Housing Policy: Coercion From Multiple Directions

In the first post in the series, I covered transportation policy, and touched on some livability standards set by the government.  So, how you get to and from your home will be increasingly controlled by government regulation.  Next, let’s look at your home.

The following is from an email that has been making it’s way through the Internet.  It deals with consequences of the cap and trade legislation.

Don’t want to be bothered with “Political stuff?”   YOU’D BETTER READ THIS ONE!  It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren’t informed as to what Obama is up to, and it has already passed one hurdle.  It will take very little now to put it into actual law!!  YOU’D BETTER WAKE UP, AMERICA !!!!

So you think you live in a free country.

Boy, have you got a surprise coming.
A License Required for your HOUSE?

If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify.  If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this. No one will be buying homes in the future.

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and are being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and their “experts” are truly out to destroy the middle class of the U.S.A.

A License will be required for your house…no longer just for cars and mobile homes….Thinking about selling your house?  Take a look at H.R. 2454  (Cap and Trade bill).  This is unbelievable!  Home owners take note and tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this  ”Cap & Trade” bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also passed by the Senate, it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The basic points of the email are as follows:

1. You will have to retrofit your home to meet new efficiency standards before it can be sold.
2. You will have to get a “license” from the EPA before the home can be sold. 

Heavily intrigued, I checked out some links, and saw this from Prison Planet…

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.  No one is excluded.

Then, I decided to go to Govtrack to see the summary of the legislation.

Section 201-

Amends the EPCA to establish national building code energy efficiency targets to achieve: (1) a 30% reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code, effective upon enactment of this Act; (2) a 50% reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code by January 1, 2014, for residential buildings and by January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings; (3) a 5% additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code for residential buildings by January 1, 2017, and by every three years thereafter through January 1, 2029; and (4) a 5% additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code for commercial buildings by January 1, 2018, and by every three years thereafter through January 1, 2030. Defines “baseline code” to mean the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code for residential buildings and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 for commercial buildings. Requires national energy efficiency building codes to be established for residential and commercial buildings so that such targets are met. (Emphasis mine)

How are people going to be able to deal with these mandated energy cuts?  How will people afford new construction with all the additional requirements?  And, since when can the federal government mandate local building codes?  Yeah, I know the answer to that, and we’ll be discussing that a bit more in the next post.

Additionally, this will jack up the prices of pre-existing homes as well.  If a person is building a new home, and selling a pre-existing home to cover some of the cost, they’ll naturally have a higher selling price to recoup as much of the additional cost as possible.  Also, to avoid the ever-increasing prices, many will simply go for pre-existing homes, creating an additional demand, which will likely lead to higher costs.

The wealthy will be able to do it.  They always do.  However, it would seem to me that the middle class will be hit hard with this, decreasing the likelihood of home ownership for many Americans.

Then, consider this, also from Govtrack.

Section 203 –

Authorizes states to provide to the owner of a manufactured home constructed prior to 1976 a rebate to use toward the purchase of a new Energy Star qualified manufactured home that is used on a year-round basis as a primary residence. Requires the rebate to be given only if the manufactured home constructed prior to 1976 will be rendered unusable for human habitation and will be replaced, in the same general location, with an Energy Star qualified manufactured home. Directs federal support for the program to be provided through the emission allowances allocated to the states’ SEED accounts. Caps rebates at $7,500 per manufactured home.

This is like “cash for clunkers” for manufactured homes.  I can’t see people going for this when the rebate cap is just a small fraction of what one of the “compliant” new manufactured homes will likely cost.

As I was researching this, I saw that there was a controversy with the email.  It’s been circulating for months, and does appear to be a least partially untrue.  Section 202 of the bill, which deals with retrofitting existing buildings, has no language mandating, or even suggesting that any building MUST be retrofitted before it is sold.  However, I did find this in section 204 via Thomas.

(3) MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION- In adopting the model labeling program established under this section, a State shall seek to ensure that labeled information be made accessible to the public in a manner so that owners, lenders, tenants, occupants, or other relevant parties can utilize it. Such accessibility may be accomplished through–

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of–

(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;

(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;

(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;

(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);

(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or

(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or

So yes, to sell a home, it will have to be inspected, and an EPA “label” will have to be displayed per the legislation.  You might call it a license, but no matter what, you’ll still have to do it, and pay for it.

Also, the linked article  states that the CBO said that it would cost families $6800 per year, that’s not entirely true either.  Not that the number isn’t accurate; it’s the source.  To clarify, here is an article from the Wall Street Journal.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

The reality is that the CBO lowballed the cost.  Just remember that this is the CBO that was off on Medicare estimates by an order of magnitude, so you be the judge.

Lesson for the Day: READ THE FREAKING LEGISLATION!!!! We do ourselves, or our nation, no service when we post crap without checking it out.  Admittedly, I’m no saint in that area, I’ve had to update things before.  It’s just a question of checking.

So, inaccuracies and hyperbole aside, this bill will increase housing costs to families.  It will make owning a home more expensive, and therefore, inaccessible to more and more Americans.

Will the government then step in to save us from that which they have created?  Given the prior record of this administration, of course!  Their purpose is to make more and more Americans dependent on the government.  They create a problem, and then propose more government as the solution.  In the end, they’ll have a permanent, dependent, voting bloc that will be hesitant to select any candidate that will jeopardize their situation.  After all, if the government caused you to be unable to afford housing, and then provided it to you, why risk losing what you have?

Consider this Cloward-Piven for home ownership.

Now, where does that lead us?  Aside from greater dependency, it also allows the government to dictate more of our lives.  If the government is going to provide more and more people with housing, they’re probably also going to dictate where that housing will be located.  If you were counting on a small cabin by the lake, you need to revise the thoughts of your dream home.  They’ll likely try to concentrate housing where services are already being provided.  Think I’m silly?  They’re already planning it.  Take a look at this from last year…

Initiatives seem to centralize all public services in certain areas, limiting options and “encouraging” people to centralize where the services are located Here’s something about Flint Michigan:

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Detroit has apparently been working on this idea for a while as well.

Well, Detroit’s mayor has an idea: Bulldoze it.

Mayor Dave Bing is apparently working on a radical plan that would bulldoze a quarter of the city — some of the most desolate areas — and return it to farmland, the way it was before the automobile. Any residents still there would be relocated to stronger neighborhoods.

This isn’t a new idea — Detroit has been kicking it around since the 1990s, and some people suggest dozens of U.S. cities hard-hit by the recession may have to be bulldozed.

So, let’s wrap up this up:

1. Don’t believe every email you get.  Study and fact check.  Leave the wild and unsubstantiated claims to the left.
2. Cap and Trade, if passed, will create a housing crisis of another kind: limiting the ability of the middle class to own a home.
3. Major cities are considering the option of bulldozing neighborhoods, and “relocating” people to where services will be provided. (Note that “relocating” means telling people that they can’t live somewhere)

And, let’s add some points from the first part of the series.

1. The government will be making it more expensive to own and operate a car.
2. “Livability standards” will create a situation in which you might be able to own a car, but there might not be anywhere to park it.
3. The government, admittedly, is attempting to “coerce people out of their cars.”
4. Government funding is being transferred from motorized transport, to non-motorized transport, and mass transit.

For me, this represents a move on the part of government to start restructuring society. As usual, if you look at just one policy, it seems (to some) to be harmless, or even beneficial.  However, if you look at them as a whole, a potential bigger picture appears.  Again, government will never tell you (at least for now) that you cannot own a home.  Instead, they’ll stack the deck so you won’t be able to.

The eternal lesson is this; if you let the government give you something, government gains a measure of control over you.  Every government program has requirements, limits, and provisions that control what you can do with the benefits you receive.  You can always “choose” to not play ball, but then you use the benefit.  For many, this becomes an inescapable trap.  Given how many government programs are structured, and, for decades, have punished success, and rewarded failure, I would submit that this is intentional.  Now, it is being used to exert influence over our personal transport and housing.

For the next post in this series, I’ll be taking a look at the far reaching policies and strategies, of which transportation and housing are but two parts.