https://www.cpr.org/2022/02/09/marshall-fire-louisvilles-green-building-codes/
One of my friends posted about this earlier today. The city of Louisville CO is requiring that the homes destroyed in the fires from late last year be rebuilt to it's new building code which requires net zero impact. The reality that is being faced, by people who suffered a terrible tragedy and lost everything, is that it's significantly more expensive to build net zero, and most insurance policies aren't going to cover the extra expense. The reality of net zero is that it's not construction techniques, it's a lifestyle. It's absolutely ridiculous for a city government to impose a lifestyle on it's citizens, as a result of a tragedy beyond their control. The reality is that you can achieve the same functional performance of a net zero house, without all the expensive add ons, pretty easily. The notion that this city can force people to spend money beyond what is necessary to rebuild their homes, on private property, seems draconian and callous to say the least. I guess this is what we get for putting folx who are committed to their personal vision of what's best for others in charge of a city. Having said that, two thoughts.
1. I have no problem with a city choosing to set absurdly ridiculous building codes for genuinely new construction. This allows people the choice of whether or not to buy property in the city knowing about the idiotic building codes. If people are stupid enough to play along with this idiocy, then let them make that informed choice by themselves. But to force people to adhere to an arbitrary standard that won't significantly impact anything after having their homes destroyed, is heartless and cruel.
2. If Louisville wanted to pay the people who's homes were destroyed a sum equal to the full market value of their houses, taking into account the current real estate market, and allowing them to move somewhere else I'd be OK with that. It's going to put a huge tax burden on the rest of the residents, but it seems like a reasonable way not to burden those who suffered with additional difficulties.
As a note. I've built multiple single family homes that have easily achieved LEED certification, and that have performed as well as LEED certified, but that were not put through the process. I was also involved in a net zero home, and the conclusion of all involved was that it's not a particularly cost effective way to build and that the benefits aren't worth the investments. As I said before, the only way to get value from a net zero home is for those who live there to be 100% committed to lifestyle changes. This just looks like one more example of left wing government gone amok.
3 comments:
I wouldn't buy a such a home just on principle.
1. I don't think I would either, but as an exercise it's an interesting concept. Like most efficiency measures, I think we'll see the ones that are passive and easily added to current building methods adopted. Beyond that, the rest are the province of either the really rich, or those who are so committed to the cause that they'll do things that just because they feel better.
2. It sounds like the local government might be willing to compromise on their draconian building codes in this instance. Which would be a good thing.
3. There are simply too many things (solar, ground source heat pumps, etc) that just make no sense from a cost/benefit standpoint for people who aren't rich. Most people will never recoup their investment, especially given the reality that people live in a given house for less than 10 years. If people want to make bad financial investments in their homes for the sake of feeling better about themselves and their commitment to a cause, I support then doing so. I'm not a fan of forcing people into a certain lifestyle as a result of a tragedy.
The worst part about it is those who have convinced governments to impose these kinds of codes in the first place. As they're intended to reduce harm to the environment...or whatever the hell they say...I would think it must be proven before considering imposing such mandates. But we've been seeing how unimportant such things are when an agenda is at stake.
Post a Comment