Wrong again Whodey! It is the developers that are required to purchase and install solar panels on newly constructed homes. This would add about 1-2% to the price of a new home, and will save the homeowners thousands of dollars in energy costs.
Please do a minimum of research before posting your silly statements. 🙄
Originally posted by @mghrn55 What do you do now ?
Like every other knucklehead on the *wrong, Whodey will do everything in his power to defeat any opportunity for Government to demonstrate its unparalleled capacity to enact positive social change.
Originally posted by @kmax87 Like every other knucklehead on the *wrong, Whodey will do everything in his power to defeat any opportunity for Government to demonstrate its unparalleled capacity to enact positive social change.
Originally posted by @wajoma Ideas so good they need force.
In a world where opinion trumps knowledge and expertise is viewed with deep mistrust and superstition, making new buildings comply means in the long run you change the dependency mix. Which would you rather, be told what to do by your Government or have choices imposed on you from external forces due to your old wave, fossil fuel dependencies?
Originally posted by @kmax87 In a world where opinion trumps knowledge and expertise is viewed with deep mistrust and superstition, making new buildings comply means in the long run you change the dependency mix. Which would you rather, be told what to do by your Government or have choices imposed on you from external forces due to your old wave, fossil fuel dependencies?
'choices imposed'
Do you read what you post before hitting send?
We need gubermint to save us from choices? At least you're honest about your control freakism.
Yes I'll go with choices, even if it were only '1 or 2%' (let's remember that it's 1 or 2 % on top of a lot of other state imposed 1 or 2 %'s) it's going to reduce the number of people that can afford a house, there'll be a few more out on the street. For some the choice is that stark, solar panels (an environmental disaster to produce [mining and production is absolutely tied to, and dependent on, fossil fuels] and to discard) or living in a car in the car park of Walmart.
Slightly off topic, but there are dozens of other regulations that exist in other parts of the country that make these things not very profitable. For instance, I know that in the 90s in North Dakota if you set up your own small wind power unit near your home it was illegal to use the electricity yourself. You had to "sell" it back to the power company at a price below actual market value and it counted toward credits for your overall bill or some such.
I assume a similar enough system could come into being in California and it may not actually benefit the people who live in the homes as much as is implied.
Originally posted by @mchill Wrong again Whodey! It is the developers that are required to purchase and install solar panels on newly constructed homes. This would add about 1-2% to the price of a new home, and will save the homeowners thousands of dollars in energy costs.
Please do a minimum of research before posting your silly statements. 🙄
If solar panels saved homeowners thousands of dollars a year wouldn't the free market demand them? The fact that purchasers of homes don't demand them, seems to indicate that there will be a net cost. We should discuss that cost and see if we believe it offsets the environmental benefits of solar pannels.
Originally posted by @wajoma Ideas so good they need force.
If we voting citizens in California do not agree with this mandate, we have legal remedies and under the mandate, time to carry them out. Don’t you have such remedies where you live?
Originally posted by @js357 If we voting citizens in California do not agree with this mandate, we have legal remedies and under the mandate, time to carry them out. Don’t you have such remedies where you live?
You need to understand if 50.01% of people vote to take away the rights of the other 49.99% of people that does not make it right.
And here's another epiphany for you to experience. People didn't vote on forcing up the price of new housing, thus forcing up the price of housing in general and so making it un-affordable for 1 person? 10 people? a 100 people? a 1000 people?
What power is their vote even if there were some kind of direct democracy vote on every single issue, on every single rule, regulation, clause, tax, spend up?
Originally posted by @wajoma You need to understand if 50.01% of people vote to take away the rights of the other 49.99% of people that does not make it right.
And here's another epiphany for you to experience. People didn't vote on forcing up the price of new housing, thus forcing up the price of housing in general and so making it un-affordable for 1 person? 10 people? a 100 peopl ...[text shortened]... t democracy vote on every single issue, on every single rule, regulation, clause, tax, spend up?
You are blaming the very system that is needed to maximize the democratic rule of law. There is a catch-22 buried not too deep in your logic. After all, it takes only a small fraction of a majority if citizen signatures to get a repeal or recall on the ballot, in CA.If there is a fatal flaw in democracy it's not that it can be too democratic.
Mexifornia to demand solar panels
09 May '18 20:281 edit
Back to Top