mddesignhomes

It is nice that we can come up with all these different calculations to help us feel better and justify what is essentially that right thing to do in the first place, but if that is what it takes than so be it. The bottom line is what is it going to cost per month, can they afford it now and in the foreseeable future. That will ultimately drive what people do or do not do. There are some things that people will spend money on regardless of whether they pay for themselves or not.

For those of you whom might possibly feel that you haven't done enough yet to mitigate your guilt for what we are doing to our planet than I suggest you go purchase yourself some carbon credits from Al Gores company. For more on this subject you can read my blog "Low CARBon diet" @ http://www.mddesignhomes.com/blog/index.php

Mark Devine
mddesignhomes.com

MFournier you are right, it is way more complicated than it needs to be. Up front it looks like the government is offering to help us afford to do the right thing ("build green"). In the end it will only help the people that can afford to pay for it up front and wait for later to reap the benefits of reduced taxes. Although this may not sound like the green thing to do, you will need to fill out some additional forms of course. Ultimately I don't believe that everyone who should benefit from these programs will.

Back in 1991 the Oakland hills firestorm burned down some 3,000 homes. The following week anybody with a hammer and a pick-up truck was now a general contractor. Everyone wants a good deal and the ones offering just that, will most likely be the ones that know the least about what they are doing. I hope some of the stimulus money gets used to help educate the general public on how to separate the real professionals from the opportunists. Otherwise we may see a lot of wasted stimulus dollars.

Sometimes adversity creates opportunity. This could very possibly become a situation where properties that are nothing more than liabilities (toxic assets) to the banks, can be converted into future profits (detoxified assets) to those investors able and willing to buy these heavily discounted properties. Buy low now, wait for the market to return again then sell for a profit. We have already given the banks hundreds of billions of dollars to make up for the losses. As long as the banks still own all these properties they will continue to keep loosing money because of them.

I’m afraid that until all these incredibly low priced homes have been bought up, it’s going to be difficult to be competitive based on price alone. Providing desirable features those homes don’t have such as energy efficient construction is your only chance. The tax credits will help but aren’t enough to make up for the difference in price.

The need for passive homes has been out there for thirty years. The problem with all of our clients "rich or poor" is the up-front cost. The theory of supply and demand would eventually drive the prices down and make it more affordable, yet you need to be able to convince homeowners that passive energy would pay off in the "long" run. No matter how much we talk about it, the bottom line (money) is always an issue.

Gail Devine
mddesignhomes.com