“Concern-Trolling” is new term for me. I like it. A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally. In this case, we have a lobby group representing the Massachusetts Association of Realtors voicing “concern for the poor” in their opposition to a piece of legislation that would require all home sellers to get a free audit, which would spot problems like inefficient heating systems, and disclose the findings to buyers. Simple, eh? Talk the real estate sales folks and “learn” that this is an awful process that will be cumbersome and hurt the poor. Yeah, that’s the first thing I think of when I think of real estate agents, a group concerned about the poor. This must be why real estate sales people are so militant in their defense of the mortgage interest deduction, right? Wrong. The mortgage-interest deduction is regressive. 75% of this “benefit” goes to the top 20%. We spend $100 billion every year subsidizing bigger houses for the upper middle class. Bigger homes cost more and higher costs mean bigger commissions. Could that at the root of their outrage? Well no. Ask them and they will tell you that the deduction is something that all Americans benefit from, facts aside. It’s concern for the poor. It’s concern trolling.
Never mind that the mortgage deduction hurts our cities, who trusts those economists anyway? Real Estate Agents are all about the poor, don’t you know?
And so it is with legislation that would have helped us focus on energy efficiency, deal with the realities of global warming, and giving poor people full disclosure as to how much that house is going to cost to heat and/or improve its efficiency. The real estate sales lobby was against it and so our legislators voted against it. All for “the poor”….yeah, sure. As I recall, these were the same people opposed to Title 5.
I am deeply disappointed with our legislators who bowed to big money lobbyists instead of protecting the rights of consumers, who failed to protect the planet from climate change, all to save and preserve the sales commissions of a well connected, well funded, and well focused group.
Full disclosure: Passage of this bill would have increased the value of my home. I had an energy audit last year. It was free, easy to schedule, included a free houseful of new efficient light bulbs and more. After the results were in, we qualified for replacement of our boiler and hot water tank, a major investment which, after rebates and zero interest financing costs me $100 a month for seven years BUT has reduced my monthly energy costs by about $65 a month AND now my home has all mew mechanics.
But somehow, this hurts the poor? Can anyone explain that to me? (without concern trolling?)
…but I think the legislation is unwise. The basic rule now is that a seller can’t make any misstatements but that it’s up to the buyer to investigate the condition of the property. Why should a seller pay to provide a buyer with information the buyer may not want, and if the buyer wants it, why should the buyer not pay? I think the proposal is inefficient and that it would shift costs from buyers to sellers without any real rationale.
What it doesn’t say is who is paying, unless there is a vast assembly of volunteers.
I’m not sure what would be in the audit that isn’t available to someone doing the routine home inspection. It would be unfortunate to spend money to add yet another paper to sign, but not read, at closings.
Mine was free. My house it not even for sale.
I’m still not sure what it gets that isn’t in the basic home inspection.
And, unless something has changed, you can get the average monthly bill from the electric company before you buy anyway.
I guess the issue is that buyers don’t care, and so don’t bother checking on the avg bill, or asking the home inspector about insulation. I am skeptical that the bill if adopted would change that. It would be another, “sign here, buyer acknowledges receipt of blah blah” in the huge ream of such documents required at the closing. I am skeptical of these sort of “no-cost” mandate some useless paperwork laws.
If you have made efficiency modifications, then shouldn’t the seller’s realtor be selling the shit out of that anyway?
… ratepayers pay for it, right?
Ratepayers save from it.
If it’s covered by energy efficiency monies (and it sounds like it is), it’s subject to a number of cost effectiveness tests, and is only implemented if, in fact, spending that ratepayer money results in a net savings to all ratepayers.
It’s already part of your monthly bill, eh? It has to come from somewhere. So the only people who are getting screwed by this, are the ones NOT taking advantage of this “free service”, a service that the MAR wants to downplay because they think it will hurt their sales commissions.
The result of the changes these inspections provoke saves. money. for. ratepayers. It saves more money than the inspections cost.
The government is not always bad. Government programs are not always a rip-off.
The inspection is a free service provided to the seller. Did you miss that part?
…but it’s not free. Someone is paying for it.
… the law wouldn’t increase the value of your home. If it is in your economic interest to have the audit and provide it to potential buyers, you’ll do that without the need for a law.
of homes like mine who had the audit and made the improvements. However, real estate sales dudes want to dismiss this sort of thing, like the used car salesman who wants you to pay no attention to that blue smoke coming out of the tail pipe…
So you did it without the law. My point is, if it makes sense for a homeowner to do it, the homeowner will do it, and if not, not. Why impose the cost, then? I know you say it’s free. It’s free to you, but it’s not free. Someone is paying for it.
. . . to increase the energy efficiency of housing. That’s why.
It’s too heavy handed for a piece of legislation. It interferes with the purchase/sales process; and it also does not guarantee that the ‘free’ audit is independent.
These types of energy audits are often useful, but sometimes are used to push-sell products that the home owner does not actually need. Or, to sell products the home owner can get somewhere else for a much smaller price.
The best, from my view, would be for the state to pick up the tab for a part (though not all) of the home audit cost. And to make it a requirement that the auditors don’t sell or recommend actual services – and instead do independent analysis and planning.
I don’t know if energy efficiency monies pay for this, but in the electricity sector there is this unusual outcome that it can be cheaper for all ratepayers to pool money and use it to buy energy efficiency for only some ratepayers because it helps to avoid large fixed costs (transmission, generation), and helps to avoid using the most expensive units (typically oil fired) during times of electric peak.
Not all energy efficiency measures pass the cost effectiveness screening — those ones are jettisoned in favor of the ones that do.