> But, it's clearly a NIMBY move to protect existing home owners financial asset.
It doesn't apply to new construction over 3 stories. Especially for the Bay Area, building up seems like the only way out of the current morass, so is it really that clear-cut?
Also most of the house price in high-demand areas is the land cost. $30k sounds like a lot but is less than 5% of the median house price. People pay that much over asking quite regularly.
Dismissing large sums of money like that in terms of percentages can really get you into trouble. Sure, it's "only" 5% more for a $1.5M property. Another way to think of it is as a 30 thousand dollar roadblock facing anyone who wants to move to California.
Err...30k is 5% of $600k which is the going rate for a townhome in Fremont.
I'm sorry but when the sums are that astronomical it really is a rounding error - especially for a home improvement that saves the homeowner money in the long term. If someone can't afford $630k they almost certainly couldn't afford the $600k it would've cost otherwise.
Like I mentioned above, because of space constraints the Bay Area has little choice but to densify if it wants to add significant new housing, and the new regs wouldn't apply to buildings taller than 3 stories.
Things like parking minimums, low-density zoning, and fragmentation of public transit have done and continue to do, most of the damage to housing affordability. Requiring solar is peanuts in comparison and has otherwise beneficial effects also - namely, reduction of carbon emissions.
It's actually a little more than 5% of the median house price ($515,000), but setting that quibble aside that's a median* - meaning half of the homes are below that price. I know a lot of us Bay Area folks tend to forget this, but there are a lot of people living in California where $515k would buy the biggest house in town, and new home prices are closer to the 250k. This legislation is clearly a regressive burden on the less wealthy home buyers.
It doesn't apply to new construction over 3 stories. Especially for the Bay Area, building up seems like the only way out of the current morass, so is it really that clear-cut?
Also most of the house price in high-demand areas is the land cost. $30k sounds like a lot but is less than 5% of the median house price. People pay that much over asking quite regularly.