The end of the fixer-upper?

posted at 9:30 am on September 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Much of the news about the cap-and-trade bill this month concerns the internal analysis done by the Obama administration but buried until a FOIA request forced its release showing that the cost per household for the bill would go higher that $1760 per year.  But what happens when you want to sell your household?  Ryan Young of CEI highlights a few more costly aspects of Waxman-Markey, which could end the fixer-upper market and make resales both more expensive and more difficult:

That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection. …

Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law. …

Suppose you have a window that isn’t quite airtight or your appliances are a little too old. Maybe they’re not Energy Star certified. You’d have to replace them before you would be allowed to sell your home.

The result could be the end of fixer-upper homes; surely, this is not what Congress has in mind. Some families prefer to buy a home in less-than-stellar condition on the cheap and make repairs and upgrades themselves.

For people who don’t have a lot of money, or who enjoy working with their hands, or who want to customize their home, this can be a very fulfilling path to homeownership. Waxman-Markey would take that away.

Most sales fall under “federal” transactions because of the involvement of the FHA, Fannie Mae, and/or Freddie Mac.  That gives the federal government jurisdiction to create these prerequisites.  The Obama administration and its liberal allies explicitly hail this as a means to whip us teenagers into green shape, but the result is more intrusion and the removal of economic choices from American lives.

Before now, the relative modernity of appliances mattered to just two people in a housing sale: the current owner and the bidder.  Those who wanted more modern appliances either bought more expensive and newer housing, or bought fixer-uppers and used the cost savings to replace them.  Now that latter option will become obsolete.  Not too many people will pay to maintain their energy efficiency while not fixing other things around the house that more directly impact livability, such as flooring, painting, plumbing, and the like.

What about foreclosures?  If people can’t sell when they get in financial trouble — because financial trouble usually means one cannot replace older appliances and windows — then we can expect to see foreclosures rise as people walk away.  Will banks be able to sell foreclosures without a similar inspection?  If not, then we can also expect to see lenders get a lot more particular about their borrowers.  It’s bad enough to get stuck with a foreclosure, which are usually not in sellable shape even without worrying about the Green Police.  And if banks get a pass, why should they get more privilege than a responsible homeowner does?

If one had to write a prescription for a housing-sector depression, imposing the Green Police on resales would be one of the most effective.  It’s a ludicrous encroachment of the federal government into private transactions, and it would seriously wound an industry already reeling from the government interventions at Fannie and Freddie over the last ten years.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Now you are getting the idea…”if” should be removed from the sentence. A poor people are much easier to manage than a rich one. Robert Mugabe can tell you about that. Castro brothers have relevant experience, too. Chavez, Mao, Lenin…lots of teachers on that subject.

Harry Schell on September 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM

I wonder just “who” will be mandated in the bill to make these “changes” to the homes.

Union workers comes to mind.

TendStl on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Cities are better for leftest because they are easier to manage/control and environmentally sounder. Home and land ownership goes against everything the leftest stand for.

RagTag on September 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Much easier to restrict things like gun rights in a city as well.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Only 30% of the cost of energy-qualified materials are eligible for the tax credit. The cost of labor to install the materials are not part of the credit.

ICBM on September 23, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Exactly. The percentage and total dollar figure are too low to really entice those that weren’t going to do it anyhow, and it does nothing to help- people in getting affordable financing to perform larger projects.

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

They already appraise houses based on energy efficiency. So that makes absolutely no sense.

Actually, they do not. I just bought a house with an FHA backed loan, and there was no inspection of or assessment of environmental efficiency.

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

I am pleased that a conservative outfit like the CEI shares the ACORN/Frank/Bush Administration goal of increasing home ownership, and agree with the piece’s conclusion: the home regulation language should be stripped from the bill before it passes and becomes law.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

If the present government was trying to push our economy from recession to full blown depression, they couldn’t do much more than the ignorant laws they’re attempting to pass.

This is the quote I was referring to in my above comment.

Harry Schell on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Is that you, Big Dan?

Joe Caps on September 23, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Sorry, no. Glad to see we have a Delaware contingent here, though. Ultimate Bob is also from our area.

BigD on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Regarding the John Boehner rebuttal to the Cap and Trade bill, it was so long the video on You Tube is split into 3 segments.

Here is your link.

Just A Grunt on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

This will hurt the lower income, younger home buyers the most.

End of the Democrat Party.

bloviator on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

I wonder just “who” will be mandated in the bill to make these “changes” to the homes.
Union workers comes to mind.

TendStl on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Can you spell SEIU?

TXUS on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Off Topic: Sounds like Palin blew them away in Hong Kong!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24palin.html?hp

joedoe on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

One way markets will adjust to this is that existing houses will no longer be sold with appliances included. In my area, houses traditionally do not come with refrigerators or washer/dryers; you have to buy your own.

I do not understand why the National Association of Realtors is not going ballistic over this legislation. I worked for NAR many years ago and this is the sort of thing they used to spend millions fighting.

rockmom on September 23, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Let’s look at the intent of the legislation. Discourage fixer uppers, encourage sale of new “green homes” and tax the hell out of inefficiency. Does anyone else get a sense that a growing displacement of people will occur towards some kind of Obamavilles where the land of the solar paneled roofs and smart car in the driveway with arugala in your organic garden will occur?

There is a tactic used by the military when dealing with terrorists. If you can make them move and displace, you can break their will to fight. The more they have to move and encounter hardship, then the less willing they are to resist and you can effectively break the terror cells down like that. I feel like this cap and trade stuff would have a similar effect on the United States. If entire neighborhoods, suburbs (which Obama has no “use for”) are taxed into oblivion, and the pot o’ gold is placed in some new suburb, then the willingness of the people to fight the power, so to speak is going to wither. Larger and larger proportions of the country are going to have to move, relocate at an increasingly higher rate–threatening retirees, new families, the sick and people who have lived on property for decades–the taxes are going to be too high–and it will force many of us toward the decision point to move or not, as well as the one of resist this or not.

ted c on September 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Millions more foreclosures. If one must spend thousands to make a home “green compliant” then they would have the money to catch up on arrearages of payments. If one is 120 days past due on payments, they sure don’t have upgrade mioney. House can’t sell and they can’t even get 500 dollars for ACORN to come do a seller inspection.

seven on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Exactly. The percentage and total dollar figure are too low to really entice those that weren’t going to do it anyhow, and it does nothing to help- people in getting affordable financing to perform larger projects.

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

We had to replace two windows on our new house. Because of this plan, we upgraded to a much better quality window. The program pays 30% of the entire cost, not just 30% of the difference between a qualifying window and a non-qualifying window.

Because of this, the upgrade was practically free, and my energy savings are going to be almost twice as much.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM

“But what happens when you want to sell your household?”
I can answer that: I’d go to jail for human trafficking! Unless I can get ACORN to show me how to avoid that!
(I think you meant “sell your house”.)

KS Rex on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM

When an African-American Obama operative looking for something damaging to report admits Palin was very articulate and bright, I’m thinkin’ the woman scored a win.

They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”

joedoe on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM

joedoe on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

thx for the headsup.

ted c on September 23, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Actually, they do not. I just bought a house with an FHA backed loan, and there was no inspection of or assessment of environmental efficiency.

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

The bank made a rough assesment of efficiency when they were processing the load for my house. It went into the affordability calculations. Along with car and credit card payments.

An efficient home means your utility bills will be smaller, which means you can afford a bigger loan.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

This will hurt the lower income, younger home buyers the most.

End of the Democrat Party.

bloviator on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Not if they provide cheap rent controlled inner city housing for the young people just starting out. Many of the young want to live the European city life style anyway so I would think it would be easy to attract them to cheap inner city apartments with federal mandated rent control. Why work for a house if you can have an apartment for a couple of hundred bucks a month? Add on inner city jobs and you don’t ever need to get a car or drivers license. You don’t ever have to travel far for entertainment and suddenly a $30000.00 job is reasonable.

RagTag on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

The WSJ has a blog post alongside their coverage of Palin that compares her to Ron Paul. I don’t think this was meant to be complimentary. And the first batch of comments was nasty as anything.

BigD on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Maybe this is a better alternative: Cap-and-Trade Bill Expanded to Develop Markets in Household Radical Environmentalists http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/cap-and-trade-bill-expanded-to-develop.html

Mervis Winter on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Why are we discussing a bill that nobody believes has a chance of passing? Did something change?

Immolate on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I am pleased that a conservative outfit like the CEI shares the ACORN/Frank/Bush Administration goal of increasing home ownership, and agree with the piece’s conclusion: the home regulation language should be stripped from the bill before it passes and becomes law.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Very big difference.
CEI wants people to be wealthier so that they can afford their own homes.
ACORN wants people to steal homes from those who, in the words of ACORN, have too much.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

The result could be the end of fixer-upper homes; surely, this is not what Congress has in mind.

The road to hell is………..

Johan Klaus on September 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM

This will hurt the lower income, younger home buyers the most.

End of the Democrat Party.

bloviator on September 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

More likely, the Democrats will increase the first time buyer home subsidies.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Increased home ownership is indeed a noble goal. But even if you strip the regulatory language out of the bill, it still increases energy costs by an exhorbitant level. It’s going to price lower-middle class families out of the home buying market.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM

One other side problem with bills like this is that it helps with this is the growing problem of the “worthless male.”

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend of younger males inability to “swing a hammer”, or tune up a car, or fix a leaky roof, etc.

I’m in my fifties and it was expected when I got married in the early 70s that we would be like most couples and buy a fixer upper, which meant long hours of work by both my wife and I. The big physical projects would usually go to the husband to do. The trend I’m seeing though is that the wife seems to have evolved into someone with more ability with the physical work, and the mental mechanics of home ownership, while the husband has become somewhat of a wimpish weasel who doesn’t look like he’d know what to do with a hammer if he picked one up.

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Sorry, no. Glad to see we have a Delaware contingent here, though. Ultimate Bob is also from our area.

BigD on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I have a friend that I have not talked to for awhile that lives here in Wilmington, who is a conservative that has the nickname Big Dan. You know how small of a world it is here…

Joe Caps on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Why are we discussing a bill that nobody believes has a chance of passing? Did something change?

Immolate on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

The minute we stop talking about it is the minute they think they can get away with passing it in the middle of the night.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

democrats believe in static economic analysis. There’s only a finite amount of money, so in order for someone else to get a larger slice of the pie, the must take it from someone else.

That is because doing “work” that someone actually wants them to do (as opposed to jobs that leech off of real work, like “attorney”, “bureaucrat” or “Congressman”) frightens them.

Democrat politicians contribute nothing to society, so their concept of the pie is of course static.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

The bank made a rough assesment of efficiency when they were processing the load for my house.

If they did so, they probably did so implicitly and based on age of the home rather than the inspection. I’m looking at my home’s inspection report and its appraisal right now in front of me from August 2009 and there is -nada- about energy efficiency.

From my read, all this bill does is require that energy efficiency assessments be a) based on inspection rather than guessing, and b) be explicit for both the buyer and seller. I can find NO requirement that anything be repaired or changed to meet any energy efficiency standard.

In short, this particular controversy appears to be invented rather than real.

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Thanks for highlighting this point Ed. Been thinking this since Waxman-Markey was announced earlier this year.

For people who don’t have a lot of money, or who enjoy working with their hands, or who want to customize their home, this can be a very fulfilling path to homeownership. Waxman-Markey would take that away.

The bigger problem comes for homes that aren’t ever meant to be energy-efficient, i.e., they’re unoccupied old shacks or outbuildings that happen to be sitting where the main residence is assigned (for zoning purposes etc.). What if the property is ideally suited as the proverbial “big storage closet”?

Tough. Unless exceptions are made for these, then people who bought them for this purpose (or as investments) are stuck with them and can never sell them — or else they’d have to tear the structures down, which may not be the highest and best use of the property “as is”.

Idiocy, this is.

Disclaimer: I don’t know the bill in detail. Perhaps there is already exclusionary language in it for cases like this. But if so, where did they draw the dividing line?

RD on September 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM

while the husband has become somewhat of a wimpish weasel who doesn’t look like he’d know what to do with a hammer if he picked one up.

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM

My entire toolbox consists of hammers and I am an expert on their use.

Everything in my house either gets fixed or obliterated. Two choices.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Not if they provide cheap rent controlled inner city housing for the young people just starting out.
RagTag on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Rent control causes shortages, as everyone will find out if obamacare passes. Of course, our taxes will pay for the subsidized housing.

Johan Klaus on September 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

This post is about language in a Bill that has passed the House, but not the Senate. So it’s not the law yet, but could be, if the Democrats succeed in passing it and the president signs it.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Increased home ownership is indeed a noble goal. But even if you strip the regulatory language out of the bill, it still increases energy costs by an exhorbitant level. It’s going to price lower-middle class families out of the home buying market.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Sorry, no. Glad to see we have a Delaware contingent here, though. Ultimate Bob is also from our area.

BigD on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

There’s someone else here too besides Ultimate Bob, but his handle is escaping me.

Speaking of DE and cap and trade…I wrote Mike Castle after he voted for the cap and trade bill and he replied with a letter that started off talking about how delaware needs to be concerned with global warming more than other states because we will one of the first ones to go underwater. I couldn’t read anymore of it after that point. I can’t vote for him after receiving that response.

Joe Caps on September 23, 2009 at 10:31 AM

I live in a 100+yr old house and would rather spend money on restoring it instead of greening it up to meet some arbitrary regulations.

Glad to see you covering this, Ed. We (my Tea Party)have been handing out information on cap and trade to people on street corners and at our protests for the past 3 months.

Oh Mercy on September 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

That sounds right. Not that it’s stopping them in other areas, but home sales cannot be directly regulated by Congress, even under the most expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. I’m not even sure Congress can require an energy inspection. It can make rules regarding such inspections in a federally-related real estate transaction, just as it has with appraisals.

rockmom on September 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM

My entire toolbox consists of hammers and I am an expert on their use.

Everything in my house either gets fixed or obliterated. Two choices.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM

If you’re of a younger generation than me…BRAVO…you are an old school throw-back.

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM

None are more dangerous than those who impose their “high moral values” on others – just because they can.

GarandFan on September 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM

In that case, the Federal government will force home owners into going John Gault whether they want to or not. We don’t need an army of Davids. We need an army of John Gaults!

t.ferg on September 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Its going to be a hell of a lot more than that.

sonofdy on September 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Increased home ownership is indeed a noble goal. But even if you strip the regulatory language out of the bill, it still increases energy costs by an exhorbitant level. It’s going to price lower-middle class families out of the home buying market.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM

This is more social engineering by liberals. Their ideal world is everyone living in small apartments in the city, preferably owned by the government or ACORN-type nonprofits, and riding bikes or subways to get to their eco-friendly jobs. They hate cars, highways, suburbs, and detached houses with lawns. City dwellers are more liberal because they don’t own property or pay property taxes.

rockmom on September 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM

This does sound horrible, but I think the free market is stronger than this. Free market will always route around the damage; you can always find ways around bureaucratic red tapes like this one.

For example, what stops people from selling right to buy a home at a particular price, instead of selling an actual house (much like stock options)? Since no actual home sale has been made, the provisions of the bill do not apply, and once the right to buy a home has been obtained, the rightholder can feel relatively secure paying for repairs and such that brings it up to code.

Granted, this administration has been mucking with the established rules of contract (such as bankruptcy proceedings) but unless you are dealing with an entity too big for the government not to meddle, you should be in the clear.

novakyu on September 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM

The other aspect of this is that any new homes have to be “Green Homes” and meet almost impossible building standards. Impossible that is if you want to price it where even people with a good income and credit rating can buy it.

I and my son should know. With the escalating cost of materials and labor, building a 3 br, 2 bath with apx. 1500 sf of livable costs in our area costs $120,000 dollars to build. Then you have to factor in our profit all the others involved.

And these are not “Green Builds”. It would almost double our cost to build if we had to follow these new regulations.

Which equals no new homes for most everyone.

Papa Ray
Central Texas

Papa Ray on September 23, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

The lies are changing so fast, even the O-bots can’t keep up.

The acutal number is well to the north of $1700 per year.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

$1700/365 = about $4.66 a day. Your math is fuzzy.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Rent control causes shortages, as everyone will find out if obamacare passes. Of course, our taxes will pay for the subsidized housing.

Johan Klaus on September 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM

If there are shortages, then that will prove that the private sector is not capable of producing something as vital as housing. So the govt will start building houses for people to live in.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Try more like 50% across the board. And that’s before the imbedded increases jack up inflation on everything else.

Phil-351 on September 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Its going to be a hell of a lot more than that.

sonofdy on September 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM

44 cents covered the cost of administering the program.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM

The Democrats are just a disgraceful group led by Waxman, Pelosi and the rest of the leftist nuts. They do not believe in freedom or liberty or at least how most Americans understand those words. They are attempting to turn us into a third world nation. God help this nation that we can delay their statist policies long enough to make it to the 2010 mid-terms where hopefully we can pick up enough seats to further empower the blue dogs to resist this stupidity. I don’t expect the Republicans to take back the house though I’d love that. If they can get within 5-10 seats their influence should be such that the loony ideas coming from the East and West Coast liberals would have little or no chance of advancing.

scharlesc on September 23, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Does anyone believe that this POS bill is good for anything? I haven’t seen one thing in this bill that benefits the average American. Every day brings another costly and unnecessary burden. Yet, it’s still being proposed and Congresscritters are still expected to pass it.

Is it just me, or has everybody in Washington lost their minds?

BackwardsBoy on September 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM

The more I hear about Obama, Congress, the senate and the czars the more creeped out I get. I am so sick and tired of what they doing to this country. They just aren’t listening to the people. We had tea parties, the ignored them; we came to town halls, they ignored us; we marched on DC and again they ignored us! What’s next for us to do?

margretto on September 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Lol. I like how everyone jumped on the .44 a day line. HotAir is a big site and has it’s fair share of dumb posters, but on average we have a pretty smart readership that doesn’t let crap like that slide.

BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM

“This does sound horrible, but I think the free market is stronger than this. Free market will always route around the damage; you can always find ways around bureaucratic red tapes like this one.”

I wish that was true. Unfortunately when enough regulation is put into place the free markets encounter too much friction to work properly leading to pricing and supply distortions. Just recall the energy crises before Ronald Reagan deregulated gasoline prices. Free markets are greatly affected by the lack of proper price signaling and also the disincentive for proper capitalization due to the arbitrary nature of government control and the rent seeking nature of special interests.

scharlesc on September 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM

checking to make sure this thing is working…

DanMan on September 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I’ll have to find the section but there is a mandate that all housing will need to meet the green standards of the bill by 2018. The operative point is all housing not just those being bought and sold.

chemman on September 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I had the occasion to call into a local radio show here in Houston that featured the director of the permits department. I was complaining because the city had taken umbrage that I had not pulled a permit to replace my old aluminum single pane windows with double paned vinyl ones and man was I not prepared for lecture I had coming! My point about having the permit trigger an adjustment in my homes value with the appraisal district did not hold up to her insistance that she had a federal obligation to list all residential improvements so they could track our community’s something or another statistic vs. the rest of the nation’s. And this was before Obama was elected by a couple of months. I predict they are going to start following pick-ups out of Home Depot and Lowes if they are not already.

DanMan on September 23, 2009 at 11:15 AM

on somewhat of a side note: What about historical restorations?

Jed_Eckert on September 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I’m not sure that this is right. Although I am sure that an FHA-backed purchase might be a “federal transaction” under the statute, it should be noted that FHA restrictions already in place pretty much preclude using FHA financing for a fixer-upper. In addition, I’d love to see how a Fannie/Freddie transaction would fall under the purview of the statute. Keep in mind a couple things: (1) neither Fannie nor Freddie are actually federal agencies (yet), and (2) even if they were, their involvement in residential mortgages are solely in the secondary market. Although they set guidelines for how loans are originated on the front end, they don’t actually step into and become part of the deal until (moments) after the deal is done. As a result, the transaction itself takes place without the involvement of either entity.

All that said, all mortgage companies and settlement/title companies are governed by federal law (RESPA, among other things), so there may be some jurisdictional hook there.

Selkirk on September 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Their ideal world is everyone living in small apartments in the city, preferably owned by the government or ACORN-type nonprofits, and riding bikes or subways to get to their eco-friendly jobs.

Not true, it’s everyone ELSE. Besides them.

While they enjoy Tom Friedman 5500 sq. ft. mansions and get whisked around in limosines.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Why is it that when Bush was in office, every Liberal toad was hopping up and down about Bush sending jack-booted gov’t thugs to every home and office, stripping away your privacy rights?

But, then, the Liberal Dems take over, and we get jack-booted gov’t thugs raiding garage sales and thrift stores, thugs going after any voice against bills propped up by dear leader, and bills wanting to put more thugs in your house if you try to sell it.

It seems like there are tons more thugs on my radar from the Liberal toads than from anything Bush put forth.

Phil-351 on September 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Exactly and the spot on predictions in 1965 were that Medicare will cost us a billion dollars this year.

Isn’t it wonderful when a liberal plan comes to fruition?

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM

If the bill passes, Texas and the rest of the red states would most likely secede from the union.

If you live there, you’ll be ok, if you live in a blue state, you’ll have much bigger problems than this.

Rebar on September 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

It seems like there are tons more thugs on my radar from the Liberal toads than from anything Bush put forth.

Phil-351 on September 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM

More good news from the Obama “administration”.

Millions of new jobs created, mainly among those employed as certified Jack Booted Thugs.

Also, Czars.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Yeah, that 44 cents a day is going to make all the difference.

Bleeds Blue on September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Someone already pointed out your math error. At $1700 per year it represents about:

one trip to Nashville
my auto insurance for the year
about half my annual grocery budget
one PC upgrade for the house
the copay for my daughter’s braces
my diabetic supplies for the year
90% of my mortgage payment

Well which one do I give up? After all, you know how to spend my money better than I do.

Jed_Eckert on September 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Of course it’s a cog in a master plan. It’s designed to reverse 40+ years of “white flight” from the cities.
They’re hoping by forcing those white suburban citizens back into the city, with their higher taxable income, and lower crime rate, (in most cases practically none), they get not only an infusion of cash but enough “good” citizens to water down the high crime figures and dropout rates in the city

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 10:09 AM

I wondered when this chimp and his cronies would try to prevent whites from fleeing cities infested by their b@st@rd-breeding, welfare-for-life ‘bruthas’. Now I know.

You know the best way to totally short-circuit a liberal’s brain? Ask them why the news agencies NEVER report on ‘black flight’! 99.99% of liberals would never admit it’s because the first way you’d notice would be lowered crime/dropout rates and a lot less litter…so unless they can think up a decent lie on the spot quicker than the Grinch, they have no answer.

Dark-Star on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Killing Cap and Tax is essential to freedom. I am very glad I bought my hose before this power mad administration took power. The damage they are doing will take years to undo, if it even can be undone…How do you fix $780 billion flushed down the toilet?

JIMV on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM

“Because of this, the upgrade was practically free, and my energy savings are going to be almost twice as much.”

Work those numbers for me. How long is the payoff between the 70% material cost of the new window plus 100% of the installation labor – cost savings per month in electricity? How many years? Decades? During your lifetime?

WitchDoctor on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM

The point is to kill homeownership. Look up “2040 initiative’. By that date, the plan is to have the population living in urban settings in apartments using mass transportation. Land and property ownership will be outlawed as a crime against nature. This is the start of that. Anyone recall Bwarney Fwank talking a few months ago about a loan program for town houses only?

red131 on September 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Because if the govt is doing the inspection, nothing will pass.

milwife88 on September 23, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Now figure this ‘inspection’ scam will be run like auto inspections in states unfortunate enough to have to suffer under that scam..the traditional few hundred in repairs keeping the garages all in business for a coupe of months a year.

JIMV on September 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Anyone recall Bwarney Fwank talking a few months ago about a loan program for town houses only?

red131 on September 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

So the male prostitutes living in our basement, will be put in place by the feds to help pay our mortgage?

Barney Frank IS brilliant.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

JIMV on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM

how do you pay off that boondoggle? cut all government spending except for the military. get rid of dept of education and dept of the interior. no federal spending on anything other than the military except by voter consent. congress gets paid $1.00 per year and they only meet for two weeks every quarter.

red131 on September 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM

If you’ve ever lived in military housing, then you know what a “government inspection” is like.

Upon clearing government quarters, we have literally used a shop-vac on flower beds, raked rocks, used a nail polish brush to fix nicks on a door frame, rescreened windows that the screens were a little saggy—AND hired a $200 cleaning crew (the only crew “licensed” to get you a “pass”)–all to get the government inspector to give us the seal of approval to clear the quarters. If they don’t give you the seal, you stay put until ALL the issues are rectified. If they’re a pain in the ass, you stay longer–it is all about control and you have very limited freedom or recourse on these inspectors.

Craptastic.

ted c on September 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

ted c on September 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

That’s just bone-chilling…

Yet another solid reason not to join the military. Risk my life and get that kind of control-freak cr@p in housing?! No way. No effing way.

Dark-Star on September 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Dark-Star on September 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

One thing my experience in the military has taught me is that you want the government doing as little as possible.

Because even when it is effective (as the military generally is, but that’s the exception), it’s a complete pain in the ass AND everything it does costs far more than you could reasonably imagine.

And that’s for the things they do right, which for the feds, is only about 5% of the workload.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM

“Because of this, the upgrade was practically free, and my energy savings are going to be almost twice as much.”

Work those numbers for me. How long is the payoff between the 70% material cost of the new window plus 100% of the installation labor – cost savings per month in electricity? How many years? Decades? During your lifetime?

WitchDoctor on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Witch, it depends on 3 things. How big a crook the contractor might be on mark up, how bad your units are now, and how high energy cost are where you are now and how high will they go.

Jeff from WI on September 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Another thing this would cause would be skyrocketing property tax rates.

Municipalities, counties and states would feel freer to raise property taxes, because people would no longer be able to “vote” with their feet and move to more reasonable areas.

13Girl on September 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Municipalities, counties and states would feel freer to raise property taxes, because people would no longer be able to “vote” with their feet and move to more reasonable areas.

13Girl on September 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Yes, but we could “vote” them out.

Unless they take that away, too. Because we need to save the planet.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM

How about this? Sellers may not misrepresent their product. Buyers can offer what it is worth to them. They strike a deal or they don’t.

SheofTwoMinds on September 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

The nightmare these people are creating does’nt even cross their minds. Lets take the Obama’s home in Hyde Park, under the new regs this building is absolutely unsalable. While indeed a very nice home, to comply with the green idiocy to be foisted on us would require at least $1,000,000+ to bring into green comlpiance. From the sales brouchure it is described thus,

…a Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar…

Here is a pic of their residence, with the complete description.

Now as one whose trade/biz is the rehabilitation of old master pieces like this, I feel I can speak with some authority on this issue. In the interest of brevity let’s just touch on the obvious factors involved with 100yo home.

1) Downstairs walls are “Honduran mohogany” clad over plaster & latte up to about 5ft high, the electrical outlets are no higher than 6in from top of the baseboards. Result, as the exterior is brick and inability to access inner cavity of wall, it is uninsulated and the wiring still of the old cloth wrapped variety.

2) See the panaramic views afforded by the sumptious amount of windows? Well those are the original windows and as was customary at the time, they are “one-off” creations made on-site. They are single paned, non-argon gas filled, leaded glass. This means they are not of standardized sizes, i.e. it is cheaper to change the wall openings than “special order” the multitude of windows. As the picture shows, there is no consistencey in the houses own window sizes, so price breaks due to quantity of order are(pardon the pun) out the window. A quick scan of the main house and outlying bldg’s, you’re looking at ball park $150K right there, un-installed.

3) The home has 5 fire places, equiped with cast-iron flues that are none to air tight. Heat loss from this alone is beyond “considerable” and would necessitate either extensive gutting and rebuild, or bricking them in altogether, destroy the charm & ambiance. To keep functional figure $10K ea.

4) Above I mention the clad walls, the old growth mohogany available 100yrs ago, no longer existis. To go in dismantle, (oh so carefully) then etch/# it’s location in order to reassemble on the backside, ship off to Ohio to be “chemically dipped” and shipped back to be restained and revarnished and put back in place after pulling the plaster and latte, with labor $50K easy.

5) The reason you have to go through the ardous costly process of #4, is to replace all the “cloth wrapped” electrical wire, it’s very energy inefficient. Not to mention the fire hazard. Now hopefully as with most houses from this period, the up-stairs is not clad as well, if it bump $ accordingly. The elec Contractor to completely rewire a house this size will hit you for around $125K

1-5 are just what hits the eye on first glance, trust me old homes are rife with “mission creep” and one thing leads to another. But put the house on the market again, the Obama’s would have to nearly pay the original purchase price again to bring it into compliance.

Archimedes on September 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM

“If you’ve ever lived in military housing, then you know what a “government inspection” is like. ”

I forgot all about that. It was a pain in the neck. How about the inspections they had outside of your home. If the grass was to high you would get written up. I got written up once because my carport was not mowed? I did fight that one. Just think this is what we will have to look forward to! Priceless!

margretto on September 23, 2009 at 12:26 PM

How about this? Sellers may not misrepresent their product. Buyers can offer what it is worth to them. They strike a deal or they don’t.

SheofTwoMinds on September 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Not nearly complicated enough, how is a lawyer supposed to make money off of that?

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM

So freakin evil.
A fixer upper is a way to increase your personal wealth. You buy a cheap house and you invest a little money and a lot of sweat equity. You sell the house down the road someday and you get back a nice harvest from all you invested.
Lots of people do this.
They know what they are doing.
Private property is the poor man’s way to a little wealth. And personal wealth is the real target.

JellyToast on September 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Foreclosures? That’s not the only way to get out of a house you can’t afford. It just happens to be the legal way to walk away.

Add to the list of unintended consequences a marked increase in homes that burn to the ground so that fire insurance can be collected.

Expect ACORN offices to be “counseling” their clients on:

1) How to make sure you are adequately insured for your losses
2) How to safely start a fire that is difficult to attribute to arson
3) How to safely navigate an arson investigation

trapeze on September 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Private property is the poor man’s way to a little wealth. And personal wealth is the real target.

JellyToast on September 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM

True.

And liberals, who claim to love poor people, love to keep them living poorly.

I moved here to Texas from DC. DC where a 1500 square foot shoebox with a yard measuring 1 yard by 1 yard will cost you at LEAST $500K and you’ll sit in traffic half the day and you’ll have property/state taxes out the ying yang.

THAT’s how they like it.

Here in Texas, I bought a 2700 sq. ft. house with a nice sized yard, 20 minutes from downtown for under $300K. No state income tax here.

This is how they DON’T want people of moderate income to live and why they all hate Texas.

In the local paper, we get letters all the time from liberals about how we need “smart growth” and other coastal crap down here. They have no idea how good they have it here, but they want to turn us into a few Beltway elites, surrounded by the huddled masses in shoebox government issue concrete apartments.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I’m not sure that this is right. Although I am sure that an FHA-backed purchase might be a “federal transaction” under the statute, it should be noted that FHA restrictions already in place pretty much preclude using FHA financing for a fixer-upper.

Bullshit. FHA inspections are a joke, and only insure the house is barely ‘livable’. My first house was a fixer-upper with an FHA loan, and I relied on the FHA inspection when I purchased it. 7 years later, when I went to sell, my private home inspector found a bunch of stuff that the FHA inspector never found because it wasn’t in the FHA scope, like previous termite damage, questionable electrical problems, and a couple of foundation issues.

In addition, I’d love to see how a Fannie/Freddie transaction would fall under the purview of the statute. Keep in mind a couple things: (1) neither Fannie nor Freddie are actually federal agencies (yet), and (2) even if they were, their involvement in residential mortgages are solely in the secondary market. Although they set guidelines for how loans are originated on the front end, they don’t actually step into and become part of the deal until (moments) after the deal is done.

Bullshit again. Fannie and Freddy loans are funneled through FHA and VA. THOSE are the federal agencies that will regulate the sale. I’ve had to fill out a bunch more paperwork to get an FHA-backed loan. Once those agencies OK the sale, a Fannie or Freddy will underwrite to mortgage, mostly through a surrogate bank that will service the loan.

Selkirk on September 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Phil-351 on September 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

From my read, all this bill does is require that energy efficiency assessments be a) based on inspection rather than guessing, and b) be explicit for both the buyer and seller. I can find NO requirement that anything be repaired or changed to meet any energy efficiency standard.

In short, this particular controversy appears to be invented rather than real.

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Angus,

Go here and read:

http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/aip/archive/2009/07/08/if-you-don-t-hate-the-cap-and-trade-bill-let-me-show-you-section-304.aspx

AW1 Tim on September 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I’ll have to find the section but there is a mandate that all housing will need to meet the green standards of the bill by 2018. The operative point is all housing not just those being bought and sold.

My reading of that section is that it covers only new construction. It specifies that it requires compliance by homes “built” according to the code–that is, new homes. For example, in some ways my home built in 1968 is not up to 2009 codes in other areas. However, it is grandfathered in.

AngusMc on September 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Anyone remember DeNiro’s character in “Brazil”?

LibertyBoyNYC on September 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I have an old house with huge old wooden single pane windows. There is no way on God’s Green Earth it would pass muster with the Green Police. But every Fall, I put the shrink wrap on each one, and seal them up, tight as a drum. My heating bills are on par with my neighbors who have new houses with ugly, vinyl, squinty-little double pane windows.

And in the Spring, the shinkwrap comes off and I throw open those glorious double-hung windows and let the breezes blow through my house. In the Summertime, I don’t spend one thin dime on cooling the place, but my modern “energy-efficient” neighbor has his central air conditioning running 24/7.

I can show my utility bills back for years, and demonstrate that my house far outperforms modern construction, but I will not be able to pass a tightness test or check the box for double-pane windows, so my house can’t be sold. Not that it matters to me, because I’m leaving this house in a pine box. But it will mean an inconvenience and expense for my wife and family if they ever go to sell.

One thing is for sure… If you see anybody putting double-pane vinyl windows in my house, you will know that I am dead.

Haiku Guy on September 23, 2009 at 1:26 PM

1-5 are just what hits the eye on first glance, trust me old homes are rife with “mission creep” and one thing leads to another. But put the house on the market again, the Obama’s would have to nearly pay the original purchase price again to bring it into compliance.

Archimedes on September 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Well, you can be sure the inspector will be willing to look the other way for such an exaulted personage as President Obama.

Either that or a “friend” will come along to help with the expenses.

Or, perhaps, you will foot the bill as the upgrades are handled by the Secret Service…

Haiku Guy on September 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM

But put the house on the market again, the Obama’s would have to nearly pay the original purchase price again to bring it into compliance.

Archimedes on September 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM

While it would be nice to see the Obama’s pay the original purchase price ONCE (as Rezko pretty much footed the bill the first time), that wouldn’t be worth the price to the rest of us, to have this thing pass.

NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Silly Rabbit, it’s not about making the house green or saving the planet, it’s about controlling your life. Heh.

johnmackeygreene on September 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3