The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Kind of perfect timing considering all the debate about the homestead taxes. The price of homes has gotten out control and the government is causing a lot of it. Government takes advantage of every opportunity to get your money.

https://fox35orlando.com/news/government-regulations-add-nearly-132k-cost-new-home-builders-say

Government regulations now add roughly $132,000 to the cost of a typical newly built home, according to a new study from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), as industry leaders warn that mounting costs are worsening the nation's housing affordability challenges.

I believe the relevant idiom here is "Every safety regulation is written in blood."

For example, I'm sure that the owners of a particular condo complex in Florida (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse) got a really good deal on their condo price and their HOA fees, without all those onerous government regulations driving up the costs.

A self-serving study by a lobbying organization. 

A little digging reveals the following. 

-- Almost no change in the cost of regulations as a percentage of the cost of the house.  Complying with regulations costs more than it did 10 years ago because of inflation not because of an increase in regulations.

--Included in the cost of regulations is setbacks.  So, if you live in the suburbs your backyard is not a place for your kids to play it is regulatory cost.  (And while it is not a lie to say that setbacks are a regulatory cost, it is a cost that less about regulations and more about lifestyle choice.)

The problem with this report is not what it says, but how it is being interpreted.

Yes, regulations add cost and drive up the cost of new homes.

But not the way CF thinks, money grabs by government.

Nor the way Spider thinks, by having fire codes.

Nor the way Fox wants you to think that liberals not allowing construction companies to trash the environment.

The regulations that are driving up the price is zoning laws mandating car dependent suburbs.  In many towns after all the setbacks and restrictions houses are limited to only 25% of the available land, Laws mandating a garage and prohibiting on-street parking.   Laws mandating fencing, shrubs, and particular landscaping. 

The solution to our housing problem is allowing for the efficient use of land instead of regulating out multifamily dwellings. 

Aren't those "laws" you are referring to really HOA regulations?

You aren't wrong about the costs, but the organizations that are bellyaching about "cost of government regulations" (as CF cited) are doing so in an effort to get rid of fire codes and allow construction companies to trash the environment.

Usually not.  In CA, one of the major obstacles to building more housing are NIMBY-style local zoning ordinances limiting exactly how much house you can build on a particular plot.

Nope.  Very few HOAs where I live.  Zoning restrictions are town law. 

Apparently none of you have ever worked in construction. There are tons of regulations dreamed up by people who are getting money from lobbyists who benefit from those regulations. Our lovely Florida Legislature passes the laws (Florida Codes). I build roads and bridges but I have seen it in other industries as well over the last 40 years. Environmental issues alone are through the roof. I'm not against protecting the environment but tacking on stricter regs when it was already working is just silly. Case in point companies are required to trench in silt fence and turbidity barriers even in situations when they are not needed because it is in the vicinity. It no longer matters if the ground is higher than the silt fence that is protecting it, or the creek or river is not being affected, because the plans call for it. That's a wasted expense. There are many others just like that.

I have worked side by side with local Building Officials (Kind of crazy but for 1 year my Engineering team was under the County Building Official and he was my direct boss) and they will tell you how silly some of the regs have become. It's overkill to have to protect that one in a million situation. My home was built in the 80's and has done fine through numerous hurricanes. This was pre Hurricane Andrew which started the changes on newly built and renovated homes.

You can blame that on greedy/lazy/cheating builders in the past.  Anytime you have a code that is a judgement call "when needed" you run into the problem that it isn't used when in fact it is needed and a regulatory scheme that is impossible to enforce.  So the regs need to be written to remove all ambiguity or wiggle room.  Because it is better to mandate the barriers when they aren't needed than to not have them when they are needed.  And greedy builders can't be trusted to do the right thing.   It isn't overkill to protect the one in a million.  It is black and white rules to prevent greedy builders from trying to exploit loopholes.  When rules are tightened it is always to stop people from circumventing the original rule. 

This is all a balance to me.  I'm all for doing things to reduce the cost of the house that people actually live in.

We also need to be able to make people sell their home and move to another home without penalty, or else that locks up the market.  So, maybe whatever tax shield you have -- you get to carry that equity-growth tax-cut into your next home...something like that.  We need to promote upward mobility and also clear out starter homes for new buyers.

I don't like people with multiple houses renting them out, I don't like corporations owning anything in residential zoning.

I also hate HOAs and would like to see them have fewer rights and have to perhaps have to continue to be voted into the right to exist, when possible. 

That's the purpose of having inspections onsite. Inspectors are making judgement calls all day long. When I started the business ... we had one set of Inspectors on a roadway project. Currently we have 3 levels for FDOT work. QC inspectors are being watched by QA inspectors and there is a third party, IV inspection, for when there are disagreements between the first two. Definitely overkill and as such, the quality of inspectors have gone down.