U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 09-23-2009, 08:43 AM
 
15,479 posts, read 20,287,995 times
Reputation: 6519
Exclamation OMG, Can it get any worse....Do you ever want to sell your home?

That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection. …
Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law. …
Suppose you have a window that isn’t quite airtight or your appliances are a little too old. Maybe they’re not Energy Star certified. You’d have to replace them before you would be allowed to sell your home.The result could be the end of fixer-upper homes; surely, this is not what Congress has in mind. Some families prefer to buy a home in less-than-stellar condition on the cheap and make repairs and upgrades themselves.
For people who don’t have a lot of money, or who enjoy working with their hands, or who want to customize their home, this can be a very fulfilling path to homeownership. Waxman-Markey would take that away.


Hot Air » Blog Archive » The end of the fixer-upper?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
12,527 posts, read 5,958,121 times
Reputation: 5472
Just remember..."no new taxes on anyone making under $250k"...

Call it what you will, the effect of this is a tax. Lets hope that our elected representatives remember who they work for and kill this crap.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:25 AM
 
18,820 posts, read 8,305,243 times
Reputation: 5934
Here are some facts about CEI, the ones that published this article...

CEI was founded in March 1984. In 1986, it began its "free market legal program," which seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency (see the case study, Fuel efficiency standards and the laws of physics).

In March 1996, CEI's Michelle Malkin and Michael Fumento published "Rachel's Folly," which claims that dioxin is good for you. CEI's Jonathan Tolman (who holds a bachelor's degree in political science), published a study that month titled "Nature's Hormone Factory," claiming that naturally-occurring chemicals produced by plants and other living organisms are as dangerous as industrial chemicals. In December of that year, CEI submitted comments opposing the EPA's proposed air quality rule to limit particulate emissions, claiming that "the EPA has failed to consider whether the proposed standard may actually increase mortality due to reductions in disposable income that compliance efforts may produce. ... At all times regulation imposes costs that mean less real income to individuals for alternative expenditure. That deprivation of real income itself has adverse health effects, in the form of poorer diet, more heart attacks, more suicides."

In 1997 Boston Globe reporter Jeff Jacoby described CEI as "one of Washington's feistiest think tanks." The same year CEI's Adler lobbied Congress to cut off federal funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

CEI's Budget
Since 1991, CEI's budget has grown from less than $1 million to over $ 4 million." David Callahan also noted that although the extent to which conservative think tanks rely on corporate funding support varies widely, CEI and the American Enterprise Institute "have two of the highest levels of corporate support, with both getting roughly 40 percent of their 1996 revenues from corporations."

A right wing think tank? Michelle Malkin? Enough said!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:30 AM
 
7,360 posts, read 7,160,457 times
Reputation: 4719
there was already a long thread about this. the bill doesn't make environmental inspections a condition for the sale of a home - i think it just creates incentives to have inspections done and make improvements that increase efficiency. i forget the exact details and i don't have time to look right now.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:35 AM
 
3,805 posts, read 1,911,525 times
Reputation: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection. …
Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law. …Suppose you have a window that isn’t quite airtight or your appliances are a little too old. Maybe they’re not Energy Star certified. You’d have to replace them before you would be allowed to sell your home.The result could be the end of fixer-upper homes; surely, this is not what Congress has in mind. Some families prefer to buy a home in less-than-stellar condition on the cheap and make repairs and upgrades themselves.
For people who don’t have a lot of money, or who enjoy working with their hands, or who want to customize their home, this can be a very fulfilling path to homeownership. Waxman-Markey would take that away.


Hot Air » Blog Archive » The end of the fixer-upper?
Many banks already require much of this.

Before a new owner can be financed for many used homes, a bank will have the home inspected in order to be sure that things like the basement and roof don't leak. They check for structural integrity among other things like wiring, plumbing, insulation, and so forth.

The seller is then made to repair the home at his cost before financing can continue. I've seen these kinds of inspections include not only the home itself, but separate garages, other out buildings, and even the concrete that surrounds the home has to pass inspection.

If someone just wants a fixer-upper, then they'll usually cash out the home, just like they've always done in the past.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:37 AM
 
2,648 posts, read 3,079,126 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection. …
Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law. …Suppose you have a window that isn’t quite airtight or your appliances are a little too old. Maybe they’re not Energy Star certified. You’d have to replace them before you would be allowed to sell your home.The result could be the end of fixer-upper homes; surely, this is not what Congress has in mind. Some families prefer to buy a home in less-than-stellar condition on the cheap and make repairs and upgrades themselves.
For people who don’t have a lot of money, or who enjoy working with their hands, or who want to customize their home, this can be a very fulfilling path to homeownership. Waxman-Markey would take that away.


Hot Air » Blog Archive » The end of the fixer-upper?
Almost all home transactions involve an inspection. Negative results usually lead to a renegotiation of the sales terms. Adding an energy effiiciency compontnet to these inspections will add some frictional costs to real estate transaction, but unless local codes require certain enviromental hurdles to be met, alls this process would do would inform the buyer about a homes energy efficiency. I don't see how it would kill fixer uppers or make large swaths of houses economically obsolete.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:43 AM
 
Location: South Fla
9,646 posts, read 5,225,843 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2 View Post
Almost all home transactions involve an inspection. Negative results usually lead to a renegotiation of the sales terms. Adding an energy effiiciency compontnet to these inspections will add some frictional costs to real estate transaction, but unless local codes require certain enviromental hurdles to be met, alls this process would do would inform the buyer about a homes energy efficiency. I don't see how it would kill fixer uppers or make large swaths of houses economically obsolete.
Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive.

If the homeowner has to be in compliance with the energy efficiencies required by law in order to sell the house there goes your fixer upper. Here comes the gov telling you what you must do with your house or have in your house

Just bigger gov
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:47 AM
 
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
2,918 posts, read 3,101,513 times
Reputation: 1856
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2 View Post
Almost all home transactions involve an inspection. Negative results usually lead to a renegotiation of the sales terms. Adding an energy effiiciency compontnet to these inspections will add some frictional costs to real estate transaction, but unless local codes require certain enviromental hurdles to be met, alls this process would do would inform the buyer about a homes energy efficiency. I don't see how it would kill fixer uppers or make large swaths of houses economically obsolete.
From what I understood from watching the hearings it would set up Calif. codes as the standard to be met; not local codes. The Senator from Ohio (can't think right now) was sying that one of hishey would constituancies of roughly 10,000 ppl would have to add 3-4 moe code officials to cover inspections and requirments. They would also be studying data on each particular homes enegy data. Granted, this is just what I've heard.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,431 posts, read 28,074,368 times
Reputation: 15368
I guess CEI operates under the same entertainment exemption from telling the truth as FOX claims. Not surprising.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:55 AM
 
3,568 posts, read 1,950,847 times
Reputation: 1362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex View Post
Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive.

If the homeowner has to be in compliance with the energy efficiencies required by law in order to sell the house there goes your fixer upper. Here comes the gov telling you what you must do with your house or have in your house

Just bigger gov
Is there anything more local than the purchase and sale of a home? What business (or constitutional authority) has the federal government to usurp the role of the states in this area? If this continues we might as well get rid of the states and have the U.S. government run everything. At least we'd save the cost of supporting 50 separate state governments. The power grab continues apace proving the maxim '...absolute power corrupts absolutely.' When people and politicians speak of greed they usually are referring to the lust for wealth. But there is also a greed for power. To my mind the latter is more dangerous and destructive of our polity.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top