Posted on 07/08/2009 11:23:26 AM PDT by RicocheT
"I bet you thought that if you bought a house, you actually own it and can, with reasonable exceptions, do with it what you want. You probably think that if you want to live in a log cabin, with wood stoves that belch smoke into the air for heat, and an old washer and dryer that don't have those little EnergyStar stickers on them you can because it's your life and your property. You paid for it with money you earned with the sweat of your brow and what the heck is America anyhow if a body can't live in the home they want furnished with the appliances they want?"
Ah, silly you. You didn't reckon on the Democratic Party's desire to control every miniscule aspect of your life.
Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.
But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you? Well, I'm glad you asked. You're certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here's what the Democrats have planned for you."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanissuesproject.org ...
I for one would like to see what it would cost to bring Obama’s sprawling mansion into green compliance.
I’m thinking of Issaquah/Sammamish area .... I believe that used to be conservative.
Hopefully zero is so far left that the pendelum will swing to the right at least for part of King County.
Wasn’t Kevin T Keith the poster who was accused by another poster, who claimed to know Keith personally, of being on welfare all his life and living in public housing?
Wow, a totally Unbelievable BTTT! And they’re trying to Force This THROUGH!
Now if I could just skip having to run to the bathroom to barf every 15 minutes, or running to the gun-safe and staring at it for 5-10 minutes, I could make better progress.
For now I'll just keep a bucket under my desk to save a few steps.
ping
I am a member of the American Issues Project and saw this post this morning on facebook. I’ve been engaged in an email discussion with Austin Perez, Environmental Policy Representative for the National Association of Realtors about this. He has continued to assure me that these sections do not apply to any housing except for new construction. But I haven’t gotten confirmation from him on that just yet. Here’s our exchange:
Thanks
Perez:
On page 392 of the bill:
23 (m) NEW CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall apply
24 only to construction beginning after the date of enactment
25 of this Act.
Mr. Boehner staff didn’t give him the latest information...
Me:
I don’t think even the Energy Czar, Carol Browner, has read the whole thing. There’s no complete final copy available anywhere for anyone to read. I would appreciate you checking to make sure that the data you referenced on page 392 wasn’t overturned or changed in the last minute changes. We really have no assurance that it wasn’t changed since no copy has really been published for public perusal.
Thanks for your dedication to protecting home owners and the industry. It would behoove the NAR to make sure this deal didn’t change in the final hours.
Thanks
Perez:
I’m not sure how well you know Carol Browner. But if it will help, you can confirm if you go to thomas.loc.gov, search for hr 2454, click on the link to the third (House passed) version and goto p 392.
Me:
Thanks for the link. That would help, however currently, the bill is not available to be read, only the House Reports. When you click on the actual bill, you get an error message. As to Carol Browner, I was just referring to the interview I saw in which she said she had read “vast portions” of the bill, but would not admit to having read all of it.
Just tried it and successfully pulled up the bill on my blackberry. I didn’t click on the link at main page. I searched by bill no hr 2454, clicked on text of the bill, clicked on third version (as engrossed...). Click on the top left for the GPO (Govt printing office) for the PDF format.
If that doesn’t work I’ll send you the bill directly. Just think it might help if you’re able to go straight to the bill online. So there’s no question about the source (Library of Congress)
I think the NAR needs to clarify this.
Perez:
Great catch!
Answer is before the “3 am” amdt, the section applied to existing homes and buildings (hence, energy audit was one of several optional times when a state may provide labeled information).
When the amendment was added at the 11th hour, no one had time to re-write the section to reflect this change. But I’m not sure this is a distinction with effect — the section doesn’t apply to existing buildings so states can’t take money under that section in first place, either to label or disclose the label. But a technical amdt is in order.
The audit reference is not as a basis for labeling. There’s an earlier section (202) where states are funded to provide grants to property owners that voluntarily decide to retrofit. As a condition for funding, a state must meet a federal guideline that retrofits/energy savings be documented and verified (via energy audit).
Were a home owner to take a grant under the sec 202 state program, s/he would have to audit which could be a time when a state provides the label information. But again, sec 204 labeling can’t apply anyway. Appears to be a moot point.
Me:
Thanks again for the reply. I’m not sure I understand, though, why
your reading of the section suggests that it doesn’t apply to
existing buildings. I know the earlier language you sent me to stated
that, but if it’s in the language elsewhere, you agree that a
technical amendment needs to be filed to clarify.
I understand that there is money set aside for reimbursement grants
for homeowners who retrofit, but I think the greater concern becomes
potential abuse by local, state and federal governments if an existing
home doesn’t meet a certain ‘REEP’ standard. Couldn’t this section
open the door for existing homes to have to essentially have a ‘cap
and trade’ requirement imposed by government entities? What would
prevent a government from stating that in, say Dallas, where I live,
because we have such pollution problems, that all homes in Dallas
County have to either retrofit to bring them within the standard or
pay a ‘fine’ (fee, tax, call it whatever) in order to be in
compliance. I’m not so much concerned that the language exists in
this bill, but I see potential problems down the road for existing
home owners if the government has the ability to place an ‘energy
efficiency’ label on a home. Not only would this make home ownership
of existing homes more expensive for energy tax reasons, it would also
make reselling an existing home more disadvantageous than buying a
newer home. It seems to me that it bodes poorly for the existing
residential real estate market.
What are your thoughts?
No reply yet, but maybe this is a route we as citizens have failed to take. Maybe we need to start lobbying the lobbyists. They are the ones with the money and the clout, not us. This guy seems genuinely interested in responding to my concerns. Just wanted to pass this exchange along to my fellow freepers.
I just got his reply. Here it is:
Their real goal is to make large houses in the suburbs with pools and fireplaces too expensive to own. Throwing a pool party will cause a homeowner to go over their meager energy ration resulting in very high charges. This way leftists won't be as torn with envy having not been invited to the all those parties. They want to cap and trade the Joneses.
You got the burning part right, but the wrong medium.
However, with this group of marxists gangsters, I'm inclined to always believe the worst. They never, never, never, never pass up an opportunity to subvert and/or stifle individual freedom and liberty.
For now, the prudent person would operate on the belief that ALL home-sellers will have to crawl at the altar of government regulation.
Finally, probably because I'm so old and crotchety, I remain suspect of Perez based on both the fact that he is an environmentalist (and therefore prone to believe almost anything) and that he defended Browner's "supposed" integrity...something which is really suspect!
OTOH, keep digging!...{:-)
>Well, look at it this way. For many years us rich folks who own homes have had it easy. It’s now payback time.<
Yeah. No more getting “rich” from selling a home you’ve had for years. Any appreciation will now be swallowed up by the thousands of dollars the seller will be forced to shell out in order to sell. Bye-bye equity for the majority of middle class homeowners.
The Dems are making sure that retired people won’t even be able to count on the equity in their homes for a retirement nest egg.
I despise these Marxist elitist politicians and their environmentalist cronies.
...called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what. But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you? Well, I'm glad you asked. You're certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here's what the Democrats have planned for you."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.