The June 25 Az Star reports that the OV Council voted unanimously that houses built after July 17 must include solar-ready fixtures.
Kudos to Salette Latas who was in the forefront pushing for environmentally friendly construction.
No surprise that SAHBA spokesman Roger Yohem said: "We're in the middle of a recession, and during a recession is really not the time to be adding costs to new-home construction."
Read the article here.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/85737/298229
18 comments:
There is never a right time for the government to dictate what options should be in a home without paying for them. This is just another example in the never ending 'bigger government'movement.
It's no big deal....just another $500 or so added to the price of a home.
I agree. The government needs to step back. Less government is the answer, not more. More government and more stupid regulations = more taxes.
Kudos to the Council for passing these measures unanimously. We do not need to have more new houses using up our groundwater and electricity and causing us to pay higher rates and higher taxes for more infrastructure.
I do not chastise our council for this vote. It was simply wrong headed and emotionally driven.
The fact is:
Though adding "connection costs" for "solar" makes some people feel "emotionally good"; in reality, it merely bolsters an industry whose technology continues to be economically infeasible.
I am one who does believe in "less government".
I agree with three of the four postings above. The town government should be concerned about shrinking revenue streams, not about whether or not a new home has a solar connection. Increased government oversight generally is not a good thing. Zee Man is correct in this being an "emotional decision".
While I believe in less government and letting the markets decide, in this particular instance I can see that, if, in fact this is going to be the future, then there seems to be no sense in waiting for the axe to fall where future
'requirements' might FORCE retrofitting.
As to the whimpers of the homebuilders, I simply cannot buy into that. OVOT, Ezak, Zee Man - where are your voices relative to SB 1035 and 1036 - those bills which are 'pending' final inclusions by our Governor; the first, 1035, which would give builders/developers a 3 year moratorium from having to pay impact fees, the latter, 1036, which would allow for lowering taxes on commercial properties. BOTH MEASURES WOULD REQUIRE THE GENERAL POPULACE TO SHOULDER THE RESULTANT VACUUM OF AVAILABLE MONIES IN ORDER THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCEED!
Ya just can't talk out of two sides of your mouths - additional costs on the one hand, BAD - additional breaks on the other, GOOD(?).
So, lets have it; your takes on these 2 bills which allow for MONETARY breaks for commercial property owners, developers, and builders.
Where does this all end? Mandated solar powered electric tooth brushes and shavers? Our little town council is emulating the US Congress in their "global warming" hysteria and "solutions" that are insignificant in every respect except for increased costs and taxes to fund an ever growing intrusion into our private decisions and trampling of our constitutional rights. Political buffoonery at our expense!
What I hear some of you saying is that there shouldn't be any building codes...that we should all just be able to buy a plot of land in Oro Valley and pitch a tent or build a shack and defecate in the ditches...that we should continue to use taxpayer money to subsidize coal and nuclear and hydro like we've been doing...that the taxpayers should foot the bill for underground power lines, or just let TEP put up double rows of overhead lines...that we should let TEP put more substations wherever (in your backyard?)...that we should have taxpayers subsidize bringing Colorado River water to Oro Valley, and not conserve. Is that right?
As far a building codes go, when my home was finished ca 2004, the so called town inspector failed to notice that there was no vent over the range. Would anyone care to see my new 3500$ vent?
The inspector, who, due to the building slump, has very few homes to inspect, is now drinking beer down at Risky Business during duty hours with the money that was raided from the town contingency fund.
And the beat goes on...
-S Bono
Woah there, OVMom...Take a breath and have a drink of water! I don't think anybody on this string is saying there shouldn't be stringent building codes. And we've got plenty that are tediously enforced. Also, I was an active critic of TEP's adding additional above ground lines. What I object to is the government intruding into my life with regulations forcing my financial support of a "cause du jour" (solar power). If I am eventually convinced solar makes sense I'll spend the $ to retrofit. Its wrong to make me pay up front for a connection system I may never need.
Oro Valley Mom,
Your post highlights the emotion that is tied to this issue. I believe that certain regulatory powers of local government are needed, (zoning laws, building codes). However, to force solar connectors be built on all new OV homes is a stretch. Mandating solar technology, which the council is doing in essence, on every person who wants to move into a new home in Oro Valley simply drives up home prices, while the connectors sit unused.
Will someone please answer some of the points I made in my post, or can any of you realistically do it? It seems that everyone is satisfied with the cherry picking that satisfies thier political tenets without regard for those realities that do exist, in fact. I do not like government intrusion, however, a certain amount of formula is necessary (this reality goes back to biblical times) in order that there is a certain amount of 'control' in our ever expanding, albeit insanely driven, quest for more rooftops.
As I have previously noted, I am of a conservative bent and hold those rights as granted by our Constitution to be responsibly absolute; unfortunately there are those who profess freedom and liberty but are unwilling to exercise VOLUNTARY responsibility that is necessary to provide for workability. Many have twisted the concept of freedom into the concept of selfishness and have thus masked their own purposes of self enhancement.If there is a threat to freedom and liberty, I believe that it comes from those who adamantly try to retain it for their own purposes.
Again, folks, please consider the questions I posed in my original post - commentary is welcomed!
Ok Zev:
Here you go...jeez...SB 1036 will be the straw that breaks our property tax back.
Our county's prop taxes are presently CALIFORNIAN in size. I have seen many posts on this blog from long term residents who have seen their prop. tax increase over the years. With no changes or decreases in service.
SB 1036 is more of the same from a state government that spends more time putting guns in the hands of all the local drunks at the bar than attempting reduce our taxes. All jurisdictions need impact fees to pay for infrastructure - what are they thinking up there? Oh I know. They want to do away with the gun permit law so that any traffic stop (Oro Valley - traffic stop where have I read rantings about THAT subject?) will require the driver and his passengers to adopt the front leaning rest position because they might be empowered by the wing nuts up north to carry a gun.
I wanted to think about your question for a minute Zev. Regarding 1035, I think it is absurd. New development should pay its own way, not saddle existing citizens with increasing taxes to pay for their new infrastructure needs. Impact fees are meant to cover the cost to the town/city/county that new development brings. That being said, Oro Valley is a prime example of an entity depending on impact fees to pay for the rest of their extravagant budgetary expenditures. I believe that reasonable impact fees should be charged to developers that reflect the cost of added growth.
1036 is tricky. Of course I do not want to pick up the tab from lowered tax revenues because commercial properties have a lower tax rate. The Laffer Curve posits that there is an optimal tax rate. Many people mistakenly believe that increasing taxes will cause an increase in tax revenues. The Laffer Curve suggests that an optimal tax rate, (not too high, not too low) will improve tax revenues. Perhaps commercial taxes are too high. (I always believe that my taxes are too high.) Maybe lowering commercial tax rates will actually increase revenues because businesses will be able to pass their savings on to consumers. Additionally, I would assume that the reasoning behind the lowering of commercial tax rates will encourage more businesses to locate in Arizona which would increase tax revenues and allow the lowering of personal tax rates. (In a perfect world!)
Working off of James' comments, my experience with most businesses has been that while they always pass their INCREASING operating costs onto their customers, they seldom lower their prices when their operating costs go down.
Look at what happened over the past year. When gas prices doubled from about $2.00/gallon to about $4.00/gallon, food prices skyrocketed due to the INCREASED transportation costs. But when gas prices went back down to $2.00, which means transportation costs LOWERED as well, the grocery stores didn't revert back to their former prices. At least not from what I've seen.
So as James said..."in a perfect world..." cost savings for business would lead to lower prices for their customers, but in our world of greed, don't expect this to happen.
Lets add 'em all up (figuratively), the pending monetary breaks for commercial properties:
Assume that SB 1035 goes through as planned.
Assume that SB 1036 follows suit.
Assume that the legal challenge to 'gift clause' EDA's ultimately fails or is 'replaced'.
So, what do we have, for example, if a new shopping center is built (or even how does it effect one in progress, ie The Oro Valley Marketplace)
For 3 years the developer/builder will not have to pay impact fees (SB1035). Permanently, the developer/owner will pay less property tax percentage wise on the property than an individual would have to pay on his/her home (SB1036). If EDA's continue as they have in the past, part of the sales taxes you pay could go back to the developer/owner (yes, a current court action could put a stop to it, but leave it to the cunning developers/builders/politicians to find a way to get around that).
So, in short, for the 'stalwarts' we have:
1)A temporary(?) moratorium on impact fees
2) A permanent reduction in property taxes
3) A potential for continued EDA benefits
PLUS income tax maneuvering to the hilt (so, what else is new)
What breaks are there for the individual? Why, we get to pay for the monetary vacuum created - higher sales taxes, higher property taxes, potential for more entities to be classified as 'political subdivisions' thus allowing for more 'separate' taxation.
IT'S TIME FOR THE CITIZENS TO GET TO WORK! START BY BOMBARDING THE
GOVERNOR WITH STATEMENTS OF DISPLEASURE (AS WELL AS THE STATE SENATORS); THEY DON'T LIKE LOSING THEIR POSITIONS!
To the three posters whom I challenged to explain their distaste for 'big government' by expressing opposition to the Council mandate for 'solar ready and gray water ready' installations, I still haven't heard from any of YOU relative to those 2 other items, SB1035 and SB1036, which IS really, really big, big government eating really, really big, big amounts out of YOURS AND MY pockets and doing so in the name of 'economic stimulus' (gee, where have I heard that one before). Comments please?
Post a Comment