All Forum Posts by: Seth Borman

You want to buy properties in nice neighborhoods at retail value and then rent them out? Why won't you invest in higher crime areas?

I confronted this same issue and went with the mini splits, but I am not sure that I would do so again. 

The boiler will be cheaper, and radiators aren't that expensive. The minisplits will offer air conditioning. That said, I wouldn't install the minisplits without an aggressive insulation and air sealing program. Otherwise the house will have a lot of hot and cold spots. @Roy N. is the resident expert on this process.

Jesse Creed the easiest solution is to use all electric appliances and water heating.

Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:

Originally posted by @Seth Borman:

Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:

 If you think of a power wall as a UPS for the house you can't go wrong.

That said, propane is the dirty secret of off grid homes...

 whats UPS ???   I started my career selling ranch land and land to weed growers in the Emerald triangle in the late 70s  alternate energy abounded then I fully understand how you can live off the grid.. My brother did it in Lake county for a decade then I sold it to someone else who still lives there off the grid and that was 30 some years ago.. 

 A UPS is a battery that is designed to provide uninterrupted power for a limited period of time to keep electronics functioning properly.

Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:

 If you think of a power wall as a UPS for the house you can't go wrong.

That said, propane is the dirty secret of off grid homes...

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

1. Existing homes will have to compete with new construction when selling. 

2. The new construction mandate means solar is being sold to captive buyers. That eliminates a lot of payment (cost) in the solar food chain.

3. As far as housing stock goes, "building up" may be promoted as a result of the mandate which is limited to three stories. Surely increased density would have more beneficial impact than any negative of the solar mandate?

 1. Not really. Look at it this way. Here in Los Angeles a single family home at 1,500 SF will pay $60,000 in impact fees and more in code compliance costs. An existing house doesn't have that burden. At the same time, a new home is competing for land with existing homes. If the new home can't be built cheaply enough, it won't get built... or, it can only be built as a high end luxury product.

2. The cost is about $10,000/unit. Probably a bit less for small apartments. The media is reporting that it costs $40/mo. Theoretically this will be matched by a decrease in land prices. Except that doesn't happen when the land already has a house in it. If you really wanted cheap PV you'd do utility grade installations, not piecemeal rooftop installs.

3. When you put that fourth floor on you need two stairwells, a corridor, and an elevator, usually on top of a concrete podium. Your PSF rents have increase a great deal when you do that.

Basically this is the state of California saying that they place greenwashing over affordable housing production. Which is nothing new here.

People will continue to live in 400 SF apartments with no insulation and 60% efficient gas wall heaters with window shakers for cooling, and driving to work in crushing traffic, which is how millions of Californians live.

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

Equally I didn't and don't like words being put in mine. I didn't develop the mandate. I am not a lawmaker. The truth is that like it or not the mandate is a response to the inevitable. 

How have other directives impacted residual land value appraisals? If you are opposed to this mandate are you opposed to others that have raised construction costs or is it limited to solar? 

I don't think the mandate is the perfect solution for the environment or housing. I think a reappraisal of zoning restrictions would have a much more beneficial impact for low-cost housing and the shortage overall than reversing this mandate. Also I believe a carbon tax would be a far better driver of solar adoption. Neither are likely to be expedited politically so the mandate represents the "best available" option.

In short, therefore all I am actually saying is that the mandate is a response to the inevitable as I said in the very first post.

 It may be a response to the inevitable... but it is also a way to reduce housing production. California is basically saying that it would rather have less development and more solar panels... 

If they decided that everyone had to add solar to their existing houses you'd have the opposite effect. That would really drag California into the future.

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

Are you saying the developer should be able to ignore all requirements - environmental, health and safety etc in order to construct and sell cheap property? Let the property purchasers bear the cost of lack of insulation, double glazing etc long term so they can buy it for a few bucks a month less at the purchase and ensure the developer gets paid?

 No, I'm not saying that, and I would appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.

If solar is so important to you then why do you want land sellers to pay for it, and why are you willing to cause a housing shortage over it when the residual land value is lower than the existing use of the land.

Do you understand what that means?

Andrew Smith assuming that the $10,000 per home cost is correct you are arguing that solar panels are so important that housing development that can't afford it shouldn't be allowed to be built. There is a developer here in LA that buys SFRs for $350,000 and puts up six unit projects. You are arguing that the land owner should be willing to sell his property for $290,000 and that if he is not the development shouldn't happen. Is that what you are saying?

My experience has been that remodeling is usually better, but it depends on the property and the numbers.