I am unclear on whether the inspection requirements for housing under Obama's latest proposals include older homes or not. I certainly hope not. If anyone knows for sure that older homes are included or excluded, please tell me. My current understanding is that before anyone can sell their house, it must pass an energy inspection, and if it does not pass, the deficiencies must be corrected before a sale can be made.

TIA

If older homes are not grandfathered in, would it be an unconstitutional taking of property rights? I haven't given it much thought - that just popped into my mind when I read your post! I suspect that the way it will be done is to prevent title insurance until things pass the inspections rather than be an outright ban, but I am strictly guessing about how to do an end run around that pesky constitutional question.

I think it is for those that try to take advantage of the special "renegotiation rights" for those who need new loans to avoid foreclosure. I could be wrong about that, but I'm not aware of any broad-based attempt to apply those rules across the board.

Could this be yet another reason that only 20 to 30 thousand people have taken advantage of the original renegotiation opportunity, even though it was pitched as something that could help up to 3 million (or so) homeowners? I'm not sure if it was in the original package that passed.

And RiceDoc, while I'm no real estate lawyer, I'm thinking it's going to be hard to write a law on title insurance when it's state governments that are responsible for that lawmaking (if I'm not mistaken). The only lever they've got is through getting Freddie/Fannie to make it a part of their loan packages that they originate or resell. Given that the US government (and it started under the Bush administration) is trying to get more and more mortgages through the Fannie/Freddie channel (witness the lifting of the jumbo cap), even though they couldn't handle previous levels and manage the risk accordingly, they certainly will have a mechanism to "enhance" state laws and force the market to do certain things.

My understanding is that it is part of the Cap and Trade bill, or the Climate Change Bill, Waxman-something, that was passed by the House a couple of days ago.

If in fact it is to be a requirement on all sales, I have a direct problem in that I have my own house, built in the 70's, and my Dad's, built in the 60's and now part of his estate, that I expect will be sold in the next 2-4 years as part of deal(s) in which the land value will drive the transaction and the house(s) will essentially be throw-ins, expected to be torn down. I will really really hate it if I have to put in thousands of dollars worth of upgrades in order to be allowed to sell a tear down. I wonder if even assigning a value of $0 to the house sale would get me around that.

Beyond my personal situation, I wonder how this might affect poorer people. I know an elderly lady who just sold her house, built in the 50's, so she could move into assisted living. She only got $40K for it. What if she had had to put in $2-4K of improvements before she was allowed to sell? Most of the older, smaller frame houses belong to lower income families. If houses of this sort would be subject to these requirements, then that would be a burden on lower income people and a drag on the real estate market, I would think.

I have tried to google this, but my internet skills are poor, and I cannot find anything that definitively says that only new construction would be affected, and i do find statements that all home sales would be subject to it, but i cannot verify either position. That is why i asked the Quad.

(07-02-2009 07:14 PM)gsloth Wrote:  And RiceDoc, while I'm no real estate lawyer...

I'm not a dirt lawyer either! I stick with unreal property law, which is precisely why I was posing questions/issues to consider rather than offering any real answers on this topic!

From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

(07-02-2009 09:26 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

Some of this was in the 300 page Amendment that was dumped in at 2:00 A.M. that nobody had a chance to read and digest.

I doubt this particular provision will pass the Senate, given the amount of screaming already going on about it. It wouldn't get out of Conference.

About the retroactive nature, I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. Some of the counties around here require you have the low-flush toilets and low flow faucets and showerheads installed (and a building inspection report thereof ) before you sell your house--even older homes--and nobody yet has run to Court complaining.

(07-04-2009 06:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 09:26 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

Some of this was in the 300 page Amendment that was dumped in at 2:00 A.M. that nobody had a chance to read and digest.

I doubt this particular provision will pass the Senate, given the amount of screaming already going on about it. It wouldn't get out of Conference.

About the retroactive nature, I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. Some of the counties around here require you have the low-flush toilets and low flow faucets and showerheads installed (and a building inspection report thereof ) before you sell your house--even older homes--and nobody yet has run to Court complaining.

That is an indicator that a low flow showerhead is a lot cheaper than a lawsuit, not that the law is proper.

(07-04-2009 02:20 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(07-04-2009 06:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 09:26 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

Some of this was in the 300 page Amendment that was dumped in at 2:00 A.M. that nobody had a chance to read and digest.

I doubt this particular provision will pass the Senate, given the amount of screaming already going on about it. It wouldn't get out of Conference.

About the retroactive nature, I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. Some of the counties around here require you have the low-flush toilets and low flow faucets and showerheads installed (and a building inspection report thereof ) before you sell your house--even older homes--and nobody yet has run to Court complaining.

That is an indicator that a low flow showerhead is a lot cheaper than a lawsuit, not that the law is proper.

(07-04-2009 06:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 09:26 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

Some of this was in the 300 page Amendment that was dumped in at 2:00 A.M. that nobody had a chance to read and digest.

I doubt this particular provision will pass the Senate, given the amount of screaming already going on about it. It wouldn't get out of Conference.

About the retroactive nature, I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. Some of the counties around here require you have the low-flush toilets and low flow faucets and showerheads installed (and a building inspection report thereof ) before you sell your house--even older homes--and nobody yet has run to Court complaining.

Yeah, but the tracking services show both the "small" and the "edited" versions.

There is a ton of stuff in there about "how new things are gonna be built", but *nothing* about requiring older homes to be retrofitted.

Interestingly, while I have heard all about how this is going to happen, no one is able to cite to any section of this that would do this. And yes, I have been through the pertinent parts.

Look, I am not a supporter of the current Demo majority, nor of their policies, nor of cap and trade. But this provision doesn't seem to have a basis as far as I can see.....

(07-06-2009 12:39 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(07-04-2009 06:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 09:26 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

Some of this was in the 300 page Amendment that was dumped in at 2:00 A.M. that nobody had a chance to read and digest.

I doubt this particular provision will pass the Senate, given the amount of screaming already going on about it. It wouldn't get out of Conference.

About the retroactive nature, I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. Some of the counties around here require you have the low-flush toilets and low flow faucets and showerheads installed (and a building inspection report thereof ) before you sell your house--even older homes--and nobody yet has run to Court complaining.

Yeah, but the tracking services show both the "small" and the "edited" versions.

There is a ton of stuff in there about "how new things are gonna be built", but *nothing* about requiring older homes to be retrofitted.

Interestingly, while I have heard all about how this is going to happen, no one is able to cite to any section of this that would do this. And yes, I have been through the pertinent parts.

Look, I am not a supporter of the current Demo majority, nor of their policies, nor of cap and trade. But this provision doesn't seem to have a basis as far as I can see.....

Tanq is right. This idea of mandatory retrofits appears to be a mis-reading of section 202 of the C&T bill, which creates the
Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program. An article at CNSnews.com (which, according to Media Matters Fox Nation picked up on and headlined "Pelosi Requires All Homes to Meet Eco-Standards Before They Can Be Sold") contained the statement that "This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal 'green' guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law."

CNSNews has it wrong, as REEP would be a voluntary program providing incentives to people who want to retrofit their homes. The standards for retrofits that section 202 directs the EPA to create are only for the purpose of measuring the efficacy of voluntary retrofits. There's an article at the "Green Blawg" that hits all the important points. Also contains a link to the bill text.

(07-06-2009 01:08 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2009 12:39 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(07-04-2009 06:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 09:26 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  From my read on it, the C&T building energy affects only new buildings (i.e. built after passage.)

C&T establishes a national building code that has to meet various "energy efficiency ratings", the ratings increasing over time.

New houses built in the appropriate time need to be built according to the national code in effect.

I have yet to see, read, or hear anything that applies to older buildings.

Some of this was in the 300 page Amendment that was dumped in at 2:00 A.M. that nobody had a chance to read and digest.

I doubt this particular provision will pass the Senate, given the amount of screaming already going on about it. It wouldn't get out of Conference.

About the retroactive nature, I don't know if it is unconstitutional or not. Some of the counties around here require you have the low-flush toilets and low flow faucets and showerheads installed (and a building inspection report thereof ) before you sell your house--even older homes--and nobody yet has run to Court complaining.

Yeah, but the tracking services show both the "small" and the "edited" versions.

There is a ton of stuff in there about "how new things are gonna be built", but *nothing* about requiring older homes to be retrofitted.

Interestingly, while I have heard all about how this is going to happen, no one is able to cite to any section of this that would do this. And yes, I have been through the pertinent parts.

Look, I am not a supporter of the current Demo majority, nor of their policies, nor of cap and trade. But this provision doesn't seem to have a basis as far as I can see.....

Tanq is right. This idea of mandatory retrofits appears to be a mis-reading of section 202 of the C&T bill, which creates the
Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program. An article at CNSnews.com (which, according to Media Matters Fox Nation picked up on and headlined "Pelosi Requires All Homes to Meet Eco-Standards Before They Can Be Sold") contained the statement that "This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal 'green' guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law."

CNSNews has it wrong, as REEP would be a voluntary program providing incentives to people who want to retrofit their homes. The standards for retrofits that section 202 directs the EPA to create are only for the purpose of measuring the efficacy of voluntary retrofits. There's an article at the "Green Blawg" that hits all the important points. Also contains a link to the bill text.

I can see now why our legislators pass so many bills without reading them. The section 202 is about 350 pages in. It does seem to apply to cash awards for voluntary retrofits. However, i skimmed over a lot of verbiage about how local and state building codes are to be subject to the national building codes. My experience is that whenever any repairs/remodeling is done, or when a tenant moves out and the gas/electric is cut off, the building must then be brought up to code. A friend of mine just had a new ceiling fan installed and ended up having to buy a new circuit box. To see this for yourselves, try getting a new hot water heater installed. So i will remain a bit suspicious until I see this in action. Politicians in general, and the Obama Administration in particular, do not inspire trust in me.

Lots of things are voluntary. Paying taxes is voluntary - you don't have to, unless of course you choose not to go to jail. The land sale that is going to doom my house was technically voluntary - the Eminent Domain suit had nothing to do with it, nothing, I tell you. I've always wanted to sell my land for 60% of value. It remains to be seen how voluntary this will be.

It seemed odd to me that the government would force this. Very much out of character with the way things are usually done. But then, so is General Motors, the pay Czar, and a lot of other things that are happening. Enough change to make this possibility conceivable.

Thanks for the info, everybody.