Dear Editor: This is in reference to the article appearing in last week’s Pilot concerning the high cost of housing in California.
We were informed in the article that these high costs are apparently due to excessive regulatory restrictions placed on housing in the state. How great! Almost everyone loves to hate California, including many of the almost 40 million who live there.
Excessive regulatory requirements is a favorite of the haters. I was gleeful. Here was an article that would explain what your headline very clearly indicated.
In reading the article, we learned that solar panels are apparently required by the state. Okay. Those may be costly. But, that was it. The article failed to clearly identify any other regulatory excess. It couldn’t only be solar panels.
Was it because adequate sewage disposal capability was required? How about sidewalks? Adequate insulation? Appropriate roofing materials? Energy-efficient heating and cooling? Earthquake-resistant construction? Well?
It’s hard to get our good California hate on for solar panels only.
While we may decry high costs, the results of low construction standards are often borne by those who reside in or own properties in the future, and who must suffer the consequences of planning based solely on initial cost (failed septic or water systems, streets too narrow for parking on both sides, etc.).
Perhaps the California approach is to consider lifetime cost for property owners and residents (an economic analysis method used for many public and private large-scale projects). We don’t know that, because the article was sorely lacking in the specifics to support the article headline.
Many of us are all too eager to accept hearsay about some supposed truth, and your article kind of pandered to that.
I would have appreciated having a better understanding of the specifics of why the California requirements result in higher construction costs, and perhaps why industry professionals might believe those requirements to be inappropriate.