It’s safe to say that, when Congress passed the “Repair, Remodeling, and Painting” (RRP) law, the country was distracted. It wasn’t just a presidential election year, it was a historic presidential election. The war in Iraq was still front page news, Afghanistan was on the rise, the housing market was collapsing, and then came the financial meltdown. RRP was so far under the radar it would have taken a submarine to find it.

So, while nobody was looking, we ended up with a law that was so poorly written its implementation has been postponed twice (and it looks like it will probably be postponed a third time); EPA keeps changing the rules, so even knowing exactly what defines compliance is a moving target; the NAHB is filing suit; and firms performing jobs following the new rules (or trying to) have discovered that even the most outrageous sounding predictions of how much compliance would add to job costs have proven to be low. Meanwhile, the number of jobs being done under the table by unlicensed contractors, or by owners escaping compliance and its associated costs by doing it themselves, is growing. (I’ve heard of three in just the last month!)

In short, things are such a complete mess that the law may never actually be implemented or, if it ever is, will be a nightmare for everyone. Worst of all, for all the expense and headaches it will cause, it won’t solve the problem. So, what to do?

First, let’s understand the real problem: The dangers of lead in paint isn’t a new revelation. Trade journals have written about it for decades, and competent contractors have always worked in a reasonably safe manner — cleanliness being the biggest weapon against lead paint dust. Setting aside the problem of incompetent contractors for a moment, the real problem is the lead based paint that still exists in places the RRP law is unlikely to reach: Rentals inhabited by the poor (“slum lords”), in older homes inhabited by either low income home owners or older folks living on fixed incomes. Folks in these homes aren’t just exposed to the lead paint from their do-it-yourself painting projects, but through natural sluffing of the paint through daily use: Opening and closing cabinet doors and windows, sliding everything from cups to flower pots along window sills, washing surfaces with a wash rag that is then used on dishes, and so on. Too, many major interior repainting projects are done between habitation. A renter moves out, the landlord repaints (do-it-yourself style), leaving paint dust in corners, closets, cabinets, and ledges, and another renter, perhaps one with young children, moves in.

So unless we’re prepared to crack down hard on do-it-yourself home improvement (a tactic that would undoubtedly fail), regulation is not going to solve the problem anymore than following even the strictest interpretation of the RRP law while performing a bathroom remodel is going to remove the lead from the old kitchen cabinets. Rather, I propose a three prong approach that addresses the entire problem, without this mess of overblown and ineffective regulation:

1. Educate, don’t regulate. Education has proven effective again and again at dealing with the most intractable problems. And let’s face it, most painting is not done by professionals, it’s done by citizens. Teach citizen painters about the dangers of lead paint, how to test for it, and how to safely prep a painting surface and clean up afterwards. After all, there’s nobody more protective of a child than the parents. Also, rather than this silliness of allowing only “certified” testers able to test use “only EPA certified” test kits, let citizens use do-it-yourself kits they can buy in the hardware store. Do-it-yourself lead test kits are about as likely to replace professional testing as home pregnancy tests did doctors office pregnancy tests. More is better, even if the tests are less accurate — a fact package labeling would logically acknowledge. It increases participation and involvement, and involvement is the key to ultimate success.
2. Building professionals should be required to adopt clean work habits. Yes, this likely means more regulation, inspection, and testing, but it should be done at the state or local level where it can be enforced as a matter of routine, not by the EPA who has neither knowledge, experience, or infrastructure to be part of the daily building inspection process.
3. Building professionals should become the nation’s “first responders”. As professionals, they should be the ones the public can turn to for reliable, professional, lead testing, do-it-yourself oriented lead safe practices training, and so on. Will these lead safe certified contractors charge for the service? Surely. But to baby Johnny’s young parents, paying for a bit of on the job training is a lot cheaper than hiring that contractor to do the job for them, and for that small fee they — and we — have the assurance that they’re making their home safer for their child.

Educate the public, require clean work habits, and ensure that lead safe certified contractors are empowered to test for lead and train the public, and we will have addressed the lead problem at all levels of society. Even better, we will have increased awareness of lead poisoning. And an educated, involved public is never a bad thing.

RRP, lead law, remodeling, regulation

Powered by ScribeFire.

Cruise around the web on this day of independence and, in spite of the present polarized political state and caustic political rhetoric, complete with a new poll out showing the nation divided right down the middle on whether President Obama has the nation headed in the right, or wrong, direction, and you’ll find all kinds of links, like this one, to the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. It’s easy, from our nostalgic point of view here in the 21st century, to forget that back when our new country was being founded, things were just as divided, just as tempestuous, as they are today. “Let us now attend to the consequences of this enormous innovation, and daring encroachment, on the liberties of citizens,” wrote a columnist for the Pennsylvania Herald on October 17, 1787. He was replying to a speech by James Wilson given in Philadelphia on October 6th of that same year. Wilson was a supporter of the draft of the proposed constitution that would form the basis of a United States of America.

The stakes of their choices, and of the citizens of the colonists in accepting or rejecting the now famous documents on which our great republic is based, were no less critical to their future (for they could only scarcely imagine the future in which we now live) than ours in how we deal with the seemingly insurmountable issues of our day. They, like us, feared that an unruely majority might trample the will of an honest minority, that individuals and monied interests might trod underfoot the less fortunate members of society. And they understood that popular opinion shifts like the changing winds. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Maddison observed:

Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice would be most easily collected, and the public affairs more accurately managed. We know, however, that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent Philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light.

–James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, New York, October 24, 1787 (Spelling and capitalization of the original document retained)

So on this day, of all days, while reminiscing about the wisdom of those who crafted our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights, let us especially remember that they did so under the same stresses and strains, and in the same highly charged and politically polarized environment that we find ourselves today. Yet they succeeded and met the challenges of their time.

And so can we!

independence day, 4th of july

Powered by ScribeFire.

We need training programs; we need third party certification and verification systems too. But for them to work, we also need the correct mix of government/private partnership; the right laws, and the right regulations that point industry in the right directions.

In this guest post at Building Moxie I cover some ideas on just what that right relationship should be, and how it could work. Read the whole article here.

So, starting in January of this coming year (2011), California architects, designers and builders will have another building code to comply with. The “…first-in-the nation mandatory green building standards code…” Governor Schwarzenegger called it, claiming “…California continues to pave the way in energy efficiency and environmental protection.” It does do a few things worth while:

First, all buildings built under the new code will be required to reduce water consumption by 20%. Also, there’s a little mentioned requirement that building lots deal more efficiently with storm water run off, preferably keeping as much of the water on the lot (and away from the building) as possible by percolating it through the landscaping, before the surplus is picked up by storm drains. This will have a side benefit of cleaning the water before adding it to our streams and rivers. The second most often mentioned requirement is that half of all building waste will have to be diverted, rather than being simply dumped into land fills. What’s been overlooked is the intent to start the reduction at the very beginning of the building process by encouraging the use of pre-assemblies (such as SIPs) or composite materials made for the the job. Another never mentioned item is a requirement that stud walls not be closed up if the moisture content of the wood exceeds 19%. The third most often mentioned requirement is the requirement that all HVAC systems in buildings over 10,000 square feet keep their systems working at “maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies”, to use the laymen’s language from the press release. The new code also includes a great many voluntary measures, and includes two “tiers” that designers and builders can comply with in their projects for if they choose to.

In some quarters new code has been well received. In others, there’s a lot of head scratching going on. Brian Pontolilo over at Fine Home Building had to ask: “Why CALGREEN? I’m curious why California wrote a mandatory green building code instead of incorporating these provisions into their existing building codes.” To which I might add: Why didn’t they just participate in IBC’s code production process? After all, California has already adopted the IBC for its code model.

For the answer, we have to remember a bit of history. Before (reluctantly) adopting the IBC, the State spent millions and nearly five years trying to write its own building code from scratch. Thousands of pages later, it was only when everyone from the NAHB to the AIA  bluntly told the Standards Commission that their proposed code was so different from traditional model codes that it would cause more problems than it solved, that the whole fiasco was stopped and a model code considered. California politicians and bureaucrats are addicted to the notion that the they “pave the way” with their “first-in-the nation” this, that and the other thing. In reality, as the building code debacle showed, they often spend a lot of time (and a lot of hard earned tax payer money) reinventing the wheel.

That said, I think the CalGreen Code does do take some important steps that have nothing to do with whether enough water gets saved or building waste diverted — all of which will be argued until we’re all blue in the face. The legislation takes a stab at providing a set of baselines that are independent of the self promoting NGOs and their programs. Want your project to be LEED? You can do that. Want your project to be HERS? You can do that too. Energy Star? It’s got you covered. BPI? No problem. CalGreen is simply a (minimum) standard. How you get there is entirely up to you. And that’s how it should be. The Senate should take notes and apply them to the Cash for Caulkers bill, with it’s Building Performance Institute (BPI) — and only BPI — certification requirement.

Now, could this have been done by helping to write and then adopt the IBC green code? Yup.

green, building, standards, CalGreen

Powered by ScribeFire.

The following is a guest article contributed by Dan Harding, originally posted on CalFinder’s Solar Blog on May 20, 2010.

This time last year I wrote about the introduction of a new breed of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV): the Solé Power Tile. This unique midnight-blue roofing tile is the first-ever solar product specifically designed for curved roofing systems, according to its manufacturer, SRS Energy. The PV tile is not designed to mount onto a roof, but to seamlessly incorporate into it, creating clean solar electricity while maintaining the home’s overall aesthetic.

All PV products must go through testing by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to prove their ability for reliable performance. This is especially important in California, where solar products must be UL-listed to qualify for state rebates. The Solé Power Tile recently passed UL testing, which, considering that it is meant to integrate into curved clay tile roofs very common to sunny California, opens it up to a whole new market and millions of potential rooftops.

SRS Energy even partnered with US Tile, the largest manufacture of clay roof tiles in the U.S., to ensure seamless integration. US Tile designed a non-solar tile that matches the relatively odd blue color of the Solé Power Tile.

But are these tiles ready for your roof? At only 5 percent conversion efficiency, the Solé tiles at their best stand far below the average rooftop solar panel. Therefore, they require a lot more space and product to produce the same amount of solar electricity. However, the plastic tiles are cheaper, ship in bundles and are lighter than traditional clay tiles. Homeowners with a lot of roof space and concerns over aesthetics may be good clients for the Solé Power Tile, but I’m betting this will be a small niche market in the face of other products that are four times as efficient, at least to start.

Also, passing its UL 1703 testing is important for proving that it can perform well, but that still leaves questions about durability. Solar panels will almost certainly be producing energy in 40 years. Can anyone say that about the Solé Power Tile?

Of course, if SRS Energy can get that efficiency up to, say, 10 percent in future product generations, then I think we’ll find a decent amount of people wanting to try them out, which will lead to their being proven in the field.

It should be noted that if there’s any market you want to go into with a fresh, rebate-eligible product, it’s California. There, residents have proven time and time again that they’re willing to lead the way in renewable technology. Perhaps the Solé Power Tile can ride that wave.

I had a post on the Cash for Caulkers program in the mill, but Sean beat me to it. Since he has said everything I could have said about the legislation now pending, with his permission, I’ll just let him say it again in this repost of his article: — Michael

HomeStar (aka Cash for Caulkers) is a proposed measure introduced in the Senate to “create good living-wage jobs in construction and related industries by providing strong short-term incentives for home energy efficiency improvements.”  It was also designed to “reward homeowners for investing in insulation and weatherization, high-efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment, replacement windows and other cost-effective home improvements that can permanently reduce household energy bills.“ (EF.org’s Talking Points)

The HomeStar Plan

Senate Bill 3177 aka the ‘Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010’

This bill as proposed above gives homeowners a choice of two types of incentives.  The Silver Star Home Energy Retrofit Program and the Gold Star Home Energy Retrofit Program. One nice item in the bill is the Contractor requirements for both sections which include: (1) that they are licensed as required by the State (2) insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for general liability (3) warranties to homeowners that completed work will be free of significant defects; be installed in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer; and perform properly for a period of at least 1 year after the date of completion of the work.

The Silver Star program provides rebates for air sealing; attic, wall or crawl space insulation; duct sealing or replacement; and replacement of existing windows, doors, water heaters, household appliances or heating and air conditioning equipment. Rebate amounts are up to $1,500 per qualified installed measure, capped at 50 percent of project costs or $3,000 (whichever is less).

The Gold Star program is a performance-based incentive program. It is based on predicted energy savings as determined by a thorough energy audit performed before the work begins. Based on this Energy Audit, homeowners can receive $3,000 for modeled savings of 20%, plus $1,000 for each additional 5% of modeled energy savings, with incentives not to exceed 50% of total project costs.

Senator Markey & his 4 Star rating

Senator Markey is one of the Senators that introduced Senate Bill 3177. After he introduced it, he sent out a press release where he stated that he feels that HomeStar Will Be Summer Blockbuster for Consumers, Jobs & gave it a rating of Four Stars.

• Creating New Jobs – Over 168,000 jobs will be saved or created in the construction, manufacturing, and retail sectors.
• Saving Consumers Money -Energy efficient homes will save hardworking families more than a billion dollars in 2011 alone – and $9.5 billion over the next decade.
• Saving Energy – Efficiency upgrades cut energy waste and foreign oil imports. Home Star will save the same amount of energy as 615,000 cars, and means we’ll need 4 less power plants.
• Products Made in the U.S.A. – 90% of the retrofit products for Home Star – windows, doors, and insulation – are manufactured in the USA.

The Verdict

Based just on the items listed above, it should come as no surprise that there are over 1200 organizations and manufacturers actively supporting this legislation. One of the biggest organizations “getting out the vote” is the HomeStar Coalition. Many of these organizations are also hoping that this just might help get some consumers over the hump. Many consumers are gun shy, due to the past history of the Energy Efficiency market. They are hoping to get consumers to realize that retrofitting is the most cost-effective proven ways to reduce household energy costs. Not only can a retrofit help you with your long-term energy bill savings, but the comfort that one can derive from it.

Speaking not only as the owner of SLS Construction, but as a regular citizen, I really do think that we are getting into some serious trouble with all our spending and borrowing that has been occurring lately. We have now survived the Tech, Oil, and the Housing bubbles in the last 15 years to find ourselves in a Government Spending Bubble. If we are not careful when this one pops, we could face some very serious issues that cannot be overcome as easily as the market based ones.

With that being said, I really do think that this can be a very good piece of legislation, which would probably meet the goals of reducing energy usage and probably create some much-needed jobs. The cost vs. value argument I think would come down on the side of the bill passing (even without the typical inflation of benefits that people love to use).  So why then isn’t SLS Construction listed as a supporter? I happen to see a few problems with the way the bill is written, that I feel need to be addressed before I can really say that “yes, this is a great bill.”

In a future article – some of the issues we will cover:

• Duplication of rebates with other programs
• The big issue with the Gold Star contractor requirement
• Certain items listed in Silver Star program, should be handled under the Gold Star program, due to health, safety, and other concerns
• The rebate program which will probably artificially increase the costs to the Homeowners, resulting in less savings than they might have had with an appropriate Tax Credit

You can read the sequel here. —Michael

The following is a guest article, written by Ed Cholfin, AK President, CAPS, PMP and Kitchen and Bathroom Designer in Atlanta. For more information please see the end of the article.

We’re not talking about emerald, forest, lime, fern or olive – we’re talking GREEN! Of late, the word green has come to symbolize environmental protection and those products and procedures that are environmentally friendly. In the construction and remodeling industries, green building products and practices have become an industry of their own. A green home can mean energy efficiency, ecological benefits, health considerations and will provide long-term cost savings, comfort, and safety.

The kitchen alone is responsible for nearly half of a home’s energy consumption. Remodeling your kitchen provides a perfect opportunity to improve your homes energy efficiency as well as make it a healthier place for your family and your environment. A green kitchen is an inherently brighter and well ventilated workspace thanks to the numerous operable windows that provide light as well as heat. Another way to create healthier air in your kitchen is to choose products with low VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds.) VOC’s diminish air quality and can be hazardous to your family’s health; many cabinet manufacturers use a VOC called urea formaldehyde.

A special line of cabinetry, Nature’s Collection by Tedd Wood, has options for water-based and low VOC finishes. This line is also the highest certified green line of cabinetry available anywhere; it has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as well as the Rainforest Alliance. Ensuring the safety of the forests is also possible by choosing flooring and countertop surfaces made from sustainable resources: Bamboo, cork, wheatboard and eucalyptus as well as recycled glass and concrete make beautiful design statements in a kitchen.

Another important element is a green kitchen is storage; special sorting spaces are created for recyclables and compostables. Making space for this in the kitchen reduces your amount of household waste and the compost can help you grow your own organic herbs for cooking. Working with a professional designer who is in tune with your desire to create a green kitchen can be very helpful with this space planning! A green kitchen also has appliances which are rated for energy efficiency and have water-saving features. Did you know you can go even beyond “Energy Star?” Other things like induction cooktops, versus traditional electric radiant or gas, waste less heat and takes less time. It’s rated at 90% energy efficient versus the traditional 50-60%. Don’t forget the high-efficiency water heater in your remodeling process as it affects the kitchen water supply along with the rest of the house.

There is a lot to consider when remodeling your home; add on top of that your desire to do it green and you have even more to think about. Working with a professional design/build firm may just be a sanity saver, and will also help keep you up to date on the latest products and trends.

Ed Cholfin, AK President, CAPS, PMP and Kitchen and Bathroom Designer. “Let’s Play House Together” Visit AK’s website to learn more about Green kitchens, kitchen design and all other home renovations!

Office: 1-866-282-6231
Fax: 1-888-539-6734
Cell: 770-335-2694
Email: Ed@AKCompleteHomeRenovations.com
Visit our Website: http://www.AKatlanta.com

If you’re planning on having your house (apartment, child care facility, or school) painted, or on doing some remodeling, after April 22, 2010, then you need to be aware of the new Federal regulations that effect that renovation. Regulations that may make that renovation or repainting job cost you more than you thought it would. In some circumstances, a lot more.

The concern is the lead content in paint produced before 1978. And it is a legitimate one. While it is of no particular hazard while on the wall (unless you chew on it), sanding turns the paint into a dust which, once airborne, is breathed and, as it settles on the toys of small children and pets, is ingested. Studies have shown that children exposed to even small amounts of lead can suffer from the effects of poisoning (don’t know if any tests were performed on pets, but I would assume a similar result): Reduced IQ, learning disabilities and behavioral problems are all symptoms. Adults are also susceptible, of course, but the dosage apparently must be higher.

So bring on the Federal Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP), or “Lead Law”. Passed in 2008, it goes into effect April 22, 2010. It requires contractors renovating more than six square feet of a home built before 1978 to a) be certified by the EPA and the work crew to be trained, and b) to treat that portion of the house being renovated as a toxic materials zone, which means establishing full containment and toxic waste control measures complete with placards, testing, and record keeping. Prior to even beginning work, the contractor must provide you with a copy of this nineteen page “brochure” (booklet would be more accurate), which the contractor must make you sign for. (It contains a lot of information. I suggest you read it carefully.)

If work is being done on the outside of the building and there is another building within twenty feet, then a containment dam must be established and maintained during sanding and/or demolition. Finally, all waste must be treated, and therefore disposed of, as a hazardous material.

Having read the heavy handed language of the actual regulations promulgated by the EPA to satisfy the legislation, I see hidden costs here too. I suspect remodeling, painting, and general contractors will see their liability insurance rates begin to climb. To try and limit potential future liability, even work sites that “test clean” may be treated as contaminated—just in case. Consider: Three years after renovating that 1950s craftsman little Johnny is found to have lead poisoning. The contractor didn’t follow containment procedures because testing showed no lead in any of the paint in the renovation area. But an investigator finds a trace of lead based paint embedded in the wood fibers of one window sill. Bammo! Lawsuit, fine, and damages.

So yes, the good news is, we finally have regulations in place to deal with one of the last remaining health hazards in the home. The bad news? The chest pounding of of Congress has produced a result that is expensive and ungainly. Every State in the Union has methods and procedures in place for dealing with asbestos, and after forty years of rubbing the rough edges off, they work well. Asbestos poisoning is by in large now a thing of the past. With one paragraph Congress could have directed the States to deal with lead paint in the same way. The States probably would have simply then rolled lead paint mitigation into their existing systems at little cost to the tax payer, contractor, or customer. But that would have denied the Congressional bulls an opportunity to bray come election time.

Got an opinion about “the lead law.” Let me hear it!

Home deadline for energy efficiency improvements tax credits under The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus package”), has been extended until December 31^st 2010. The stimulus package authorizes a whopping 30% write-off on eligible improvements (up to $1,500 combined for almost all improvements—with some important exceptions). So what qualifies? Here’s a list (for more information reference URLs are at the bottom):

• Insulation, so long as it meets the 2009 IECC guidelines. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Doors and windows, including  skylights and storm windows and doors. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Roofing, both metal and asphalt, so long as they’re Energy Star^® qualified. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Heating and cooling (HVAC) of nearly every type, including replacement of the main air circulating fan to one that uses no more than 2% of total furnace energy use. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Water heaters with an Energy Factor greater than or equal to 0.82 or that is 90% efficient. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Heat pumps that meet Energy Star^® qualifications. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Biomass Stoves (i.e. a wood burning , pellet, or “corn burning” stove) with a thermal efficiency of at least 75%. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Geothermal Heat Pumps that meet Energy Star^® criteria. (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Solar Hot Water Systems that are Energy Star^® rated, with the restriction that 50% of the hot water generated used must be generated by the installed system. The installed system must be certified by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC), and must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016.  (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Photovoltaic Systems for residential use. Must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016. (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Residential Wind Energy Systems that have a “nameplate capacity” of not more than 100 kw. Must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016.  (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Fuel Cells for residential use. Must have an efficiency of at least 30% and a capacity of at least ½kw. Must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016. (30% of the cost, up to $500 per ½kw of power capacity)

Visit EnergyStar.gov for complete information about the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency program. The site has FAQs on all the above programs as well as links to tax forms, IRS notices, and the Tax Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP), an organization dedicated to making government policies such as the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency comprehensible and accessible to us normal people.

If you need any assistance with your energy efficiency improvement project(s), don’t hesitate to contact us.

Know of an incentive program not listed above? Add it in the comments below!

Late last week I got a call from a long time customer who wanted me to give them a second opinion on what needed to be done with the 110 year old farm house on their property. To renovate or rebuild, that was the question.

As usual, another contractor had given them the sage advice: All you gotta do is leave one wall standing and you can put up a new house and call it a "renovation." He then proceeded to tell them that it was going to be cheaper to replace the old house (as a renovation) than to repair it. And as usual, the real answer wasn’t that simple.

In fact, the answer was so complex that, as I drove away from my final meeting with the client, I began to wonder if this complexity (complete with its inherent cost) is the reason so many old houses are simply abandoned; left to rot, rather than being restored or removed.

A thorough nondestructive inspection of the house revealed that it was pretty much as you would expect a house that old to be. The foundation was shot but the old, virgin redwood framing was as solid as a rock. The roof was also shot, as was the siding, the back porch, and many of the soffits and fascia boards. Wiring was, of course, an add on and electrical outlets were sparse and all over the place. The one and only bathroom had been built on top of the back porch, indoor plumbing being another afterthought.

It was a classic case of code requirements causing a cascade sequence: Leveling the house meant it would also have to be bolted to a concrete (or masonry) stem wall, which in turn meant the exterior walls would have to be opened up. That, in turn, would trigger energy efficiency requirements which effected insulation, heating, and the windows. Removing the siding would trigger the need to install shear panels. Replacing the roof would trigger installing roof sheathing. Modernizing the electrical system, of course, meant not only meeting code requirements for electrical and lighting, but opening up all the walls and ceilings to facilitate doing so.

But the building codes, agree with them or not, were simple and straight forward. Then there was the maze of non-building related land use regulations:

The house sits on an old river delta, or "bottom" that, for over a hundred years, has been farm land. Prior to early settlers re-routing a river in the late nineteenth century, it had been a wetland and was, to some, still considered to be so.

So, the house was defacto sitting in a flood plane and, putting a new foundation under it, or building a new house, meant a "hundred year flood elevation" would have to be established. A process that, unless you’re lucky enough to find an established flood elevation close by, can cost $30,000 or more! (Never mind that it’s 110 year flood-free condition is empirical evidence that it has survived all prior floods and earthquakes just fine, thank you.)

The house also sits in the "local coastal zone" and perhaps in a "wetland." Therefore, replacing the house would trigger a whole complex set of reviews and hearings called the CEQA process that would involve four different agencies with associated direct and indirect costs. Going through CEQA can take a year (or more)—and that’s if there’s a project manager on board to keep the process moving. Left unsupervised, CEQA projects can die a slow death from neglect.

Nor is demolition (or deconstruction) a cheap alternative. Because of the location (coastal zone, wet land, etc.), even that option would trigger a CEQA review.

Before I left, the client told me that their accountant had suggested buying another rental property "in town" could be a cheaper alternative. He may be right. And if that’s the course they choose, then yet another old house will be left to rot away in place thanks to the maze of regulations and their associated, astronomical costs.

So the question is: Have we gone too far? Is it time to begin to rethink some of our regulations, or at least the process? Is it time to simplify, to consolidate? Is it time to give more consideration to the growing burden these regulations place on property owners?

What do you think?