City adds $1000 to cost of housing.

Background: Two meetings ago I questioned a proposal to adopt what the city calls “building standards.”  What that means is new mandates about how homes (and businesses) are to be built.  The stated goal is “energy efficiency.”  Absent from any of the documents was any estimate of how much these new rules would add to the cost of a home.

Well a few weeks later there was a “public hearing” on the matter.  Odd, because the measure had already been approved in the first reading.  The 2nd reading and passage and “public hearing” were at the same time.  In other words, it didn’t matter much what “the public” thought about the idea, the “hearing” was a mere formality. 

Well here were things take a strange turn.  After the public hearing, the “Building Guy” says he’s got some information for me.  For me?  Why yes.  And sure enough they actually attempted to find an answer to question I asked at the earlier meeting.

First, note that in the email I got a promotion to individual from my  previous rank of no one. 

So in response to the query, the chief guy from the state pulled a figure out of his ass of estimated from $590 to $1,095 in additional costs and further guessed calculated that over the lifetime of the house it could save as much as $5,157.  I asked how long this “life of the house” was.  No one knew.  But it wasn’t 20 years. (“No, longer.”)  Over the next hundred years?  “Hm, not sure if that long.”  So according to government figures you’ll enjoy these savings sometime between the next 20 to 100 years.

Seems like a lowball figure to me on the costs.  Maybe one of you in the building trades can say.  The estimate has absolutely no supporting calculations other than “what the guy at the state said.”  And the savings is based on an assumption that the wonder-house will use 15% less energy.

My guess is that the estimate doesn’t include compliance costs.  Those are the costs of following the code.  The code is in three large volumes and specifies everything from where to bang in nails to tables and graphs to figure out how much insulation you need.  Compliance costs are what it costs in your time to read and understand these books, and to modify your architectural plans, and everything else associated with actually following the code.  I wonder if the state’s estimate is simply the costs of the added insulation, the more efficient lighting fixtures, etc.  Which may be only a fraction of the total.

I was about to move this issue off my radar screen when I noticed one other thing.  On the paper someone scribbled to figure the “percentage increase” in costs.  It has two math errors.  Where it says =3.52% that should be 0.352%.  It’s off by a factor of ten.  Sure easy enough mistake, I’ve made that one a few times.  But now we’re left wondering.  The initial estimate at the first meeting was given at 1 to 2 percent.  Just 1 percent is $1,677.  So who knows, are the percentages correct and the real figure is ten times more?  ($5,900 to $10,950 ? )  Probably not, but one never knows. 

By the way, if all they did was come up with three phonebook sized books on “how to build a house that uses 15 % less energy” why not just publish that and let builders build that if they wanted to?  What customer wouldn’t want a house that costs less to heat and cool?  So why is the government involved at all? 

City Manager's Blog: More Folks Unhappy about Government

More straight talk from the city manager, and the Cato Institute.

City Manager's Blog: More Folks Unhappy about Government

Straight talk from City Manager

The Manteca City Manager has some interesting and straight talking Comments on a blog.  Of course, he's getting the usual flak from the usual suspects but I agree with his economic analysis. (And then some!)

Manteca introduces new “we won’t put you out of business” program.

Good news! Manteca city official have decided it no longer makes sense to do everything they can to close every local business. From now on, this treatment will only be reserved for ordinary people.

Previously, city officials have caused businesses to fail by requiring them to, among other things:

• Tear up the sales lot of a car dealership and plant trees instead. The cars, the city felt, were unpleasant to look at.
• Deny a permit to a car wash because the other car washes in town didn’t like the idea.
• Revoke the permit for a dance hall because there was too much dancing and music going on.
• Require a fitness center to purchase and build a larger parking lot because they moved a machine from one room to another.
• …. and so on….

But city officials vow to end such abuses and put an end to the poverty enhancement policies that have plagued the past. Even the mayor is quoted as saying he thinks private enterprise is important! A new day dawns!

However, there are a few strings attached to getting your new permission to operate in Manteca. Here’s a quick checklist to see if you qualify to not be driven into poverty by city policy:

• Do you have plans to expand? Do you draw in a lot of tax money? Has the city demanded at least a $million in fees or else?
• Have you threatened to leave Manteca? It’s not enough to just say you’ll leave; have you actually found land in another jurisdiction and put up a “For Sale” sign?
• Are you friends with the director of a politically well connected charity? Friends with the husband of the finance director? (regular people need not apply).

If you meet all the above requirements, you’re in luck! You simply need to have your friend ask his wife to talk to “some people” at city hall. Chances are that $million in fees will soon be “Did we say a million dollars? hmm… how about half that… no, tell you what, make it $400,000 and we’ll call it good.”

Good luck! Enjoy your new prosperity!

Manteca saves 130 jobs

Submitted for your approval

This is from the city manager's blog. Evidently the Brain Trust is selective about what commentary they "approve" of.