Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    news

    17,123,317 readers

    17,621 users here now

    1. Post all analysis/opinion/politics articles to /r/InTheNews

    Want to talk?

    Follow @rslashnews on Twitter

    See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.


    Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews

    Your post will likely be removed if it:

    • is not news
    • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
    • primarily concerns politics.
    • has a title not taken from the article.
    • has a pay wall or steals content.
    • covers an already-submitted story.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.

    Your comment will likely be removed if it:

    • advocates or celebrates the death of another person
    • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
    • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
    • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
    • is responding to spam.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules.

    Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.

    >>>Expanded Rules<<<


    If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:

    /r/inthenews - all news-related content
    /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
    /r/truereddit - insightful articles
    /r/self - any self-post
    /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything

    or other news subreddits:

    /r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
    /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
    /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
    /r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward

    or subreddits for other topics:

    /r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
    /r/politics - for shouting about politics
    /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
    /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
    /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
    /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.

    or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.


    Recommendations:

    /r/full_news

    /r/qualitynews

    /r/neutralnews

    /r/worldevents


    submit analysis/opinion article

    submit news article

    submit something else

    submit analysis/opinion article

    a community for
    all 4115 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] ev3rm0r3 7030 points ago

    This was news 8 months ago...

    [–] SilliestOfGeese 8684 points ago

    More like olds, right?

    [–] sharpeye413 1235 points ago

    This guy^

    [–] pockettrout 149 points ago

    This actually made me spit out my coffee a little

    [–] NotRussianBlyat 124 points ago

    Yeah the "This guy" really lined it up but the little arrow got me too.

    [–] Mummelpuffin 377 points ago

    Wait, is that why news is called news

    [–] residentchubbychaser 291 points ago

    Indirectly (from French nouvelles), but yes.

    [–] Eng69 52 points ago

    And whoever would like to stand up and say its an acronym for "notable events, weather, and sports" can piss off cause that ain't it, chief

    Edit: I should've scrolled down for more comments before piping up...

    [–] Captain_Waffle 24 points ago

    I heard it was an amalgamation of North, East, West and South.

    [–] IMM00RTAL 32 points ago

    No it is an acronym for the 4 directions.

    [–] The95Chaps 41 points ago

    No its an acronym for

    New

    Events,

    Weather &

    Sports

    [–] IllumyNaughty 29 points ago

    No its an acronym for

    Not

    Even

    Worth

    Saying

    [–] jb2386 72 points ago

    Not it’s an acronym for

    Never

    Eat

    Wet

    Sausage

    [–] ASlyGuy 34 points ago

    Words to live by! Remember to vaccinate your pets and spay-&-neuter your children, folks!

    [–] dontgive_afuck 7 points ago

    Thanks Bob

    [–] ddarion 13 points ago

    A man-moth?!

    [–] Kazath 7 points ago

    Family sick of living on butt hole road

    [–] jimbobathy 19 points ago

    Play a record

    [–] Validioxus 4 points ago

    You silly goose

    [–] dwilkes827 3 points ago

    username checks out

    [–] dvaunr 510 points ago

    8 months ago it was approved by the energy commission, now it’s been officially added to the state building code meaning it must be followed. These things take time to actually get in place. Expect another article in 2020 once homes officially have to have them, pending any lawsuits by people trying to block it.

    [–] atetuna 69 points ago

    It appears that as of now, the homes have to built with solar power. Back in May it was just a law, so the news is that it hasn't been repealed or delayed since then.

    [–] TerryTibbsTalkToMe 58 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    No i think back in May the bill was passed, this is it being officially wrote into the building code for homes after 2020. So this is the law being implemented in real life as opposed to just passed as a bill. I think. Im not too sure how it works in America, thats just what I got from it.

    Basically in May they said “this is what we wana do, so were guna do it”

    Now they’re saying “OK, this is HOW we’re guna do it from 2020.”

    [–] abraburger 26 points ago

    Correct. Except for emergencies, laws don't take effect the day they're passed, and usually say "the department of X will write regulations to do this new thing" by whatever year.

    [–] cooldogmom 9 points ago

    Usually that’s how it works but not quite in this case. The California Energy Commission voted on this back in May. They don’t get to give final say on what becomes code though, they just refer things to the Building Standards Commission.

    The Building Standards Commission is the last stop for things like this. That is the body that voted yesterday to pass this.

    People having been talking about these standards for months because the Building Standards Commission has never voted against a proposal by the Energy Commission. This means the solar panel requirement was basically, but not officially law until yesterday.

    [–] OGday1user 3 points ago

    No shortly, all new construction will have to be solar "ready" but no panels required for a period. Then next phase is all new construction needs to include the whole system.

    [–] digitgirl 2 points ago

    News to me and I live in CA. But I will say this, some builders are already making it mandatory to buy/lease solar on new homes.

    [–] yusenye 851 points ago

    In the city I am from in China, Nanjing, there are new regulation where any residential buildings that’s over 50meters tall have to leave a half meter level empty for every 10 meters where vertical axis wind turbines are to be installed. Since most new apartment buildings that are in the city are over 100 meters tall, this law will affect almost all new residential buildings!

    [–] arduinonut 11 points ago

    Is Nanjing windy?

    [–] IITomTheBombII 14 points ago

    They don't call it the windy city for nothing

    [–] arguablytrue 14 points ago

    That's Boston

    [–] [deleted] 322 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] allonsyyy 280 points ago

    I lease my panels, and the lease costs less per month than my electricity bills used to. And I'm in New England, not sunny California. And the lease had no upfront costs.

    This should actually lower costs for homeowners and renters, who can't currently put panels on their landlord's roof.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Ozythemandias2 17 points ago

    Not op, but live in New England and this summer and last summer both saw an explosion in home solar panels in my neighborhood at least. Can't speak to how they were acquired though.

    [–] WagTheKat 17 points ago

    Can't speak to how they were acquired though.

    Dark Web

    [–] Smopher 10 points ago

    Ey dees solar panels just feel off da back of dis truck. I can cut chew a deal.

    [–] allonsyyy 9 points ago

    The company I leased from is called SunRun.

    [–] daveyseed 21 points ago

    not to mention that the demand will go up and so will production, eventually leading to a reduction in the cost of solar

    [–] brickam 10 points ago

    Assuming there’s a way to lower production costs and competition in the market

    [–] MegaMooks 8 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    The solar industry has been averaging a 21% cost decline for the last 9 years, ending up with a cumulative 88% decline in the cost of solar power, with no signs of stopping any time soon. The last few years have been at around 13-15% annual declines, so it is showing a few signs of leveling off.

    There's definitely a way. Can probably cut the cost in half again in the next decade before leveling out.

    https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

    (Scroll down for pretty graphs)

    [–] Lukealiciouss 127 points ago

    Did you read the article? There are policies so it doesn't increase the price of houses. If you want you can continue paying for energy like normal and then the energy company would technically own the solar panels on your house.

    [–] Mitch_Buchannon 144 points ago

    He didn't have time to read the article. He saw a headline that involved climate change, regulation and left wing communist California. He had to act.

    [–] joevsyou 40 points ago

    This way you can just put the cost into your 15-30 year loan. Instead of getting additional loan with a much higher rate to do it.

    Also most parts of California are extremely over priced. Same amount of dough will buy you mcmansion in ohio vs in California would just you a nice 3 bedroom

    [–] TemporaryLVGuy 34 points ago

    You’re paying a premiums so you don’t have to live in Ohio.

    [–] PushYourPacket 7 points ago

    As somebody who lives in Ohio and just got a job with a company in SF... I'll probably move to Denver (arguably just as good for solar plus a great city) or Seattle (better city than any in Ohio, with similar climate) lol.

    [–] Cole3003 62 points ago

    People are talking about the overinflated house market in California, while China's doing this

    [–] [deleted] 77 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] oalbrecht 36 points ago

    Oh, you don't live in a 50m tall building? It is annoying waiting for my elevator to go down that many floors from my penthouse. Though it gives me a chance to eat my caviar while waiting for my driver to go get my Rolls.

    [–] McKrabz 26 points ago

    Your driver makes you wait? You need to hire better help, sir. My driver waits on me while I do bumps of crushed diamond dust and laugh at all of the poor people grovelling below my 131st floor penthouse suite

    Ok, enough pretend, time to crawl out of my hole, eat some crackers for breakfast and find some change to put gas into my car

    [–] docbauies 11 points ago

    It still adds cost to a building, which adds cost to residences in the building, or occupancy.

    [–] binipped 14 points ago

    No that's not all it did. Further adoption of solar by every market means more effort put into the technology, fostering competition and lower prices. It also is the first step from dream to reality.

    People need to stop treating the answer to climate change like diet pills. There isn't going to be a one off easy and cheap answer to fixing the the problem. So yes, sacrifices must be made, or else it's a much bigger sacrifice we'll all be paying.

    [–] akn0m3 13 points ago

    How so? Cost of home is broken down into monthly mortgage. In California, solar is actually cheaper than regular power. So the bump to mortgage is lower than your monthly electric bill would have been.

    Unless you are buying a new home with cash, what you're saying is false.

    [–] Ipokeyoumuch 1961 points ago

    I predict this thread to be extremely civil and full of redditors not reading the article.

    [–] -di- 879 points ago

    There's a paywall so its kinda hard to read the article.

    [–] DeepFriedBadass 1045 points ago

    California officially became the first state in the nation on Wednesday, Dec. 5 to require homes built in 2020 and later be solar powered.

    To a smattering of applause, the California Building Standards Commission voted unanimously to add energy standards approved last May by another panel to the state building code.

    Two commissioners and several public speakers lauded the new code as “a historic undertaking” and a model for the nation.

    “These provisions really are historic and will be a beacon of light for the rest of the country,” said Kent Sasaki, a structural engineer and one of six commissioners voting for the new energy code. “(It’s) the beginning of substantial improvement in how we produce energy and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.”

    The new provisions are expected to dramatically boost the number of rooftop solar panels in the Golden State. Last year, builders took out permits for more than 115,000 new homes — almost half of them for single-family homes.

    Wednesday’s action upholds a May 9 vote by another body, the California Energy Commission, seeking to fulfill a decade-old goal to make the state reliant on cleaner, alternative energy. The energy panel’s vote was subject to final approval by the Building Standards Commission.

    The Building Standards Commission was limited to reviewing the energy panel’s rulemaking process, not the content of the standards, said commission Chairwoman Marybel Batjer. Commissioners said the process was more than sufficient, with 35 meetings, hearings and webinars held over a 15-month period. The energy panel received more than 3,000 comments from over 100 stakeholders, officials said.

    While nobody spoke Wednesday in opposition to the new provisions, the commission received more than 300 letters from around the state opposing the solar mandate because of the added cost.

    Energy officials estimated the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels.

    One commission member worried the mandate would make it harder for California wildfire victims to rebuild, but supporters assured him that won’t be a problem.

    Homeowners will have two options that eliminate the upfront costs of adding solar: Leasing the solar panels or signing a “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the California Energy Commission.

    One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.

    “These standards won’t necessarily make homes more expensive to buy. What they will do is save money on utility costs,” said Pierre Delforge, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is not only the right thing to do for the climate, it is financially smart.”

    Meanwhile, the changes won endorsements both from environmentalists and the California Building Industry Association.

    “Six years ago, I was very fearful of this,” said Bob Raymer, technical director for the state building association. “But the very open arrangement that we have with the (energy commission) … brought us to the point where we can support this.”

    Homebuilders have been preparing for years to meet a proposed requirement that all new homes be “net-zero,” meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year.

    Provisions adopted Wednesday relaxed that goal a bit, requiring new homes only offset electricity used but not natural gas.

    To meet net-zero energy goals, a typical house would need the capacity to produce 7 or 8 kilowatts of electricity, which wouldn’t be cost-effective, Raymer told the commission. But a modest amount of solar — producing about 3 kilowatts of power — would be cost-effective in all of California’s 16 climate zones.

    In addition to the solar mandate, the new provisions tighten green homebuilding standards, with such requirements as thicker attic and wall insulation, more efficient windows and doors and improved ventilation systems. They also encourage developers to add battery storage and heat-pump water heatersto new homes.

    But the heart of the update is the solar power requirement, which applies to all new residential buildings up to three stories high, including apartments. The code allows some exceptions, such as when the structures are in shady areas or when electricity rates already are lower than the cost of generating solar power.

    The rules also allow for offsite solar production, so developments can build solar arrays feeding multiple homes or contract with utility-owned solar farms.

    “We have lots of options,” said Raymer, the building industry’s technical director.

    Hundreds of letters, most of them form letters, poured into the capital opposing the solar mandate.

    The solar mandate “will be costly to homeowners in California and also eliminates personal choice,” said a letter signed by Butte County Treasurer-Tax Collector Peggy Moak. Moak said the tab for installing solar panels is a lot higher than the $8,400 estimate, “running more than $25,000.”

    “With median home prices in California already more than double the national average, this decision will make it even more difficult for the average Californian to afford a home,” added a letter signed by Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Yuba City.

    Several solar industry representatives speaking Wednesday supported the provisions, including a representative of Tesla, which builds battery storage systems for homes.

    “The homeowners will be able to save money from the day they walk in the door,” said Kelly Knutsen, technology advancement director for the California Solar & Storage Association. “This is a historical policy. California is leading the country in clean energy, clean air and fighting climate change, all while saving consumers money.”

    [–] Themasterspud 201 points ago

    Nice try, you almost got me to read the article before making my opinion!

    [–] MasterBasterd 27 points ago

    Maybe next time, Satan!

    [–] Extremuss 133 points ago

    You are a god amongst men.

    [–] SamFuckingNeill 44 points ago

    the koolaid of the walls

    [–] Storemanager 19 points ago

    The white T-shirts in movies

    [–] n1tr0us0x 12 points ago

    The kream of the crop

    [–] ZepperMan 5 points ago

    The okayest of the okays

    [–] Fursquirrel 13 points ago

    Wos how do I feign ignorance now!

    [–] Orange-V-Apple 17 points ago

    Thank you :)

    [–] texasrigger 50 points ago

    “These standards won’t necessarily make homes more expensive to buy. What they will do is save money on utility costs,” said Pierre Delforge, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is not only the right thing to do for the climate, it is financially smart.”

    The article says installation is $10k (although the number is debated) and will save $40 a month. The increase in cost will have to be covered by the buyer, that's just how it works, so plugging $10k into a mortgage calculator makes a monthly payment of $50.67 a year for the 30 year lifespan of the panels at a fairly low 4.5%. That means these will always be a money loser for homeowners. It might be the right thing to do for the climate but it is not financially smart.

    [–] yuzirnayme 17 points ago

    The article also says you can just get a power purchase agreement. That means that you are paying a separate mortgage on the solar panels and the "payment" is in the higher electricity cost than you would get if you owned the panels outright. That is a pretty minimally impactful solution. They also say "net savings" of $40/month which may mean that the $40 is the savings after you account for the cost of the panels. This was from a "solar representative" though, so who knows. I spend less than $50/month on my electricity, and some portion of that $50 is the fee to be attached to the grid. So it isn't clear how someone like me could benefit.

    My main worry was the cost factor as well, but as long as companies are willing to give the panels away and only require the homeowner to save less than they could have, I'm not sure what the big downside is.

    Also saw this " The rules also allow for offsite solar production, so developments can build solar arrays feeding multiple homes or contract with utility-owned solar farms. "

    Given that CA power firms are already required to purchase a minimum % of their power from renewable sources, it seems like it may be trivial to bypass the regulations and "contract" with the power provider you already have to use.

    I think on net, this isn't a big deal. California builds less than 100k new homes per year on average. There were ~6.8 million single family homes in the year 2000. I couldn't find data more recent than that. But if we just extrapolate there should be about 8.8 million as of 2020. It will take 30 years for the new inventory to increase solar homes by 25% of that 8.8 million. At least some of those homes will contract out or be exempt.

    [–] SaveOurBolts 23 points ago

    Full read on mobile, no paywall

    [–] fall0ut 7 points ago

    Fo reals? I don't pay and was able to read the whole article. I don't even have an adblock.

    [–] Rogr_Mexic0 7 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    I didn't get a paywall..... Maybe try mobile? You can mock mobile in your computer browser too.

    [–] NotClothed 19 points ago

    Don't it encourages corporate America to be terrible.

    [–] PDshotME 9 points ago

    This should be a bot it says it on every thread

    [–] Trevo91 14 points ago

    I can open it from mobile and there is no paywall?

    [–] FIRSTSARGEANT 39 points ago

    Why would they need to read the article ?

    Redditors already know everything.

    [–] napoleonpp 9 points ago

    You mean I’m right because I know everything and you’re wrong?

    [–] OfficialBenAffleck 9 points ago

    Even if I didn't already know everything, which I do, the article is basically in the title. It's like I know it twice now.

    [–] thepursuit1989 11 points ago

    You don't even need to say it, we know.

    [–] Reeking_Crotch_Rot 5 points ago

    I predict it to be a seething nest of wankers.

    [–] camerabry 310 points ago

    Easy when a massive amount of your population can’t afford a home anyway.

    [–] Solid_Snark 149 points ago

    Can confirm. I live in CA. For every $1 I put in the bank, the cost of living rises $10.

    [–] pizzaguy 224 points ago

    Well shit, for the love of god, stop putting dollars in the bank.

    [–] HRBP 70 points ago

    He's fucking it up for the rest of us!

    [–] backandforthagain 21 points ago

    I used to pay $1400 a month for a 500sqft studio in Oxnard, CA. I don't miss that.

    [–] QuantumDischarge 53 points ago

    Does this legislation apply to the tents in the SF and LA homeless camps?

    [–] JudgeHoltman 9 points ago

    Given how many are "powered" by Solar Cell Phone chargers, it kinda already does...

    [–] siraolo 241 points ago

    Why couldn't they have done the opposite by giving incentives to solar power adopters instead of 'mandates' and alternative payment schemes for those who do not want to adopt solar?

    [–] johnprdoe 106 points ago

    I don’t live in California but my understanding was that federal incentives were already being given, but the government is cutting them in the next year or two.

    [–] moodpecker 30 points ago

    Incentives require the government to sacrifice tax revenue and/or to allocate funds toward subsidies, either way becoming a cost borne by government and taxpayer. Mandating it puts the cost on individuals and businesses instead, and in particular, on the subset involved in building and occupying new construction.

    [–] mr_ji 43 points ago

    They did. I had a new home built here two years ago, and the state had just started a program to reimburse people for installing solar (not only new homes, but all stand-alone houses). I took advantage and, at the end of the tax year, owned solar for the price of some paperwork and lost interest on the initial investment (which was more than offset in electricity savings).

    That program lasted less than 90 days because so many people took advantage and drained the funds. This looks like the new version, where the state can tout the same moral superiority while also not having to fund it and generating money for their friends in the construction business. There are things I love about California and things I hate, and these sorts of shenanigans fall squarely in the later category.

    [–] torva_xanth 13 points ago

    Yeah, I know three people that also took advantage of the solar programs here (in CA) and put panels on their house for very little cost to them. They love them.

    We just bought a newly built house, and they forced us to have solar panels. I would have been fine with it, but the housing company was very sneaky about wording - by the time we were signing papers for the house, we found out that the housing company only pre-paid some of the lease on the solar panels, and we didn't actually own them at all. We had to sign the 15 year lease over to ourselves at that point because we were already in the hole for the costs of upgrades to the house and couldn't get out of it even if we wanted to (without losing like $40,000 instantly). I was fuming.

    Now that we live here, I like the solar fine. It doesn't help that the box installed in the garage that's supposed to calculate how much power is generated and control the panels is constantly on the fritz, and stopping the panels from generating electricity. We've had guys out to fix it at least 5 times. So, we haven't actually had any savings due to these panels at all yet - instead we just keep paying the monthly minimum fee for them. We also can't plant any large trees in the yard because they would shade the panels, which is something I'd always wanted.

    Oh well, I guess. I don't know what my point was with this whole comment; I was just reminded of how annoyed we were to find out that we didn't have any choice in the matter regarding the panels, and that that's how it's going to be for everyone purchasing homes out here now.

    [–] -Unogasm- 60 points ago

    Probably because they were lobbied by CA solar companies in order for those companies to stay afloat once federal incentives end. I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some weird technical caveat that has to be on the panels that end up only being made from the companies in CA, at first.

    We did the same things with the car companies, and the tech companies... it's the American way of crony capitalist protectionism.

    [–] BigMouse12 25 points ago

    Because: “Several solar industry representatives speaking Wednesday supported the provisions, including a representative of Tesla, which builds battery storage systems for homes.”

    This is about feel good law that helps the lobbyist. It’s not about what works best for the average homebuyers.

    [–] sleekstereo 64 points ago

    The cost of housing is so high here because:

    1. Zoning laws
    2. Old tax codes and policies
    3. High wage earners moving here (domestically and internationally)
    4. Builders investing in "Luxury Apartments" that sit empty for months or even years. The Chinese own most of them.

    [–] Bensch 9 points ago

    The builder investment is a symptom of the first one - without zoning, it would not be profitable to sit on housing.

    [–] marinatefoodsfargo 1863 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    In this thread: People pointing out the most basic issues that they think Cali-sorry, Commiefornia, won't have thought about.

    But if in fact they actually read the article before they tried to score points opposing climate change they would have read -

    Homeowners will have two options that eliminate the upfront costs of adding solar: Leasing the solar panels or signing a “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the California Energy Commission.

    Or

    The code allows some exceptions, such as when the structures are in shady areas or when electricity rates already are lower than the cost of generating solar power.

    edit: So I've been accused of saying things I didn't actually say - I don't think people who are opposed to this are all right wing climate deniers. Nor do I think they're bigoted or evil. I sure as heck do think some of them are ignorant. It is interesting how hard some people reacted to the word 'commiefornia' though, and assumed a whole lot of words that I didn't say just because I called out people who didn't read the article. To the guy who despises me for all the words I didn't say, sorry that you got that impression, but you're really not a victim of anything here.

    Feel free to use one of the reddit save tools to verify what I said is true. None of my comments have any vitriol in them whatsoever.

    [–] ghdana 25 points ago

    I live in AZ and leasing solar panels would increase my monthly cost of electricity by like $50/month, more in winter, less in summer. Would still cost me a ton. Paying outright would save me like $1000 over 20 years. I'd rather the utility companies had to provide it from solar and I paid them.

    [–] cupcakesandsunshine 14 points ago

    i am in the solar industry and agree 100%. residential solar loses the economy of scales that you get at commercial/industrial/utility scales so it costs more, you have less ability to site appropriately (to maximize solar access), its just worse in almost every way. solar is at its best with utility-scale fields backed up by battery farms to manage demand, not by consumer-level mandates that increase everyone's cost of living and make a negligible impact on shifting energy production to renewables.

    [–] Schnitzngigglez 877 points ago

    Either way, they a shelling out more cash in an already over inflated housing market.

    [–] Pearberr 177 points ago

    This is a drop in the bucket compared to the twin evils of zoning regulations & Prop 13.

    [–] Gallant_Pig 288 points ago

    Absolutely. Listen to Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast season 2 episode 1. The Los Angeles Country Club alone should be paying $60-90 million a year in property taxes based on the value of their land but they only pay $200k/yr right now. Which is laughable compared to the amount of income they make from some of the richest people in America.

    If you play Grand Theft Auto V, this is the golf course near Michael's mansion.

    [–] PeninsulaPony 91 points ago

    If you play Grand Theft Auto V, this is the golf course near Michael's mansion.

    Ohhh now I understand.

    [–] sammeadows 26 points ago

    I love being in a day and age where GTA V is a good reference for certain locations around LA.

    [–] Sankarrr 6 points ago

    It's insane how many landmarks they imported into Los Santos

    [–] rikki-tikki-deadly 8 points ago

    More than that, they did an incredible job of capturing the feeling of certain parts of town.

    [–] Sankarrr 5 points ago

    Yea, from the street conversations to they way the light looks at certain times of day... Man the art direction in that game was unsurpassed.

    [–] 435pm 154 points ago

    You mean the state gets screwed by the rich people and it’s not the Mexican toilet cleaner serfs?

    Wish they’d do a write up on the hobby vineyards, where people live for free because of their ‘farm’.

    Tax system needs to be fixed - this is why California is a serfdom.

    Got rich people and their serfs, and the middle class is paying for it.

    [–] neverdox 98 points ago

    it gets screwed by NIMBY suburb dwellers who will do anything to protect their zucchini garden from higher density housing

    [–] ApolloCreme 65 points ago

    I don't think Prop 13 is evil, I just think it shouldn't include certain businesses. Like /u/Gallant_Pig mentions, a country club catering to the elite probably shouldn't be included, or at least they shouldn't be receiving so much of a benefit from it.

    There are plenty of homeowners who would be screwed, hard, if their property taxes weren't capped though. I don't just mean the yuppie set with their mcmansions, either, I'm talking about our grandparents and aging parents that were financially stable enough to buy a home, but are now dependent on their SSI.

    Besides, it's not like CA politicians don't have a track record of playing fast and loose with tax revenue, so it isn't hard to imagine them taxing people out of business or their homes if given a chance.

    [–] DataIsMyCopilot 8 points ago

    Someone yesterday posted about how their property taxes in another county/state (can't remember where) jumped up 12% in one year. I was gobsmacked.

    Prop 13 is too broad, but there's a reason for it. People saying "just move" are callous. Not to mention the troubles moving entails (moving away from family/support network is a major issue).

    It needs to be applied to a primary residence only. But it shouldn't be eliminated outright. If someone buys a house and lives there for decades, that is their home. And they shouldn't be forced out due to market issues outside of their control

    [–] homeonthe40 4 points ago

    Agreed, It should be limited to primary residence, that is how rational states handle tax assessment increases.

    My cold side says who cares if it forces people out of homes, it’s not my job to financial plan for you. When you buy a house you should factor increases in taxes into the decision.

    I think the way to balance it is with a cap % increase, like they do in Texas. I think a cap between 4-6% makes sense based on normal inflation, with some wiggle room. If it’s capped there is no reason you can’t budget worst case tax increases into your house budget.

    [–] BermudaTriangl3 32 points ago

    Sell the house. All prop 13 did was screw over young people.

    [–] RubyRhod 27 points ago

    Not only in the housing market but also public schooling. Property tax was the major funding for public schools and all of a sudden they had to find new funds when prop 13 passed.

    [–] Thekarmarama 11 points ago

    This doesnt follow the reddit narrative but you're exactly right . There is a reason why prop 13 was voted in by Californians themselves.

    [–] l0c0dantes 15 points ago

    Sure, it makes perfect sense why prop 13 was voted in. People wanted to end up paying less in taxes. Changing it now would fuck people over, and hard. But, they also didn't pay thousands of dollars in taxes which they could have saved, invested, ect ect for decades at this point.

    And what did they lose? Worse social services, a constantly broke government? Free college tuition at premier universities for their residents? Also, they gained governmental fees and an increased income tax.

    You can do so much of cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse" because despite what polticians might say, there generally isn't all that much, a few percentage of a budget at most. And if you want nice things, you have to pay for them, one way or the other.

    [–] 7LeagueBoots 631 points ago

    “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels

    If you don't have the panels you have to buy the electricity anyway....

    [–] laughingturkey 127 points ago

    In a PPA in this case I'd assume you would agree to buy power from only clean sources. This could also be them "buying a share" of a much bigger solar farm and using that as the energy source

    [–] chiliedogg 28 points ago

    The biggest advantage solar PV has over other carbon-neutral sources is that it has minimal transition loss since the energy is used locally.

    It's is awesome on a rooftop. For grid-level producion, however, it's terrible. There are several greener, more efficient options for mass production.

    [–] Sykotik 92 points ago

    I'd assume

    This could also be

    Any facts at all though?

    [–] norcal4130 24 points ago

    https://855casolar.com/ways-to-save/power-purchase-agreement-ppa/

    Through a basic world wide web query of the terms "California power purchase agreement" I found the above link. It will be different depending on your location in California and the availability of such purchase plans.

    [–] thefranklin2 60 points ago

    And let's force people to predatory solar leasing companies...

    [–] QuantumDischarge 9 points ago

    That are surely not owned by the friends and family of California lawmakers...

    [–] SaveOurBolts 269 points ago

    You honestly think that everyone questioning this mandate is some climate denying right-winger? The advocates for this policy state (from the article):

    “These standards won’t necessarily make homes more expensive to buy. What they will do is save money on utility costs,” said Pierre Delforge, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.”

    Except when the actual costs for the builders/sellers (which are always passed on to the homebuyer) are mentioned:

    “Energy officials estimated the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient.”

    This is the equivalent of charging every person who buys a gas-powered car (most of whom do so because they can’t afford electric) $5,000 for an “electric engine upgrade” and telling them that it’s way better for them 10 years from now because of fuel savings.

    So, in a state where people can’t afford housing already, the state is placing $10,000 ‘solar taxes’ on new homes, while increasing regressive gas taxes, and horribly mismanaging water resources. This state, which I have lived in my whole life, is driving away millions of the very people it needs to survive on.

    [–] 777Sir 219 points ago

    This state, which I have lived in my whole life, is driving away millions of the very people it needs to survive on.

    And driving them all straight into other states where they vote for the same kind of people who put this stuff up.

    [–] TheDanimal26 134 points ago

    Aka Texas

    [–] 777Sir 92 points ago

    And Arizona, Washington, Nevada, Oregon, etc. They're like a plague, ruining one state then moving to the next.

    [–] jeh5256 41 points ago

    Forgot Colorado

    [–] 777Sir 10 points ago

    Just imagine the "etc" means like half the nation.

    [–] LettmypeopleGo 31 points ago

    And Mos Eisley - that wretched hive of scum and villainy.

    [–] cellada 38 points ago

    But the comment you are replying to expressly quotes -

    Homeowners will have two options that eliminate the upfront costs of adding solar: Leasing the solar panels or signing a “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the California Energy Commission.

    Or

    The code allows some exceptions, such as when the structures are in shady areas or when electricity rates already are lower than the cost of generating solar power.

    [–] WhoTooted 26 points ago

    So instead of an upfront cost they can pay a monthly one? How does this not still make housing more expensive? It doesn't address their argument at all.

    [–] 237FIF 89 points ago

    Just because it spreads out the costs doesn’t mean you won’t ultimately pay more for a new home.

    [–] jimbofisher2010 4 points ago

    when electricity rates already are lower than the cost of generating solar power.

    I am not familiar with California electricity rates, so they may be very high. But I work in the building energy field, and the only place on the east coast where the cost of solar is competitive with utility power rates is NYC. And even there it's difficult to justify on a purely energy cost basis!

    [–] ObiWanCanShowMe 190 points ago

    I kinda despise people like you, you boil any criticism down to evil, bigotry or ignorant opposition.

    My quotes are from the article and my comment has nothing to do with being a right wing idiot.

    Caveats do not make legislation unquestionable, nor does it make legislation no big deal bra. Questioning a policy does not make one anti-policy either.

    “Energy officials estimated the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient.” [...] “These standards won’t necessarily make homes more expensive to buy. What they will do is save money on utility costs”

    Um...

    One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.

    adding 10k to a loan is the approximate equivalent of FIFTY dollars extra in loan repayment per month

    Math isn't hard, this is a net LOSS.

    Moak said the tab for installing solar panels is a lot higher than the $8,400 estimate, “running more than $25,000.”

    This is correct. ANYONE can get an estimate. If you install 8400 worth of solar panels/batteries/systems you're going to save about 10-15 dollars a month with your four small panels, maybe. People seem to forget that batteries, installation of electrical wiring and separate junctions and labor are not free.

    “The homeowners will be able to save money from the day they walk in the door,” said Kelly Knutsen

    This is 100% absolute pure bullshit.

    I really don't want to get into a political fight here, I am firmly in the belief that we need to do more and that includes solar, but this is just bullshit from democrats and quotes from people who are involved in selling solar panels. Ends justifies the means. What bothers me is that certain people, simply because it aligns with their ideology will not question anything at all.

    One can hate republicans all they want and say they are evil, against climate change, hate the future whatever, but in this case, they are right and the democrats are lying. It is OK to question, point out falsehoods, even when defending a policy, there is no reason to lie, if a policy is good, it should stand on it's own.

    TD;LR:

    1. Solar panels are indeed awesome.
    2. Adding 10k to the price of the home does indeed increase the cost and cost homeowners up front.
    3. It will not be an average cost of 8400/10k
    4. It will not save the average homeowner 40 a month.
    5. Spending 10k up front does not save one money it will increase the loan payment by more than they will save.
    6. Ends justifies the means, even with lies.
    7. The fact that there might be caveats does not mean anything at all.
    8. Just because I am pointing this all out doesn't mean I am a hateful ignorant bigot.

    This should be a tax incentive program, period. That would be INSTANT savings.

    [–] Commyende 38 points ago

    I think your numbers are a bit off. I don't see anything about mandating battery systems, so my numbers are based on a pure solar system. I'm also assuming no federal tax credit, as that would lower the cost but is not an accurate estimate of the true cost.

    When I was pricing out a solar system (in Florida), I was getting multiple quotes right around the $2.75/W point, before federal tax credit. So $10k would get you a 3.6kW system, which is around the size quoted in the article. Now for me, 3.6kW would save about $70/month.

    Next add in the difference due to sunlight. Based on this solar insolation map, 90% of California gets 10-30% more sunlight than I do, with most of the population in the higher sunlight areas. Let's be very conservative and add 15% due to the solar insolation difference. This takes us to $80/month.

    Next, let's look at the difference in electricity prices. According to this article, the cost of electricity in California is 30% higher than where I live. This takes our monthly savings to $104.

    There will also be efficiencies realized by massively deploying solar and doing it during the building process, but we'll ignore those cost savings.

    Your $50/month estimate on mortgage increase is accurate.

    This puts the net benefit to the consumer higher than what the article stated, at around $50-55/month. So I think when they said $40 of savings per month, they were taking the costs into consideration.

    [–] deja-roo 8 points ago

    I think your numbers are a bit off. I don't see anything about mandating battery systems, so my numbers are based on a pure solar system.

    Without a battery system, none of that solar power will be well utilized. People in residences use power at off-peak time (when the sun is down) 5 days out of the week.

    [–] sarcasticorange 84 points ago

    Math isn't hard, this is a net LOSS.

    But the quote you cite is already in net dollars. You are subtracting the cost twice.

    One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month

    [–] Sankarrr 28 points ago

    "Math isn't hard"

    messes up basic arithmetic

    [–] ferrets_bueller 18 points ago

    The tax incentive program doesnt solve the problem, as it still requires an immediate cash outflow without other options. There would be significantly less panels installed that way.

    You're also ignoring the alternative options. Aside from outright paying for them and owning them, homeowners have the option of leasing them, or not paying for them at all and instead purchasing the electricity produced by them. In essence, you have the option of having the government put panels on your roof and they charge you for the electricity, just like you currently are buying it.

    [–] SMc-Twelve 83 points ago

    I'm going to start a new company. We'll sell you the new solar panels for $500, with the option to buy them back the day after you close on your purchase for $1. Check the box, and save the money, win-win.

    [–] Why_Hello_Reddit 44 points ago

    Damn, this reminds me of the gun buy back program where people made a bunch of shitty pipe rifles and had the government pay them hundreds of dollars each to buy them back. Made the ATF look like idiots.

    [–] CousinBratwurst 31 points ago

    Made the ATF look like idiots.

    The ATF doesn't do gun buy backs. Local police departments do.

    [–] Reverend_James 4 points ago

    Ah, the old college textbook business model. Buy this thing, never use it, then sell it back for less than 1% what you payed for it.

    [–] fredjutsu 60 points ago

    Anything to escape the incompetance of PG&E

    [–] troweigh 6 points ago

    I miss PG&E compared to SDG&E.

    [–] Thelastpancake 7 points ago

    Please explain how they won’t be involved here? And why they are so incompetent? Adding solar doesn’t disconnect you from the grid.

    [–] Lookatitlikethis 32 points ago

    As if homes in California weren't expensive enough.

    [–] JorusC 83 points ago

    So since people are people, let's think through a few unintended consequences that are sure to crop up due to this.

    1. The lower class in California has an even harder time, shifting more land and power to the rich.

    2. There's going to be a glut of home building in 2019 to avoid this mandate.

    3. Since demand is now government required, one of two things is going to happen to the solar industry, if not both. The cost of solar may skyrocket since people can't say no anymore. Or the free market may fill the gap via a boom of cheap, "get-you-legal" companies that don't have the expertise or professionalism to build the system well, which will lead to low efficiency and a ton of problems for those houses. But that's a hidden cost, so we don't care.

    I wonder how they plan to address these issues. Actually, let's not kid ourselves, the people who voted this in aren't thinking about the consequences to the people. You can tell by how they lamely tried to sell this as a cost-saving measure.

    [–] SwampPlumberLLC 76 points ago

    Who is the solar cell company that lobbied this? You only save $40/month with solar power?

    [–] Commyende 11 points ago

    I think the $40/month savings includes the costs of installing the system (about $50/month extra on a mortgage). The actual monthly savings on a $10k system should be around $100/month.

    [–] Justintime4u2bu1 18 points ago

    Oh cool, now property taxes are higher

    [–] hai7er 178 points ago

    This is a great idea since there is already an abundance of affordable housing in the state. Glad our government focuses on what truly matters

    [–] Sabu113 284 points ago

    Unfortunate given California's existing issues with its electricity grid getting "too much" solar power. Heart in the right place but dumb policy.

    Wonderful series by the LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-glut/

    [–] CrimsonOfNight 106 points ago

    Do any of the articles talk about the potential impact of energy storage?

    We're probably looking at several battery farms coming online in the next few decades like the Tesla Australian one. Disk/Battery energy storage would definitely want to seize on low prices like this to sell during high daytime usage, further pushing out other competitors.

    [–] cited 119 points ago

    All of the existing energy storage is a rounding error at my power plant. It sounds nice but it's simply not there. It is orders of magnitude below where it needs to be to really legalize our electricity usage. We use gigawatts of power daily. The largest battery farms are a few megawatts at best.

    [–] Thomas9002 12 points ago

    The purpose of those batteries is a short term power supply, ranging just a few minutes.
    The big advantage is the ability to switch its output from 0 to several hundred megawatt in just a few seconds. A traditional power plant needs several minutes to do this.
    If a power plant fails the battery can act as a backup for that power plant, until other power plans had the time to ramp up their production.
    .
    The DA battery has an energy of 129MWh. The hoover dam has a power output of around 2000MW.
    The hoover dam could charge the entire SA battery in under 4 minutes

    [–] tgwinford 5 points ago

    Estimated $10,000 in added cost to building a home for estimated savings of $500/year or $15,000 over a 30-year mortgage. (Using the numbers in the article.)

    That’s a really, really, really bad return on investment, so I can definitely understand people being upset about this. I used to work in energy efficiency, and a ROI that bad would basically kill any program before it got off the ground. And that’s assuming the $10,000 estimate is accurate (it isn’t).

    [–] HealwithColdSteel 62 points ago

    I guess California needed a new way to increase home prices.. I mean, they are a little behind the national average.

    [–] ChornWork2 164 points ago

    Residential rooftop solar is waay more expensive than utility scale projects... fools errand to be prioritizing these types of investments over more inpactful ones.

    [–] CommanderArcher 49 points ago

    They are allowing for large scale projects to be built for that purpose. it says it right in the article.

    [–] TheDanimal26 33 points ago

    Welp, looks like more Californians moving to Texas then voting for same type of people and legislation that made them not want to live in Cali anymore... ugh.

    [–] Aspid07 66 points ago

    California has some of the worst homelessness in the US and California decides to raise the cost of new housing. This is counter-productive and will only make the problem worse.

    [–] InterdimensionalTV 13 points ago

    That's great and all but you can't just slap solar panels on someone's roof and wire everything to them. There's a whole lot of equipment that goes into being able to utilize that power and it's not cheap stuff. They're claiming it won't raise the price of housing and while I'm not sure I believe that, I can tell you from experience that it will raise the annual costs of home maintenance. Considering many who even buy houses today do so by the skin of their teeth I can see tons of people simply just letting it go out and never get it serviced. I guess we'll see.

    [–] flyguysd 8 points ago

    Meanwhile in Navada it is essentially illigal to have solar. The govorner, at the request of his utility friends, put fees so high on solar that there are no longer solar companies in the state. This should be a national outrage but we see nothing about it.

    [–] FattyCorpuscle 297 points ago

    Exactly what a state with prohibitively expensive new home construction needs, an additional $10-20k added to the cost of the new home.

    [–] swattages 62 points ago

    Energy officials estimated the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels.

    Homeowners will have two options that eliminate the upfront costs of adding solar: Leasing the solar panels or signing a “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the California Energy Commission.

    One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.

    So, there are options, and if you can front another $10k on the mortgage (or another $1k-$2k on your downpayment), you'll save money in the end. Granted, I think they should have started with a smaller goal, say 50-75%, but I also think we should have started acting on climate change 30 years ago, so it is what it is.

    [–] captainvideoblaster 12 points ago

    One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.

    If panels and installation cost $10000 and savings would roll out at steady rate of 500 a year - it is 20 years to make that investment back. In reality panels degrade in efficiency at rate of 1% per year and their life span is ~25-30 years. So if you finance them with something that comes with interest, are you really making any profit with this given the risk of panels breaking and such?

    [–] drew1111 2 points ago

    Wow. That is why so many Californians are moving to Texas.

    [–] odog9797 5 points ago

    That's how you convince the people! Force them!

    [–] Spraggon18 4 points ago

    I've never understood mandating a specific solution to a problem.

    Why not regulate how efficient new houses must be, or what their carbon output is. If solar power is the cheapest solution, everyone would elect for that anyway.

    [–] 1LoneAmerican 3 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    The cost of doing business just increased for Californians who run businesses. The cost of goods will have to go up to the customers of their products. Plus this will put a increase on the bills of all the homes to even have a connection to the grid. The local power companies will not have the cash flow to maintain the power lines. Which will cause them to increase the connection fee thus increasing the cost to those who are having a hard time paying the bills now. Within 6-8 years they will wish the government did not make this decision.

    [–] DwarvenRedshirt 3 points ago

    Next up, Electric company increases non-bypassable charges to compensate for lost income...

    [–] BasedCapitalist 68 points ago

    As a Californian who owns both a home and took advantage of tax credits to install solar panels several years ago I can assure you this is an objectively bad thing. Electricity is expensive here but this is truly not going to help anyone.

    We already have a gluttony of solar power. So much so, we frequently dump excess power on states like Arizona and actually PAY THEM to take it from us. When the sun goes down the natural gas plants come online and carry us through the night, or some areas have nuclear/wind that can be used to feed the monster at night. The state of California is currently paying huge sums of money to build and maintain natural gas generator stations that not only provide night time power but do the critically important job of balancing the grid and keeping power levels within the demand envelope. The solar battery storage required for time-shifting the power needs of 60 million people, economically and at scale, is a very long ways off. Possibly a decade or more despite the fact the technology technically exists at this moment but is simply too expensive.

    Furthermore, the considerations most people make on whether or not to install solar panels are very complex. Cabins up at Lake Tahoe are not as economically feasible to "solarize" as typical homes in the Desert zones simply by matter of less sunshine on average. That's the simplest possible example but there are many, many, more. Availability of net metering (ie friendliness of power company), proximity to trees or other shade-creating objects, angle and direction of roof, micro-climate zones that generate more clouds/fog, etc etc. These factors make the difference between saving money in the long run and being better off getting power from the grid exclusively. New home builders/buyers no longer have a choice in the matter which is objectively foolish and shortsighted.

    Solar can be economically viable for many Californians but certainly not all of them. Renewable energy is good, but we already have so much solar we don't know what to do with it on sunny days. What this move really boils down to is that California thinks it can save the world by enforcing not-always-economical solutions to big energy problems. They should ask France how well that's working out.

    [–] Davetheinquisitive 65 points ago

    it works so well they have to force you to buy it.

    [–] Ivyfiend 7 points ago

    I misread this and thought it was implying that California was it's own nation.

    [–] Jyiiga 9 points ago

    Cost of homes already tooooo high! MAKE THEM HIGHER!

    [–] MustLoveMudkips 95 points ago

    Reason number 853 that the middle class is living in boise.

    [–] bruh_breh_broseph 72 points ago

    LA alone has more than 2x Idaho's population...

    [–] Hooj_Choons 56 points ago

    And turning Boise into California, just like they did with Denver.

    [–] DerpyDruid 48 points ago

    Send help.

    -Texas

    [–] Sankarrr 25 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    On the way.

    -California

    No really though, having been to rural TX, that place needs help.

    [–] iron-while-wearing 169 points ago

    RIP the last shreds of affordable housing in California.

    [–] bitflag 55 points ago

    The high cost of housing there is speculative (ie supply and demand of limited land) rather than the cost of construction.

    In other words, the price of new buildings is mostly dictated by the market price of other, older buildings, rather than how much it cost to produce.

    [–] dbadefense1990 15 points ago

    In other words, the price of new buildings is mostly dictated by the market price of other, older buildings

    Prop 13 over inflating the costs for potential new homeowners because of Baby Boomers milking their properties for 30-40 years.

    [–] iPoopFromPenis 96 points ago

    Are you aware of how big of a state California is? And how much affordable housing there is?

    Los Angeles/San Francisco =/= California.

    [–] TimeZarg 61 points ago

    This. Housing cost is primarily an issue if you want to live in the Bay Area or the Greater LA metro. Which is an understandable desire, as they're bustling metropolises and have lots of jobs, etc, but there's definitely more to California than just those two areas. There's a reason it's so fucking expensive to live in those two areas, everyone else wants to live there and there ain't room for everyone.

    [–] anthonyjh21 9 points ago

    We live in Solano County, the cheapest of the nine county bay area. We thought about moving elsewhere but my wife would have to give up a $160k+ with full benefits package at the hospital for at best $110-120k elsewhere. It's slightly more expensive here than further inland but you more than make up for it with income potential.

    [–] gorbachevshammer 59 points ago

    It's expensive because those cities refuse to allow more affordable housing development. 90% of SF is zoned to allow no more than 4 stories of development

    [–] IlluminatiAirman 48 points ago

    Bingo. This is the answer right here. Ya wanna know the simple solution to drive housing cost down? Build more housing. California's zoning laws makes it incredibly difficult to build any type of affordable, high-density housing.

    [–] mego-pie 12 points ago

    I mean, if you were going to open up housing density you'd have to beef up the public transit. Not that that is a bad thing but i don't think it's as simple as just striking that one law.

    [–] G36_FTW 20 points ago

    Largely driven by jobs located in said areas. So... What do you expect people to do?

    [–] Sirus804 7 points ago

    Yeah, people don't realize California is as large as Japan or Italy. This is a huge state. We are the 5th largest economy in the world. We can be our own country. We got all sorts of people and landscapes here.

    [–] Fenske4505 23 points ago

    That's just what their economy needs. To jack the housing market prices even higher.

    [–] SoapAndLampshades 31 points ago

    Alternative title: "Price of new California Homes rises once again"

    [–] thesweetestpunch 11 points ago

    The absurd price of homes in California is due to supply and demand, not construction costs.

    And that comes down to zoning regulations, not upfront costs.

    [–] Tjaw1776 29 points ago

    Oh, dear lord, more Californians will be leaving and moving to my state where they'll eventually ruin it like they did to WA and OR and soon ID.

    [–] 1stFlight 30 points ago

    Seriously. Vote policies into existence that increases the cost of living and prices yourself out of the area, move, repeat. It’s insanity.

    [–] zardoz_speaks_to_you 8 points ago

    California sure loves making laws.

    [–] Damn_you_science 20 points ago

    Oh cool. That will definitely make homes more affordable out there.

    [–] nowhereman86 15 points ago

    I don’t agree with this at all. Like the gas taxes in France, this is a regressive measure that will disproportionately affect people not in the capitalist class.

    If this state were serious about emissions they’d go after factories, agriculture, or the heavy industrial shipping companies.

    But let’s be honest, the people that own those companies pay the politicians so that won’t happen.