My Built Environment: Good, Bad, and Really Ugly

As recently noted in the LA Times Blog, Los Angeles is offering homeowners up to $2,000 to replace their lawns with a sustainable landscape. Other cities such as Las Vegas have done this aggressively. In the blog, it is noted that Las Vegas has removed enough lawns to save 7 billion gallons of water a year, or about one-tenth of their annual water supply. Closer to home, Aurora has had such a program for years offering $1 per square foot for turf that is removed, the same as LA. While I don’t know how successful the program has been overall, I have worked with several HOA’s to reduce the turfgrass they have, and create more appealing communities in the process.

So when is Fort Collins and other Northern Colorado communities going to do the same thing? We keep preaching about water conservation, xeriscape, etc., but no money where the mouth is. Also, other communities such as Aurora and Castle Rock have more restrictions on creating water thirsty landscapes in the first place. When is Northern Colorado going to catch up? Did you know, that in the engineering standards for road design in Larimer County, which Fort Collins and Loveland use as well, it actually requires turf grass to be planted in the parkway strips? This is non-sense. Time to get on the bandwagon and really pay attention to this stuff before the next drought hits.

Much to our surprise, we were able to sell our home in about two months. This in a neighborhood where the average sell time is well over a year. We are both sad and excited at the same time. We love our home, but also look forward to building our next one sometime next year. And now with the uncertainty of being able to sell this one out of the way, we can begin the planning work on our next one, and yes, it will be built with many sustainable and green features. Probably not as many as we would prefer due to simple dollars, but we will incorporate many.

In the meantime we are scrambling to find a place to rent, and to get ready to move.

Yesterday, I attended a seminar on what Colorado’s new Solar Law is all about, and how it applies to builders. In a nutshell, this law, which goes into effect August 5th 2009, would require builders to offer 3 options to homeowners: 1) An option to provide a conduit system for eventual wiring/plumbing of systems; 2) Actually prewire/plumb for future systems; 3)Install either a PV or Thermal system, or both. These are only options that buyers would have to pay for, and buyers can turn down all of them. Also, this law is not retroactive to existing homes, homes that are under construction. Also, if a builder builds a spec home, does not install any of these options, and the home is sold after it is no longer feasible to install these options, then there is no retrofit required or need to offer the options. The builder may wish too do it anyway, but it isn’t required. In my opinion, the prewire option is only a few hundred bucks, so why not just put it in anyway?

I am all for alternative energy, particularly solar, and hope that the costs keep coming down. However, I can see some unintended consequences (therefore lawsuits) coming down the pike over the next several years. One of which is basic design. Some roofs simply have too many vents, pipes, chimneys, and other clutter to prevent installation of an effective solar system. Right now the state law does not require any modification of design to accomodate solar systems, but I can see that one coming.

And what about shading? If a two story home is built next to a one story home, and then the one story home no longer has adequate exposure to solar, will there be lawsuits here? If you have a lot next to a ranch home, will you have to specifically design your home to preserve solar access for the existing home? The law does not require you too, but will that come?

And finally, there is the matter of landscaping. For decades, people have been encouraged to plant large trees on the south side of their home to provide shading and reduce the AC load. However, trees also reduce the ability of solar systems to perform. So if we quite planting trees on the south side, have the calcs been done to accomodate for the extra AC loading? For that matter, will we now have to carefully consider the placement of trees so as to not block an adjacent properties solar access?

I realize that all of my points are rather oversimplified, but I am trying to make a point. While I am all for solar energy, I also strongly believe in personal property rights, so what kind of slippery slope are we going to wander around on to protect ones persons personal property rights, and anothers rights to solar access?

Out of this seminar, I also did get a lot of good information on solar technologies, costs, rebates, etc., so it was a great conference for me. Well worth the $25.

Recently we took a vacation to Taos and Santa, Fe New Mexico, a place we been many times. I did get a lot of new fodder to wrtie about, but I have been busy getting caught up with work again. I will start writting again soon!

The Star Tribune in Minneapolis recently reported on a historically designated home that has fallen into foreclosure. That is bad enough, but apparently thieves have broken in and pretty much stripped the place of all the cool details that made it historical. This is really sad, and is something that preservation forces should be on watch for happening in other areas. However, this isn’t limited to just historical homes. In many parts of the country, such as Detroit, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, vandels (or the foreclosed owners themselves) are stripping homes of anything of value such as sinks, toilets, light fixtures, cabinets, even furnaces. I remember when I was looking for my first home during that last real estate meltdown in Denver in the late 1980’s, I found some places with the same thing…no cabinets, light fixtures, etc. Pretty sad.

In Suprise, AZ though, they are beginning to prosecute people for this, as reported by Jay Thompson on his blog, The Phoenix Real Estate Guy.