I read something encouraging in today's Times Argus. The Vermont Legislature is proposing a tax on new homes built over 4,000 square feet. Be ready for the free-market whine brigade to start complaining: Under the Senate version of the proposed law, those who put up new houses larger than 4,000 square feet would be charged unless their buildings were energy efficient.
A similar bill likely to be introduced soon in the House is even tougher. Fees assessed under that proposal on such large houses will go directly to a fund promoting renewable energy production in the state.Of course, the builders associations are opposed:
Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, said he will introduce his House bill, which would impose a $1,000 per-square-foot surcharge on the construction of houses over 4,000 square feet.
"It's meant to make people think about what they are doing," said Klein, who added that to some extent all Vermonters underwrite the cost of energy and other impacts of large new homes. "When they build these homes, everybody in Vermont has to pay for it," he said.
"It's just ridiculous. It's just awful," Joe Sinagra of the Homebuilders and Remodelers Association of Northern Vermont said of Klein's proposal. "We have a housing crisis and you are adding an additional cost on housing."Of course, Sinagra fails to mention that the very real housing crisis in Vermont has to do with affordable housing, not second homeowners who can afford to build a second home over 4,000 square feet. As I look deep within my heart to try and find some compassion for them, it's just not there. Sorry.
I support this strongly, especially on philosophical grounds; namely, there's a huge contingency of Americans who seem oblivious to the idea of taking and using much more than necessary, regardless of the impact it has on society and the planet. Maybe this will, as Klein said, 'make people think about what they're doing.' Or not.
8 comments:
So someone building a 5000 sq ft house would be subject to a ONE MILLION DOLLAR fine. Riiiight. Someone needs to point out to Klein that April Fools' day is a ways off.
As a member of the free market whine brigade I have to ask why start at 4000 sq ft or more. All new construction should be energy efficient. Not only are you creating a market and as a result jobs for this type construction but you are very quickly bringing the price down on these materials making them more affordable in the long run. This way it wouldn't be an issue of the free market whine brigade vs. the leftist crunch posse. It would just be the right thing to do.
MJM
Klien is a wing-nut. How many jobs are created when a new custom house is under construction? A 4,000 sqft house has a ripple effect that goes beyond 100's of jobs, good paying jobs at that! Energy efficiency is a good idea, but reward it, don't penalize it.
If someone from Boston or NY wants to build a large house, leave it to the local town to make sure it fits into the town plan, but if they only use it for a few months out of the year, how much energy is that anyway? I think the state and town can benefit from the increased tax base. Also, out of state owners rely on caretakers (another good job for local folks), gardeners, and the list goes on…
Why try to kill the Golden Goose? All that will be left in VT will be a bunch of people wondering who will pay the taxes, with no one making any income!
Well said, anon #3.
Some of you do bring up some good points, and I think that ideally, we should have energy-efficiency related penalties for everyone, not just the rich. But let's just say the rich can afford to be wasteful more than others, so this is a good start. Just because one can afford to be wasteful doesn't mean they should.
Even if your intention is to target the rich, going after house size isn't the way to do it. I know people with net worths in the 8-9 figures who don't own a single house over 4000 sq ft. They own more than a couple of houses, though.
More importantly, because of the $1000 figure, this legislation was obviously not proposed as something having any expectation of passing, but rather as a way to make some bizarre statement. If a lawmaker's going to waste everyone's time with something like that, they should at least have something coherent to say. In this case, it pretty much boils down to "I don't like big houses." Klein's constituents should take note.
See, snarkiness aside, it shouldn't be about targeting the rich, per se, because you are right. Not everyone who is rich is not socially conscious (often in VT, there are quite a bit of progressive rich people). It's more an issue of the efficiency, and I think what Klein is saying is that certain people who can afford a second 4,000+ sq foot home aren't thinking about efficiency, and hopefully this will make them think about it.
I saw some problems with the idea, and it might just be to make a point - God knows what that might be - but there are better ways to control the size of houses, and there's plenty of smaller houses that are as energy-efficient as the McMansions.
http://savingthecity.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-use-flyswatter-when-you-can-use.html
Post a Comment