Secrets of the City

I think the GreenStar home is a fantastic idea! I also think minimum energy efficiency standards for both residential and non-residential construction should be required. Too many buildings waste way the hell too much energy simply because the builder is trying to build it as cheaply as possible.

Actually, Minnesota has had a clean, green and energy-efficient residential building program since 1993.

It’s a national program now. Look what we are doing in Brooklyn.

Yeah, but those are guidelines. If the state actually wants to get serious about energy efficiency, they need to mandate minimum standards.

Here’s how you can help flood victims, from today’s Strib:

The United Way and the Salvation Army accept donations. Make checks out
to “United Way Disaster Fund” and send to 902 E. Second St., Winona, MN
55987, or to the Salvation Army and send to 2445 Prior Av., Roseville,
MN 55113. Write “Minnesota flooding” on the check.

i fail to see why the green building article is listed as “politics”

The truth is, our transportation needs far exceed our transportation budget — by $1.7 billion per year if you are committed to safe roads and bridges, more lanes and new roads where needed, and transit.
The truth is, the gas tax is a user fee — if you use the roads, you pay it, and the more you use the roads, the more you pay.

I am in agreement with a user fee. However, the columnist fails to acknowledge the impact of diverting funds to mass transit. A True user fee would strictly go to roads and bridges not mass transit. What is not being said hear is that the new constitutional amendment will shift even more resources away from highway infrastructure. It mandates that a certain percentage of all of the money go to mass-transit. If this was a true user fee, it would ALL go to roads and bridges. Mass-transit is a subsidized program it never pays for itself. So when the columnist tries to state that money comes from property taxes, if this in the metro were people are deriving the benefits it should come out there tax base. If the gas tax is a user fee it should go to roads and bridges and pay for itself. If mass-transit is such a popular mode of transportation it should be paid for, in full, by user fees i.e. fares. That is the problem; mass-transit is a subsidy, plain and simple. Once again some one else will have to pay for someone else to ride a bus or train through my contribution when I fill up my tank. The poll is correct; people do not want to pay an increased gas tax.

“Green homes” is a tremendous idea that’s spreading, but there are some troublesome issues connected with the concept.

To the extent that green features become embodied in local building codes, green’s higher initial costs make the barrier for home ownership for low-income people that much higher. What you could build today for $200k would be closer to $275k with the green requirements tacked on. Yeah, cheaper in the long run, but you threshhold out more people.

But, then, that’s also a problem with any and every “improvement” to building codes – each incremental addition (say the city decides today that every new home from today on must have a working fire extinguisher, and a glass-enclosed cabinet for it) adds incrementally to the price of homes, and, while we end up with better, safer homes, the price tag climbs higher, too. In some communities where building codes have been written to a burdensomely high standard, you simply cannot build affordable housing.

It’s also one of those 80/20 situations, where 80% of the economic returns – both internal and external to the buyer – come from 20% of the features. In other words, put 20% of that “green premium” into the HVAC/insulating functions, and, while you’re still using non-bamboo, slow-growth wood and trucking in granite, the savings in fuel use and emissions and whatnot – the shrinking of the environmental footprint of the house – does the environment (and you) 80% of the good of the whole package.

“i fail to see why the green building article is listed as “politics”

The building is going to throw its hat into the Presidential ring. As a Republican, quite surprisingly.

Yeah, but those are guidelines. If the state actually wants to get serious about energy efficiency, they need to mandate minimum standards

Like tyvek the plastic they put around homes that is a big reason for the homes not breathing and getting mold.

“I fail to see why the green building article is listed as “politics”“

Because, historically, enacting stringent, expensive-to-follow building codes has been an easy, hard-to-fault (”it’s for the safety . . . of the Children!”), hard-to-overturn method of excluding lower incomes from areas.

“I am in agreement with a user fee. However, the columnist fails to acknowledge the impact of diverting funds to mass transit. A True user fee would strictly go to roads and bridges not mass transit. What is not being said hear is that the new constitutional amendment will shift even more resources away from highway infrastructure. It mandates that a certain percentage of all of the money go to mass-transit. If this was a true user fee, it would ALL go to roads and bridges. Mass-transit is a subsidized program it never pays for itself. So when the columnist tries to state that money comes from property taxes, if this in the metro were people are deriving the benefits it should come out there tax base. If the gas tax is a user fee it should go to roads and bridges and pay for itself. If mass-transit is such a popular mode of transportation it should be paid for, in full, by user fees i.e. fares. That is the problem; mass-transit is a subsidy, plain and simple. Once again some one else will have to pay for someone else to ride a bus or train through my contribution when I fill up my tank. The poll is correct; people do not want to pay an increased gas tax.”

You don’t pay for transit when you fill up your tank: The gas tax (at the state level) is used solely for roads. It CAN’T be used for transit. The constitutional amendment you refer to dealt with the motor vehicle excise tax. That can, has and will be used for transit, in addition to roads.

Roads are just as heavily subsidized as transit. Even if transit were zeroed out, and the MVET was used solely for roads, that still wouldn’t cover the costs of the roads and their maintenance.

People who don’t use transit still benefit. Anything that reduces the number of cars on the road helps reduce congestion, wear and tear on the roads, among them.

Out-staters still benefit from metro road projects, even if they never visit the metro area. The Twin Cities aren’t called the economic engine of the state for no reason.

“To the extent that green features become embodied in local building codes, green’s higher initial costs make the barrier for home ownership for low-income people that much higher. What you could build today for $200k would be closer to $275k with the green requirements tacked on. Yeah, cheaper in the long run, but you threshhold out more people.”

Much of the increased cost arises from the fact that many of the products and techniques are newer. and currently are not manufactured on a scale that traditional materials are. As the “green” products are used more, costs will lower as the manufacturers benefit from improved processes and gain economies of scale.

“Because, historically, enacting stringent, expensive-to-follow building codes has been an easy, hard-to-fault (”it’s for the safety . . . of the Children!”), hard-to-overturn method of excluding lower incomes from areas.”

I’m guessing you’re still wailing over the banning of lead based paints in home construction.

i fail to see why the green building article is listed as “politics”

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 timesthe national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”

Yes, we are aware of that little tale, Maz. We all have the internets.

Heh. I loves it.

Just about everything you said is wrong, bobby.

A group of achitecture students built a home — to local codes — using 90% of our stringent Health House guidelines at a total cost of less than $15,000. Once construction crews become trained and used to our methods, costs drop significatly. Our guidelines do not call for exotic or expensive materials. On average, a “Health House” costs only about 5% more than a traditionally-built residence.

DR Horton, the Ft. Worth, TX builder considered the largest home building company in America, has built Health Houses by the hundreds in California and Nevada.

Maz’s coments, as is too often the case, deserve no reply, but here goes:

Neither Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore live in Minnesota. So why are you talking about their homes on MNspeak?

The idea that transportation and roads in particular are subsidized because they’re funded from sources other than gas tax is a complete non starter. Again, another false premise from people who don’t like cars and would have us treat roads differently from other items in the budget because they don’t want roads in the competition for funds.

We don’t ask that people who need income assistance to fund their welfare checks with user fees. We don’t demand that only people with school age children fund education – in fact quite the opposite. Everyone is responsible to pay for education through their taxes.

You have a tax base that pulls income from a variety of sources, and then this state makes certain expenditures. Generally, these are all expenditures that aren’t self funding. If words mean anything, they’re all subsidies or none of them are.

Maz’s coments, as is too often the case, deserve no reply, but here goes:
Neither Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore live in Minnesota. So why are you talking about their homes on MNspeak?

Well, wait a minute. Didn’t you post:

It’s a national program now. Look what we are doing in Brooklyn.

Did you mean Brooklyn Center? Brooklyn Park? That must be it.

What sort of home should Al Gore be expected to live in, Maz?

How about one like George Bush’s?

Certainly, we the unwashed masses have no reason to take things like the danger of global warming seriously if Al Gore doesn’t reflect that seriousness in his private life.

I mean, dontya think?

No.

“Again, another false premise from people who don’t like cars and would have us treat roads differently from other items in the budget because they don’t want roads in the competition for funds.”

Uhm, might want to read again. It was the anti-transit people that were complaining about the tax subsidy to support it. Transit supporters were merely pointing out that roads are paid for the same way.

I agree that has been argued buy the roads people. I hear it in volumes from the anti-car people as well, and that argument is the premise of Hortmans editorial. Logicall, theres nothing there to hang a hat on.

Certainly, we the unwashed masses have no reason to take things like the danger of global warming seriously if Al Gore doesn’t reflect that seriousness in his private life.

“Ifs” are for children. Either you take it seriously or you don’t. If you don’t Gore could be squatting in a hovel and he’d just be an eccentric kook.

bobby: a rare miss for you. method of excluding lower incomes from areas. 10 x more likely the codes were enacted to include lower incomes in the humble American dream of having roofs not cave in and foundations not crumble under foot.

I’m not quite sure, maz, but I think you proved my point.

The water reclaimation efforts on Bush’s house are commendable. However, I’m sure the main reason the house has those is because it’s built on the arid high prairie, where there isn’t much water to begin with.

You don’t pay for transit when you fill up your tank: The gas tax (at the state level) is used solely for roads. It CAN’T be used for transit. The constitutional amendment you refer to dealt with the motor vehicle excise tax. That can, has and will be used for transit, in addition to roads

I stand corrected on the gas tax at the pump vs the excise tax. However the point is that if it goes to mass transit vs roads the argument remains the same. If I pay a tax that is supposed to go to roads and it is diverted to mass transit that money does not go to the intended outcome i.e. maintaining and building roads. The argument that we need an increased gas tax falls short when we are diverting funds from the excise tax. Before we raise taxes we should look at where the money is going now and make the appropriate decision (granted that is open for debate.)

People who don’t use transit still benefit. Anything that reduces the number of cars on the road helps reduce congestion, wear and tear on the roads, among them.

On a marginal level if any. The congestion on along the light rail line is no better than it was before the train was installed. In my opinion to accommodate the light rail it made it worse. more stop lights and the timing change needed to stop traffic for the train increased traffic delays. Buses with increased lanes seem to be a more economical way to accommodate the traffic but trains are in no way a solution to congestion in the twin cities.

“bobby: a rare miss for you. method of excluding lower incomes from areas. 10 x more likely the codes were enacted to include lower incomes in the humble American dream of having roofs not cave in and foundations not crumble under foot.“

There are the basic “you need to do the engineering correctly” kind of codes – the safety stuff you’re talking about – which, I agree, are absolutely needed, and then there are the code items designed to uphold the “here’s how we like to do it here” things. Codes for minimum lot size, minimum house sq footage, minimum 3-car garages, 2×6 construction, roofing material requirements (”clearly, slate is better!”), larger-than-needed main electrical service panels, requirements for short inter-outlet runs, GFIs everywhere, insulating codes designed to fit someone’s decision that initial cost is more important than heating bills even when that puts the initial cost out of reach, material codes that, while nice and high-quality, aren’t necessary and increase cost . . .

There are lots of code items across the country that have been shown, very clearly, to have the end result of mandating a certain minimum house-build price. You take fifty items, each of which makes for a nicer house, and a better house, and mandate them, and you end up – sure – with a better house, but the cost of entry has just gone up.

“Just about everything you said is wrong, bobby.“

Yeah, I get that a lot here.

But, no, it wasn’t, actually. If you look at what I said, I was speaking about the “green home” concept as it has been developing across the country, and that development route has encompassed some costly changes in design, specifically in the HVAC, insulating, roofing and window areas. Many of those design items are, I think, clearly going to have a long-term net benefit – but it’s usually a more expensive package.

As for the “Health House” to which you refer – did we read the same MPR article? Didn’t see it in there.