Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanrebar | Hacker News Reader

I understand the desire behind this sort of regulation, but it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...

View on HN

> it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run

Considering the locality, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of their underlying agenda.

It's largely built out already (population has been fairly stable since 1970). And the economic demographics aren't what you are implying, they are about the national average:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami,_Florida#Demograph...

(probably even slightly below the national average)

Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.

You could also just raise the price of unclean energy and do it directly. A better bang for the buck might be better home design (windows, insulation, etc.) but designing homes in city hall won't get you that sort of creative problem solving.

Florida already has energy efficient building codes

https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida

Well yes, you can; as the other posted has linked, it happens already. Requiring some technology over another can have other goals too though; for example reducing the load on the electricity grid. Or you can set parameters beyond 'new building are required to have energy efficiency of x' because it's too hard or expensive to quantify certain elements that make buildings more efficient.

How you do it exactly in the end is a political decision, and it's fine to disagree with it. The GP however complained about adding to the cost, which is a different point, and one to which the answer is very clear and simple. So I'm not sure what we're arguing here - or whether we're even arguing at all :) Maybe you're just bringing up an additional point, I can't quite tell, but if so, then yes.

I'm GP and I'm disputing the implicit false choice: that we must pick between low cost home construction or greener lifestyles.

If the problem is that consumers aren't internalizing costs, then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax.

Working and middle class families can do things (cut energy usage, dry laundry on a clothesline, live in smaller homes, etc.) to adjust to those prices changing. Families don't have control over developers, so they have limited ability to adjust to the economics of affordable housing development.

> then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax

How is a tax more direct than requiring solar panels?

Because if we're not accounting for hidden costs in product A, a direct approach is to raise the price on product A (through taxes in this case) so the costs aren't hidden anymore. An indirect action would be to regulate product B counting on some chain of events to resolve the issue.

> a direct approach is to raise the price on product A

That's only direct if the problem you are trying to solve is increasing the price of A. If you are trying to reduce the amount of A used, a direct action would be restricting the amount of A you can buy.

If you are trying to get homes to use solar energy, nothing is more direct than requiring the installation of solar panels.

Do city governments have the power to tax unclean energy? Or is that more of a state/federal government power?

Its better to do social income transfers than to keep energy unsustainable energy.

I don’t think mandating ground parking is the same as requiring solar panels on the roof. Solar will eventually pay for itself?

> Solar will eventually pay for itself

In 10 to 30 years.

In the meantime you have to pay the capital costs upfront, so the home will be more expensive upfront.

The whole house will take that long to pay for itself. Any new home that pays off earlier points towards a bubble.

So if you assume that it takes 30 years until the house has amortised (via rent or saved rent), why not assume the same for the solar roof?

Can't you get solar panels essentially for free and just pay for the generated electricity? I thought that was the business model of companies like SolarCity

I wonder how hard it would have been to have partnered with FPL so FPL puts up the capital for the panels, the resident pays their electric bill as usual, but a portion goes to pay back FPL for the panels. FPL is allowed to make, say 10% over on the panels.

Perhaps in aggregate. The linked article discusses the logic and math of a home builder. "Eventually pays for itself", even if indisputable, doesn't magically get you more investors. You're still building fewer affordable units.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com