasing companies may not always conform with industry best practices. Fortunately the TPO model is rapidly being replaced with 10/15/20yr. amortized loans that weren't available when the TPO model was introduced. Even Sunrun, the company mentioned in the article, is transitioning to financing. 3rd parties are here to stay for the time being however unfortunately when it comes to solar on investment property. This is because the tax credit does not apply to investment property but the leasing company can claim it and pass the savings on. I'm not sure why investment property was excluded from the investment tax credit back in 2006, but it was, leaving us with leasing as the best option for our rentals, which is why not many investors put solar on their rentals.
The article makes some valid points regarding the possibility of TPO solar complicating an RE transaction, as well as the solar company not really designing the system properly (not surprising as the big leasing companies are more in line with Walmart than Audi in terms of quality, you get what you pay for in any industry). Also the salesperson in that case may have been a little silver-tongued (shocker, a salesperson using sales techniques to close a deal). One thing that stood out to me however was that the example used is an oddball case; not the norm. The selling agent dropped the ball on this one. If he/she had framed expectations properly going in, uncovered and disclosed the lien like they should have, and understood all the options available such as the prepaid lease buyout option for $15k (which the writer admits she would have readily agreed to), it would have been a non issue. The buyer/author was also being a bit unreasonable; letting the sale drift and threatening a lawsuit over $30/month which she arrived at using bad math. The whole issue was that she didn't plan to use enough electricity to make the system cost effective, because the previous owner had oversized the system to run a Ham radio operation that was no longer in use. So the surplus electricity made the lease payment higher than the electricity bill would have been without solar, because they would be paying for extra capacity. Generally lease payments are less than the electricity would cost without solar so the buyer sees solar as a value ad because their operating costs will be lower. In this case they would be $30 higher (estimated by the writer, although she reached that number by comparing to her previous home of an entirely different design with different appliances, which no energy expert would recommend, and couldn't possibly be accurate). Anyway, earlier in the article she mentioned that the new home didn't have AC. Why not just add AC and use the extra capacity? Problem solved, everybody wins. Wouldn't she want AC in Santa Barbara anyway? A savvy agent could have finessed that deal easily. I would have offered to buy them an AC unit personally. Turn up the AC, turn down the bickering over $30, and let's close this deal! Instead, the author ends the article with imagery of herself pregnant in a house in SoCal with no AC and no solar (and probably a leaky roof). It didn't have to end that way. Another option would have been for buyer and seller to split the $15k prepaid lease option. That would have been an amazing deal for the buyer, and $7.5k probably wouldn't have been a deal breaker for a willing seller, which was an estate that inherited a house in Santa Barbara free and clear, that eventually agreed to pay $27,500 to have the system removed anyway. This deal could have been massaged a number of ways, it's a shame it worked out the way it did but it's just as much the fault of the agents and principles involved as it is the structure of the solar contract.
- Rental Property Investor · Barstow, CA · Member since 2015 · 131 posts · 102 votes7y
It’s impossible to analyze this new law without getting into politics because the main reason that it was passed is fundamentally political. We’re all here nibbling at it,cost vs benefits and such. Rarely is buying something a good deal, when the government forces you to buy it. Obamacare. Need I say more?
Originally posted by @Jim D.:
All pros, cons, and politics aside, the problem with this is simple - California does not need more solar power!!! They are nearly bumping up against too much supply in peak sunshine hours already and as someone else mentioned, it is becoming difficult for utilities to manage. Search "California Duck Curve" and that is all you need to know, or here's one fact sheet from California's grid operator:
https://www.caiso.com/Documents/FlexibleResourcesH...
When storage technologies grow and improve, the equation may change, but right now a policy to mandate even more solar is perplexing to me.
But California has done this before, so they know you can't just wait for everything to be in place before implementing an market changing regulation.
They know that A) Someone has to lead or no one will lead, and B) You can't wait for technologies to grow and improve, you have to push them to grow and improve. That is the only way to get costs down. If you simply wait for technology to improve on all the systems and for costs to get equal to other options, it will never happen.
If you push ahead before the ancillary technologies are ready, it often forces them to improve quicker.
Originally posted by @Fernan Nava:
It’s impossible to analyze this new law without getting into politics because the main reason that it was passed is fundamentally political. We’re all here nibbling at it,cost vs benefits and such. Rarely is buying something a good deal, when the government forces you to buy it. Obamacare. Need I say more?
Obamacare is a tremendously good deal for millions of your fellow citizens who could not get any health care before....and personal bankruptcies are down 50% since Obamacare began. A large majority of the country likes it. Nothing is going to be good for everyone and no one loves being required to do things. But government needs to do what is good for most. That is part of the deal when you are part of a large group. You have the ability to opt out of both Obamacare and the large group if you choose, so I don't know how you are being forced.
Sounds like the solar panel lobbyist got a hold of some law makers ear in California. This green energy doesn't seem to be making much sense financially when you put the numbers to it.
We have windmill farms everywhere in Nebraska and the power companies say they consume more electricity then they produce. If it wasn't for subsidies they would be a complete financial disaster.
- Rental Property Investor · Tacoma, WA · Member since 2018 · 113 posts · 149 votes7y
Originally posted by @Eric M.:
Tangent here, but when the Affordable Care Act passed, every health insurance plan that did not provide all of the benefits mandated by government became illegal. For example, you could no longer purchase a health insurance plan that did not include newborn and maternity care. Suppose, as a self-employed person you wanted to purchase only critical-illness or hospitalization insurance - those became illegal. Furthermore, a penalty became law if a person did not purchase a policy providing the mandated benefits. The mandate was enforced through the tax system. If you don't think we were forced, try not paying your taxes and see what happens. Thankfully, the mandate has been repealed.
This is similar to housing requirements. Government thinks something is such a good idea that they mandate that everyone buy it. They never seem to consider the fact that this raises the cost for everyone and hurts people who are struggling most of all. According to the Fed, 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency. So, when the government mandates some new thing they want us all to buy, like solar panels, back-up cameras in our cars, maternity care in our health insurance, etc., etc. do they really stop to think about what they are adding to the cost of living?
My feeling is, please government, just stop with the good intentions.
- Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
I am mostly against this. California has a severe housing crisis because it is one of the most difficult states to build housing. Tough requirements all around.
There should be a carve out for affordable housing at the minimum.
Originally posted by @Brian Egr:
Sounds like the solar panel lobbyist got a hold of some law makers ear in California. This green energy doesn't seem to be making much sense financially when you put the numbers to it.
We have windmill farms everywhere in Nebraska and the power companies say they consume more electricity then they produce. If it wasn't for subsidies they would be a complete financial disaster.
Brian,
For starters, here is a photo of a windmill, used centuries ago to mill grain or pump water:
And here is a wind TURBINE, the cheapest form of electricity available today:
One thing that's important to understand about energy: all of it is subsidized and always has been. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, all of it. Every form of electricity relies on subsidies, and that has always been the case going back to before our country existed (even back then timber, whale blubber, and coal were subsidized by Great Britain). So if you don't think energy should be subsidized, you should support the forms of energy that are on a path to stand on their own. Nobody really wants to pay the true cost of energy as a consumer though; without energy subsidies our economy would grind to a halt immediately. Energy is a complex topic but put simply put all forms of energy have always been propped up in some way, indirectly and directly. It's not a free market in ANY way, and if it were we'd probably all still be huddled around campfires. The coal industry wouldn't be what it is today, we wouldn't have a single nuclear power plant, gas would be prohibitively expensive, etc. Every form of energy is heavily subsidized to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars a year. So your comment "If it wasn't for subsidies they would be a complete disaster" applies to each and every single form of energy. Currently the only forms of energy with potential to exist without support from government are wind and solar, so if you truly are an advocate for unsubsidized energy, you should support the forms of energy that have a clear roadmap to becoming cost effective without needing subsidies (although I doubt you'd like to pay the true cost of electricity, gas, or goods being transported).
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
I am mostly against this. California has a severe housing crisis because it is one of the most difficult states to build housing. Tough requirements all around.
There should be a carve out for affordable housing at the minimum.
I agree that California has a housing crisis but I think the effect this policy will have on the housing market overall is minimal. The mandate applies to about 80,000 new homes being built annually, so far less than 1% of CA housing stock. Additionally many affordable housing developments will be exempt because the mandate only applies to buildings of 3 stories or less. I agree it would have been smart to make an actual exemption for all affordable housing. I'm guessing they didn't do this because in CA clean energy is seen as a benefit to low income communities and they want affordable housing to incorporate solar because it lowers monthly expenses for the building's residents. Groups like GRID alternatives and others have been very active leveraging donated equipment and volunteer labor to install solar for free on low income housing in CA which has made it possible for disadvantaged communities to gain access to free electricity. The mandate may not be a shining example of renewables benefiting low income people because it does add to the expense of new homes, but it's not an isolated policy. Aside from the mandate, clean energy contributes to California's efforts to address the affordable housing crisis such as 35% of proceeds from the cap and trade policy going directly to affordable housing. I think in general increased access to green energy benefits poorer communities, who are impacted more by dirty energy sources because they live in more polluted neighborhoods and closer to industrial sites like coal power plants, causing cancer rates to be a lot higher and life expectancy to be shorter in those communities.
- Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
Great points thanks for your insight.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
Brian prime example of what your talking about is in CA for new subdivisions they want 60 foot right of ways with 40 to 45 feet of pavement curb to curb.. In Oregon we get 40 to 50 foot right away and 30 to 34 feet of pavement.. cost is less and density can go higher not to mention ADU and cramming denisty in urban areas.. I have a 40 X 100 foot lot its goes road to road so two street fronts. we MUST build 3 houses on it.. I wanted to just build one and call it a day .. but nope have to do 3.. and NO Garage allowed.. I wanted to under for parking underneath NOPE.. you WILL ride the bus or ride your bike or take uber.. so we have gone over the top in urban density.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
Brian prime example of what your talking about is in CA for new subdivisions they want 60 foot right of ways with 40 to 45 feet of pavement curb to curb.. In Oregon we get 40 to 50 foot right away and 30 to 34 feet of pavement.. cost is less and density can go higher not to mention ADU and cramming denisty in urban areas.. I have a 40 X 100 foot lot its goes road to road so two street fronts. we MUST build 3 houses on it.. I wanted to just build one and call it a day .. but nope have to do 3.. and NO Garage allowed.. I wanted to go under for parking NOPE.. you WILL ride the bus or ride your bike or take uber.. so we have gone over the top in urban density requirements in Oregon.. i mean a huge lot is 5k sq ft.. this is to keep Oregon from Sprawling like So CAL
- Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
@Jay Hinrichs
The correct way to zone your parcel would allow for 3 houses, but let you, the owner build housing that is less dense if you choose. But not more. It's also not fair to disallow garages unless you are in a high density area. Some developers may be happy to forgo the parking requirements.
Oregon is interesting with their "ring" zoning that surrounds some of their cities. I thought it was a good idea to stop sprawl, but you have to allow density housing to develop, or else you just have escalating prices. I don't know enough about Oregon, but occasionally visited some of my family who lived in Bend/Redmond.
Anyway, my rants center on government policies that actually make housing less affordable. My region is now considering enacting rent control laws. Last thing we need.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
one other point about regulations .. when houses were built in the 50s and 60s in CA it was not mandatory to insulate the outer walls.
so like our house in Cupertino that had no insulation.. you solved that by putting in two furnaces one up stairs and one down. My parents ended up insulated the house company drilled holes in siding and blew it in.. now adays you have to build to an R level. Energy efficient rules are constantly being updated by states.. look at low flush toilets as well.
- Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
@Jay Hinrichs
I redevelop housing stock that often is much older. And I agree that reasonable updates to houses should be the norm. Lots of cities require upgrade R values on their insulation during significant remodels. The solar panels was just a significant cost to new housing in a State that doesn't have enough new supply. It is a non issue if California tackles the real reasons that their housing is so expensive - zoning and snail pace entitlement process. Often California is the national leader on certain trends, so solar panels might become the norm in the sunbelt states. Hard to work in Chicago where I would have a foot of snow on my panels now...
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
Maybe the three story requirement will force developers in CA to build up rather than out which could increase density and reduce costs?
Originally posted by @Brian Ploszay:
"Often California is the national leader on certain trends, so solar panels might become the norm in the sunbelt states. Hard to work in Chicago where I would have a foot of snow on my panels now..."
There's actually a pretty good market for solar in Chicago despite the snowy winters. We look at the whole year in order to size systems to meet our customer's annual electricity needs. For example I've had snow on my roof basically all winter long here in CO, but I won't get a bill because my system produced more electricity than I consumed all last summer. That extra capacity was credited to my account and stored in my "solar bank" and I'll use those surplus kWh's this winter.
A common misconception is that solar only makes sense in sunny places which isn't true. Germany has been a world leader in solar for a long time and they don't receive a lot of sun (similar amount to Alaska). Solar works just fine there and most anywhere on the planet or even in space. Think of a solar calculator: it works even inside because wherever there is light there are photons bouncing around that can be converted to electricity. A more important factor than lots of really hot weather is cost of electricity from the grid. Texas has a lot more sun than Connecticut but if electricity costs twice as much in CT, the economics are actually better in CT.
Another common misconception is the hotter the climate the better for solar. In fact too much sun causes "deration"/less production. Solar panels are made with silicon wafers, PN junctions, bypass diodes, etc: all things that suffer efficiency loss due to excess heat just like any electrical equipment (typically anything over 77 degrees F will create a voltage drop which increases as it gets hotter). So a cold sunny day with a little wind (plenty of that in Chicago) to cool the panels off will actually be better for production than a 100 degree day in AZ. That doesn't mean that Chicago is better for solar production than AZ overall, as AZ obviously has more sunny days throughout the year, but the excess heat in AZ can actually cause a problem for production at times, while meanwhile up in Chicago you're wearing a sweater and ducking out of the wind but your panels are actually cranking out the kWh's, smashing a comparable sized system in AZ. Just some food for thought, sorry if this is too much info, not trying to be the guy that corrects everybody or some sort of "know it all" on here but solar is obviously my wheelhouse.
- Rental Property Investor · Tacoma, WA · Member since 2018 · 113 posts · 149 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
I agree that California has a housing crisis but I think the effect this policy will have on the housing market overall is minimal. The mandate applies to about 80,000 new homes being built annually, so far less than 1% of CA housing stock.
[...]
I think in general increased access to green energy benefits poorer communities, who are impacted more by dirty energy sources because they live in more polluted neighborhoods and closer to industrial sites like coal power plants, causing cancer rates to be a lot higher and life expectancy to be shorter in those communities.
Steve, The point is that California does not build enough homes and has not for years creating homelessness and problems with affordability. There are many reasons for this but government interference is the primary problem. See the article below for a good summary
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/what-is-contr...
My point continues to be that another significant addition to the cost of housing is yet another step in the wrong direction for the low income residents of California. It's not the upper middle class and wealthy that will suffer. They have plenty of equity in their million dollar homes. As I said before, California has the highest rate of homelessness. Furthermore, when you include the cost of housing, it has the highest rate of poverty. This mandate will make that worse. This mandate will increase the misery of the poor citizens of California. As well intentioned as it is, it causes more harm than it does good.
I can't accept your point about the poor living near coal plants. It's an extremely broad generalization and there is only one coal power plant left in operation in California.
California should be looking for ways to reduce the requirements for building new homes allowing builders to create micro-apartments, tiny homes and minimalist homes for those who want them. The creativity of entrepreneurs will solve the problem faster than politicians ever will given an environment in which they can innovate. Furthermore they should stream-line the approval process for building new housing.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.