4 New Years Resolutions Every Property Manager Can Keep

planning a strategy with colored paper

planning a strategy with colored paper

by  –

With the New Year just around the corner, you’ve probably begun to think about your resolutions for the coming year. Why not resolve to tackle the issues that have proven to be your nemesis? While the list will vary widely from manager to manager, there’s likely a few things that all will agree would be of help in the coming year. Here are just a few ideas to get your list going:

· Spend money to make money. While we all know how important it is to spend financial reserves wisely, if you want to function efficiently and avoid costly mistakes down the road, invest some of those dollars in items such as better tenant screening procedures, more office efficiency, and better staff training. Investing in these items now will pay dividends later, with the ultimate result being better quality residents, a higher retention rate, and a well-trained staff that will help your property run more smoothly.

· Become more proactive with problem renters. Problem tenants are the bane of every property manager’s existence. For 2016, make a commitment to handle problem tenants proactively, particularly those that violate property rules. These tenants in particular will continue to drive quality residents away with their behavior. Putting them on notice immediately will likely cause them to pack up and leave. While no one wants to lose a tenant, their leaving will likely prevent a tenant exodus in the long term.

· Commit to being more organized. Property management requires a lot of paperwork. From the initial application, to the move-in walk-through, to the lease, to the move-out processing, and walk-through inspection; property managers are inundated with paperwork. This doesn’t even take other tasks such as bank reconciliations and personnel paperwork into the equation. Investigate the latest technology, such as electronic rent payment and online bank reconciliation processing, and find ways to reduce your paperwork load and free up staff from busy work to do what they were hired to do which is lease apartments and homes.

· Make a plan to increase your curb appeal. Let’s be honest – you can have the most attractive apartments to lease, but if the first thing that an applicant sees is overgrown landscaping, a ton of weeds, or scattered tree limbs, the odds of their renting an apartment or home is miniscule. While your apartment units or homes may be pristine inside, most applicants will not look past the landscaping and the rental office when looking to find a new home to rent.

Don’t let 2016 be a year of “should haves.” By focusing on the issues that are of the most importance to your properties, it won’t be hard to keep those resolutions.

One U.S. island people lived on disappeared right into the ocean. Another one is on its way.


By Angie Aker

In 2010, the last remaining house on this Maryland barrier island toppled into the Atlantic Ocean.

A final glimpse before the ocean swallowed up the last remaining vestige of Holland Island. Image by Baldeaglebluff/Flickr.

Holland Island, once located in the Chesapeake Bay, had known this was coming. Rising tides and wind forced the island’s residents, once numbering up to 360, to seek drier ground on Maryland’s mainland between 1914 and 1922. The house seen in the picture no longer remains in place. It’s been enveloped into the surrounding waters, dismantled by a storm in October 2010.

A similar story is in progress with nearby Smith Island right now.
It’s not far from where Holland Island once existed, and it’s the last remaining inhabited offshore island (inaccessible by car) in Maryland’s waters of the Chesapeake Bay.

A report from 2008 forecasts an identical fate — that by the year 2100, the island will be “almost completely under water as the Bay’s average level goes up nearly one-foot.”

A once-grand home on Smith Island now seems to be waiting for time and the elements to take it. Image by Lee Cannon/Flickr.

That’s why the state is trying to buy people out of their land and relocate them to the mainland.
Only a small fraction of Smith Island residents accepted the offer, though. Many of the 276 who remain seem to believe the rising tide predictions are horse-hooey. From a Newsweek interview with resident Tim Marshall:

“‘The whole sea-level rise — it’s BS,’ he says, talking loudly over the boat’s motor. ‘I’ve lived here my whole life and haven’t seen a difference.'”
But glacial melting is a bona fide fact that says otherwise.
Experts illustrate this expected rise with an image of nearby Deal Island (connected to Maryland’s mainland by a bridge):

The red line depicts the approximate level of flooding if a Category 2 hurricane were to hit in the year 2100 (factoring in rising sea level plus the size of waves). Photo via “Rising Sea Level Guidance”/Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Here’s the thing: Global warming isn’t coming just for these unfortunate residents. They’re just on the front end of the timeline. From the Natural Resources Defense Council:

“Scientists at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research predict that if the current rate of global warming continues, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.”
If the ice caps continue melting at such an increased pace, it could mean the sea levels rising by 10 inches to 23 inches everywhere by the year 2100 (reminder — that’s only 85ish years from now). The Gulf Coast, the state of Florida, and the whole Atlantic seaboard would be gone.

What prompts residents to hold fast to these islands in spite of the dire writing on the wall?
The small-town way of life, the remote and peaceful surroundings minimally touched by the modernization happening in the rest of the world, and generations of family ties are all some of the reasons residents might be holding on so tight. It must come down to love, right? Love of their lifestyle and love for the legacy of such a special place.

Smith Island is a 45-minute boat ride from Maryland’s mainland shore. Image by Lee Cannon/Wikimedia Commons.

But as Don Henley and Patti Smyth once sang: Baby, sometimes love just ain’t enough.
This magical button delivers Upworthy stories to you on Facebook:

Love won’t stop the sea level from rising. Love won’t stop time from ravaging Smith Island just the way Holland Island was forced to succumb to the reality of global warming. So residents need to hear the facts, but environmentalists and government folks also need to hear the community perspective, including our calls for them to take action before local situations get this bad. Eventually everyone will leave the island — that’s not optional, it’s GOING to happen — but in the meantime, an open conversation could be the best way to help get people engaged and planning for their futures.

WaterDrop tote captures shower bath warmup water for reuse


© esferic

This Spanish startup is offering a simple solution for one common home water conservation challenge.

Depending on how far your shower, bath, or faucet is from your water heater, every time you want hot water, you have to let a gallon or more of the cold water that’s already in the pipes to run down the drain, and although it’s one of the easiest things to catch, it’s all too often inconvenient to do so. Other than installing an on-demand water heater right next to the bathroom, the only other permanent solution seems to be to route the shower/tub/faucet drains into a greywater system, which doesn’t reduce the amount of warmup water, but which will then direct that water to trees and plants instead of to the city’s wastewater plant.

Granted, trying to save a few gallons per day at home by capturing warmup water is just a drip in the bucket when it comes to overall water consumption figures, but then again, water is one of our most precious resources, and every bit saved or reused is that much more for other essential purposes. Waste not, want not, as our grandparents used to say.

One Spanish company is looking to make it more convenient to catch and reuse the warmup water from showers with its WaterDrop totes, which are designed to be easy to fill, carry, and empty. The WaterDrop, from esferic, hangs over the tub fixture and the showerhead goes into the bag (or alternatively, the tub faucet would fill it directly), and the bag catches the water until it warms up, after which the shower or bath is used as usual. Afterward, the full WaterDrop (~3.5 liters) can be used to flush the toilet when needed or brought to another location in the home or yard and used for watering plants, pets, or for cleaning. I’m not so sure I’d want to take my saved warmup water for a walk with me, as is shown in the below pitch video, but hey, what do I know?

Yes, WaterDrop is another plastic bag on a planet where we’re suffering from an overload of plastic bags, but assuming the product lives up to its promises, it could have a long useful life. The makers say that their choice of TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) was made with that in mind, and that the material’s qualities make it “probably the best plastic material” they found in order to get a long lifecycle from the product.

WaterDrop is currently in a crowdfunding phase, with backers at the $13 level getting a tote of their own when they ship in March of 2016, along with the release of an accompanying app designed to create a water-saving social community.

Of course, you don’t have to wait until March of next year to start saving warmup water, because all it really takes is a bucket or two (and large bowl for a sink), plus the discipline to catch it every time, even if you might not look as cool carrying a bucket as you might with a WaterDrop. Just sayin’.

Tags: Water Conservation

Dispossessed in the Land of Dreams

Those left behind by Silicon Valley’s technology boom struggle to stay in the place they call home.


Sometime in July 2012, Suzan Russaw and her husband, James, received a letter from their landlord asking them to vacate their $800-a-month one-bedroom apartment in Palo Alto, California. He gave them 60 days to leave. The “no-fault” eviction is a common way to clear out low-paying tenants without a legal hassle and bring in people willing to pay thousands more in rent. James was 83 at the time and suffering from the constellation of illnesses that affect the old: He had high blood pressure and was undergoing dialysis for kidney failure and experiencing the early stages of dementia.

Their rent was actually a couple of hundred dollars more than James’s monthly Social Security benefits, but he made up the rest by piecing together odd jobs. They looked for a new apartment for two months and didn’t find anything close to their price range. Their landlord gave them a six-week extension, but it yielded nothing. When mid-October came, Suzan and James had no choice but to leave. With hurried help from neighbors, they packed most of their belongings into two storage units and a ramshackle 1994 Ford Explorer which they called “the van.” They didn’t know where they were going.

A majority of the homeless population in Palo Alto—93 percent—ends up sleeping outside or in their cars. In part, that’s because Palo Alto, a technology boomtown that boasts a per capita income well over twice the average for California, has almost no shelter space: For the city’s homeless population, estimated to be at least 157, there are just 15 beds that rotate among city churches through a shelter program called Hotel de Zink; a charity organizes a loose network of 130 spare rooms, regular people motivated to offer up their homes only by neighborly goodwill. The lack of shelter space in Palo Alto—and more broadly in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, which comprise the peninsula south of San Francisco and around San Jose—is unusual for an area of its size and population. A 2013 census showed Santa Clara County having more than 7,000 homeless people, the fifth-highest homeless population per capita in the country and among the highest populations sleeping outside or in unsuitable shelters like vehicles.

San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area are gentrifying rapidly—especially with the most recent Silicon Valley surge in social media companies, though the trend stretches back decades—leading to a cascade of displacement of the region’s poor, working class, and ethnic and racial minorities. In San Francisco itself, currently the city with the most expensive housing market in the country, rents increased 13.5 percent in 2014 from the year before, leading more people to the middle-class suburbs. As real estate prices rise in places like Palo Alto, the middle class has begun to buy homes in the exurbs of the Central Valley, displacing farmworkers there.
Suzan, who is 70, is short and slight, with her bobbed hair dyed red. The first time I met her, she wore leggings, a T-shirt, a black cardigan wrapped around her shoulders, and fuzzy black boots I later learned were slippers she’d gotten from Goodwill and sewn up to look like outside shoes. (She wore basically the same outfit, with different T-shirts, nearly every time we met, and I realized she didn’t have many clothes.) Her voice is high and singsongy and she is always polite. You can tell she tries to smooth out tensions rather than confront them. She is a font of forced sunniness and likes to punctuate a sad sentence with phrases like “I’m so blessed!” or “I’m so lucky!” She wore a small necklace and said jewelry was important to her. “I feel, to dispel the image of homelessness, it’s important to have a little bling,” she said.

In the van, Suzan was in charge of taking care of everyone and everything, organizing a life that became filled with a unique brand of busy boredom. She and James spent most of their time figuring out where to go next, how to get there, and whether they could stay once they arrived. They found a short-term unit in a local family shelter in Menlo Park that lasted for five weeks. Afterward, they stayed in a few motels, but even fleabags in the area charge upwards of $100 a night. When they couldn’t afford a room they camped out in the van, reclining the backseats and making a pallet out of blankets piled on top of their clothes and other belongings. Slowly, there were fewer nights in hotels and more in the van, until the van was where they lived.

A life of homelessness is one of logistical challenges and exhaustion. Little things, like planning a wardrobe for the week, involved coordinated trips to storage units and laundromats, and could take hours. The biggest conundrum? Where to pull over and sleep. Suzan and James learned quickly not to pull over on a residential block, because the neighbors would call the police. They tried a church or two, 24-hour businesses where they thought they could hide amidst the other cars, and even an old naval field. The places with public toilets were best because, for reasons no one can quite explain, 3 a.m. is the witching hour for needing to pee. They kept their socks and shoes on, both for staying warm on chilly Bay Area nights and also for moving quickly if someone peered into their windows, or a cop flashed his light inside, ready to rouse. Wherever they were sleeping, they couldn’t sleep there. “Sometimes, I was so tired, I would be stopped at a red light and say, ‘Don’t go to sleep. Don’t go to sleep,’” Suzan said. “And then I would fall asleep.”

A few months in, a nice man in a 7-Eleven parking lot told them about a former high school turned community center on the eastern side of town called Cubberley. He’d walked up to their van after recognizing signs of life in the car, tired faces among the junk piling up in the back. Suzan and James were familiar with the community center because they’d taken their daughter to preschool there many years before, but they hadn’t thought about sleeping there. Cubberley had a quiet back parking lot, a flat grass amphitheater with a concrete paddock for a stage, and 24-hour public bathrooms with showers in an old gym. Rumor was that the cops wouldn’t bother anyone.
Suzan’s husband, James Russaw, pictured with two of their grandchildren.
Cubberley was a psychic relief because it solved so many basic needs: It had a place to bathe in the morning, a place to charge your phone. The parking lot had also formed its own etiquette and sense of community. People tended to park in the same places, a spot or two next to their neighbors, and they recognized one another and nodded at night. They weren’t exactly friends, but they were people who trusted each other, an impromptu neighborhood no one wanted to lose after losing so much. It was safe, a good place to spend the night. But it was next door to a segment of homeowners who were fighting hard to move the car dwellers out.

Normally, wealthy people who move into an area don’t see the results of their displacement because the people who lose their homes don’t stick around; they move to cheaper suburbs and work themselves into the fabric elsewhere. But the folks at Cubberley, 30 people on any given night, were the displacement made manifest. Most weren’t plagued with mental health or substance abuse problems; they simply could no longer afford rent and became homeless in the last place they lived. People will put up with a lot to stay in a place they know. “I’ve been analyzing why don’t I just get the heck on. Everybody says that, go to Wyoming, Montana, you can get a mansion,” Suzan said. “Move on, move on, always move on. And I say to myself, ‘Why should I have to move on?’”

It’s a new chapter in an old story. In his seminal 1893 lecture at the Chicago World’s Fair, Frederick Jackson Turner summarized the myth of the American frontier and the waves of settlers who created it as an early form of gentrification: First, farmers looking for land would find a remote spot of wilderness to tame; once they succeeded, more men and women would arrive to turn each new spot into a town; finally, outside investors would swoop in, pushing out the frontiersman and leaving him to pack up and start all over again. It has always been thus in America. Turner quoted from a guide published in 1837 for migrants headed for the Western frontiers of Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin: “Another wave rolls on. The men of capital and enterprise come. The ‘settler’ is ready to sell out and take the advantage of the rise of property, push farther into the interior, and become himself a man of capital and enterprise in turn.” This repeating cycle, Turner argued, of movement and resettlement was essential to the American character. But he foresaw a looming crisis. “The American energy will continually demand a wider field for its exercise,” he wrote. “But never again will such gifts of free land offer themselves.” In other words, we would run out of places for the displaced to go.

Suzan was born in 1945. Her father worked at what was then the Lockheed Corporation, and her mother had been raised by a wealthy family in Oak Park, Illinois. Her family called her Suzi. Though she grew up in nearby Saratoga—and spent some time in school in Switzerland—she distinctly remembers coming with her mother to visit Palo Alto, with its downtown theaters and streets named after poets. Palo Alto more than any other place formed the landscape of her childhood. “It was a little artsy-craftsy university town—you find charming towns are university towns.”

Like many women of her day, Suzan didn’t graduate from college. When she was 24, after her last stay in Switzerland, she moved to Mountain View, the town on Palo Alto’s eastern border that is now home to Google and LinkedIn. She was living off a small trust her family had set up for her when she met James at a barbecue their apartment manager threw to foster neighborliness among his tenants. James had grown up in a sharecropping family in Georgia, moved west during World War II, and was more than 17 years her senior, handsome and gentlemanly. Suzan thought: “I can learn something from him.” They were an interracial couple in the late 1960s, which was unusual, though she says her family didn’t mind. It was also an interclass marriage, and it moved Suzan down the income ladder.

For years, James and Suzan lived together, unmarried. They bought a house on University Avenue, just north of the county line and blocks from downtown Palo Alto, in 1979, and four years later had their only daughter, Nancy. It was the area’s ghetto, and the only source of affordable housing for many years. It was also the center of violence in the region, and, in 1992, was the murder capital of the country.

They never had much money. For most of their marriage, James ran a small recycling company and Suzan acted as his bookkeeper, secretary, and housewife. They refused to apply for most government assistance, even as homeless elders. “My husband and I had never been on welfare or food stamps,” she told me. “Even to this day.”

Suzan’s parents died in 2002 and 2003, and her older sister died in 2009. (“I thank God that they’re gone,” she told me. “They would die if they saw me now.”) It was a hard time for Suzan, who went to care for her dying parents and nearly left James. She felt he’d checked out of the difficulties. In retrospect, she thinks his dementia might already have been setting in; James was already in his seventies. He had taken out a second mortgage on their home, and they couldn’t pay it after he retired. They sold the house at a loss in 2005; it’s now a Century 21 office.

After they moved into the van, they settled into a routine. On the nights before James’s early-morning treatments, they slept in the dialysis center’s parking lot. Otherwise they generally stayed at Cubberley. They were still living off James’s retirement income, but most of it went to the $500 needed to rent the two storage units where their furniture remained, until they lost one for nonpayment. Finally, a few months in, Suzan was able to use a clause in a trust set up by her mother’s father to help her out in an emergency. It doubled their income—much of which was eaten up by the costs of gas, the remaining storage unit, parking tickets, and the other expenses of an unsettled life. It was a respectable income, one that technically kept them above poverty, but it still wasn’t enough for rent.

James was increasingly ill and van life was taking a toll. In addition to James’s other problems, both he and Suzan were starting to experience some of the health problems common among the homeless. The backseat of the van filled with bags of clothes, papers, fast-food detritus, pens, old parking tickets, and receipts. As the junk built up, the recline of their seats inched forever upward, until they were sitting up all the time, causing their legs to swell and nerves to become damaged, the medical consequences of not being able to raise your feet at night.

Gentrification used to be about poor neighborhoods, usually black and brown, underdeveloped and full of decrepit and neglected housing stock, run by the occasional slumlord—often described as “blighted,” though that designation has always been problematic—and how they become converted into wealthier ones, usually through the influx of richer white people and their demand for new services and new construction. It’s a negative process for the people who have to move, but there’s occasionally an element of good, because neglected neighborhoods revive. But what’s happening now in the Bay Area is that people who’ve done nothing wrong—not paid their rent late, violated their lease, or committed any other housing sin—are being forced out to make way. Displacement is reaching into unquestionably vibrant, historic, middle- and working-class neighborhoods, like The Mission in San Francisco, a former center of Chicano power. (The Mission alone has lost 8,000 Latino residents in the past ten years, according to a report from the local Council of Community Housing Organizations and the Mission Economic Development Agency.) And it’s happening to such an extent that the social workers who used to steer people to affordable apartments as far away as Santa Rosa or Sacramento, a two-hour drive, are now telling people to look even farther out. The vehicle dwellers I spoke with said they’d heard of friends living in places like Stockton, once a modest working-class city in the middle of the state, receiving notice-to-vacate letters like the one Suzan and James received.

For the most part, the traits that draw people to Palo Alto—good schools, a charming downtown, nice neighborhoods in which to raise a family, and a short commute to tech jobs—are the very same things that made the residents of Cubberley want to stay, even if it meant living in their car. The destabilizing pressure of a real estate market is also felt by the merely rich, the upper middle class, and the middle class, because the high-end demand of the global elite sets the market prices. “My block has the original owners, a retired schoolteacher and a retired postal worker,” said Hope Nakamura, a legal aid attorney who lives in Palo Alto. “They could never afford to buy anything there now.” Most people told me if they had to sell their homes today they wouldn’t be able to buy again anywhere in the area, which means many Palo Altans have all of their wealth tied up in expensive homes that they can’t access without upending their lives. It makes everyone anxious.
The view inside a van parked outside a Palo Alto homeless organization.
The outcry from the neighbors over Cubberley was so fierce that it reshaped Palo Alto’s city government. The city council is nonpartisan, but a faction emerged that revived an old, slow-growth movement in town, known as the “residentialists.” Their concerns are varied (among them, the perennial suburban concerns of property values and traffic), but their influence has been to block any new development of affordable housing and shoo people like Suzan and James away from Palo Alto. An uproar scuttled an affordable-housing building for senior citizens near many public transit options that had been proposed by the city housing authority and unanimously approved by the city council. Opponents said they were worried about the effect the development would have on the surrounding community—they argued it wasn’t zoned for “density,” which is to say, small apartments—and that traffic congestion in the area would be made worse. Aparna Ananthasubramaniam, then a senior at Stanford, tried to start a women’s-only shelter in rotating churches, modeled after the Hotel de Zink. She said a woman came up to her after a community meeting where the same concerns had been raised by a real estate agent. “Her lips were quivering and she was physically shaking from how angry she was,” Ananthasubramaniam told me. “She was like, ‘You come back to me 20 years from now once you have sunk more than $1 million into an asset, like a house, and you tell me that you’re willing to take a risk like this.”

The trouble for Cubberley began when neighbors went to the police. There’d been at least one fight, and the neighbors complained about trash left around the center. At the time, Cubberley was home to a 64-year-old woman who’d found a $20-an-hour job after nine years of unemployment; a tall, lanky, panhandler from Louisiana who kept informal guard over her and other women at the center; a 63-year-old part-time school crossing guard who cared for his dying mother for 16 years, then lived off the proceeds from the sale of her house until the money ran out; two retired school teachers; a 23-year-old Palo Alto native who stayed with his mother in a rental car after his old car spontaneously combusted; and, for about six months, Suzan and James. “They didn’t fit this image that the powers that be are trying to create about homeless people. They did not fit that image at all,” Suzan told me. “We made sure the premises were respected, because it was an honor to be able to stay there.” She and others told me they cleaned up their areas at the center every morning.

“I said, ‘We have no place to go, and we’re staying right here.’ They were going to know about it.”
Pressured to find a way to move the residents out, the police department went to the city council claiming they needed a law banning vehicle habitation to address the neighbors’ concerns. Advocates for the homeless said that any problems could be solved if police would just enforce existing laws. Local attorneys warned the city council that such laws could soon be considered unconstitutional, because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing a challenge to a similar law in Los Angeles. Carrie LeRoy, an attorney who advocated on behalf of the unhoused, and other attorneys threatened to file a class-action lawsuit if the vehicle-habitation ban ever went into effect. The city council passed the ban anyway, in a 7-2 vote in August 2013, and the police department and other groups in the city started an outreach program to tell people about the law. “All of them had received these notices from the city,” LeRoy said, “And it was basically like, ‘Get out of our town.’”

A few weeks later, the city council also voted to close the showers at Cubberley and give it a 10:30 p.m. curfew, which made it illegal to sleep there. On their last night there, in October 2013, Suzan and James left around 8 p.m. so they wouldn’t get caught past the new curfew. They tried some old haunts and got kicked out. The stress of living in the van was hard on James. Around this time, James decided to end his dialysis. “Of course, we knew what that meant,” Suzan said.

One night, about a month after leaving Cubberley, the police pulled Suzan and James over. Their registration was expired. “This officer, he got a wild hair, and he said, ‘I’m going to impound your car,’ and called the tow truck.” Suzan told me. They got out of the car. Without pushing and demanding, she realized, she was never going to get out of the situation. She told me she said to the officer, “This is our home, and if you impound it we will not have a home.” He insisted. “I said ‘That’s fine. You do that. We will stay right here. I will put the beds out, I will put what we need here, right here on the sidewalk.” Other officers arrived and talked to them. They asked Suzan whether, surely, there was some other place they could go. “I said, ‘We have no place to go, and we’re staying right here.’ I was going to make a stink. They were going to know about it.” Suzan told me people were poking their heads out of their homes, and she realized the bigger fuss she made, the more likely officers might decide just to leave them alone.

Because James’s health had continued to worsen, he and Suzan finally qualified for motel vouchers during the cold weather. They got a room in a rundown hotel. “It had a microwave and a hot bath,” Suzan said. In his last few days, James was given a spot in a hospice in San Jose, and Suzan went with him. “It was so cut-and-dry. They said, ‘This is an end-of-life bed, period,’ ” Suzan said. “And I never said that to James.” He died on February 17, 2014, and a few weeks later a friend of theirs held a memorial service for James at her house. Suzan wore an old silk jacket of her mother’s, one that would later be ruined by moisture in the van, and a necklace Nancy had made. They ate James’s favorite foods—cornbread, shrimp, and pound cake. Suzan had a few motel vouchers left, and afterward stayed with friends and volunteers for a few weeks each, but she felt she was imposing.

That summer, she returned to her van. It was different without James; she realized she’d gotten to know him better during their van life than she ever had before. Maybe it was his dementia, but as they drove around or sat together, squished amidst their stuff, he’d started to tell her long stories, over and over, of his youth in Georgia. She’d never heard the tales before, but she’d started to be able to picture it all. On her own, without his imposing figure beside her, Suzan was scared, and more than a little lonely. Most nights, she stayed tucked away in a church parking lot, without permission from the pastor, hidden between bushes and vans. The law wasn’t being enforced, but sleeping in the lot made her a kind of a criminal. “The neighbors never gave me up,” she said.

Suzan told me she was in a fog of denial after James’s death, but it’s probably what protected her because homelessness is exhausting. “You start to lose it after a while,” she said. “You feel disenfranchised from your own society.” The Downtown Streets Team, a local homeless organization, had been helping her look for a long-term, stable housing solution. Indeed, Suzan told me that at various times, she and James had 27 applications in for affordable housing in Palo Alto. (When he died, she had to start over, submitting new applications for herself.) Her social worker at the local senior citizens center, Emily Farber, decided to also look for a temporary situation that would get Suzan under a roof for a few months, or even a few weeks. “We were dealing with very practical limitations: having a computer, having a stable phone number,” Farber said. Craigslist was only something Suzan had heard of. She’d finally gotten a cell phone through a federal program, but hadn’t quite mastered it.

For many months, Farber struck out. She didn’t think Suzan would want to live with three 25-year-old Google employees, or that they’d want her, either. She even tried Airbnb. Because Suzan didn’t have a profile, Farber used her own, and wrote to people who had rooms listed to say her 69-year-old friend needed a place to stay in the area for a couple of weeks. “We got three rejections in a row,” she said. Finally, in November, they found a room available for rent for $1,100—about 80 percent of her income from the trust and her widow’s benefits from Social Security. Suzan would have her own bedroom and bathroom in the two-bedroom apartment of a single mother. The mother crowded into the other bedroom with her 16-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter. The only downside for Suzan was that it was in Santa Clara, another charmingly bland suburban enclave in the South Bay, a half hour south of Palo Alto and a world away for Suzan. “It’s out of my comfort zone, but that’s OK!” she told me.

I met Suzan on the day she moved in, and the concept of being able to close a door was almost as unsettling to her as the concept of sleeping in the van had been. “I’m in this kind of survival mode,” she said, and had found a certain comfort in her van. “I’ve got this little cocoon I’m staying in, and everything is within arm’s reach.” She had a big blue mat in the back of the van, like a grown-up version of the kind kindergartners nap on, but soon she’d acquire a bed. She retrieved her old TV from her storage unit. She made a comfortable room, with chairs and a bed and a small table, and decided to eat her meals in there. She only signed a lease for three months, because it wasn’t really sustainable on her fixed income. She’d also applied for an affordable housing complex being built for seniors in Sunnyvale, one that would provide permanent housing for 60 senior citizens from among the 7,000 homeless people in the county at the time. She’d find out in April if she was selected in the lottery. All her hopes were pinned on it.

Mapping Suzan Russaw’s Life in Silicon Valley
In the first few weeks after her move to Santa Clara, Suzan spent a healthy portion of her limited income on gas, driving the Explorer back and forth to Palo Alto. After all, her post office box was there, and so were her social workers. Her errands demanded a lot of face time, and in some ways, she still filled her days the way she had before she got her room, moving around trying to solve her problems. Her car was still packed, too, as if she hadn’t let go of the need to drive in it, to move forward, to keep her stuff around her within arm’s reach, as if she were still without a home base.

Two afternoons a week she went to a Palo Alto food closet. She usually made it right before it closed, in the early afternoons. When her number was called, she went up to the counter to watch the volunteer sort through what was left on the shelves, finding the most recently expired items—these were older goods grocery stores couldn’t keep past their sell-by dates. Suzan’s politeness was, as always, almost formal, from an earlier era, when being ladylike was a learned skill. The volunteer would ask her if she wanted milk, or peaches, or a serving-size Baggie of cereal, and she’d say, “Yes, very much so!” These days, she got to take raw eggs instead of the boiled ones, a treat reserved for those with kitchens. Her requests were glancing rather than direct. “Have you any lettuce?” and the answer was often no. I said it seemed like an efficient operation. Suzan said, “I really know the drill!”

Suzan needed to visit her social worker, Julia Lang, at the Downtown Streets Team office to get the form that allowed her to go to an even better food bank. She asked the receptionist whether her social worker was in. She wasn’t, and Suzan explained she was looking for the food bank vouchers. Then the receptionist asked for her address. That stopped Suzan. The receptionist explained that the pantry was for Palo Alto residents, and Suzan was considering, for the first time, whether that counted her. Suzan explained that she and her husband had gone to the pantry the year before, and said they should be in the system. We waited while the receptionist looked. Suzan waved at someone she’d seen around for years, from her car-dwelling days. Suzan told the receptionist, again, that they really should be in the system. But they weren’t. Suzan said that was OK, and she would come back. The receptionist said, “Are you sure? I just need your ID and your address.” Suzan demurred. She needed to talk to her social worker. This is what it meant to have to leave her hometown. She was leaving the city where she and James had known people, the city where James had died, the city where she’d grown up and near where she’d raised her own daughter. It was the city where she knew where to go, where she’d figured out how to be homeless. It was the city where she knew the drill.

That homelessness persists in Silicon Valley has puzzled me. It has an extremely wealthy population with liberal, altruistic values. Though it has a large homeless population relative to its size, in sheer numbers it’s not as large as New York City’s or L.A.’s. Some of the reasons could be found in the meeting on November 17, 2014, when the city finally overturned the car-camping ban. It had never been enforced because, as predicted, the Ninth Circuit had overturned L.A.’s ban. In the end, all but one person who’d voted for the ban the first time around voted to overturn it. The lone dissenter was councilman Larry Klein. “The social welfare agency in our area is the county, not the city,” he said. “To think we can solve the homeless problem just doesn’t make sense.”

This idea was repeated many times among city officials—that homelessness was too big an issue for the city to resolve. The city of Palo Alto itself has one full-time staff member devoted to homelessness, and it coordinates with county and nonprofit networks to counsel, house, and feed the homeless.
Suzan shows where she stored food in her car while homeless.
During the fight over the ban, the city tried to devise an alternative—a program that would allow car dwellers to park at churches—but then left the details up to the faith community to work out. Nick Selby, an attorney and member of the Palo Alto Friends Meeting House, said he and his fellow Quakers met with community resistance when they tried to accommodate three or four car dwellers on their tiny lot. Neighbors circulated a petition listing concerns like “the high prevalence of mental illness, drug abuse, and communicable diseases in the homeless population” and the risk of declining property values. But Selby said some of their concerns were fair. “People who objected were saying to the city, ‘What’s your program?’” Selby said. “And the city really had no answer to those questions.” Without a solid plan and logistical help from the city, other churches were reluctant to step forward. “The churches weren’t prepared to deal with this,” he said. After the church car-camping plan fell through, the city council said it had no choice but a ban.

Santa Clara County, too, struggles to address the problem. The county is participating in federal programs to build permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless population, the population of long-term homeless who typically have interacting mental health and substance abuse problems. But land is expensive here, and the area is shortchanged by the federal formula that disperses funds. California, ever in budget-crisis mode, provides limited state funds. There isn’t a dedicated funding stream from the cities, which don’t necessarily pay a tax to the county for these projects, and local affordable housing developments are often rejected by residents as Palo Alto’s was. In September, the city of San Jose and the county announced a $13 million program to buy old hotels and renovate them as shelters, which will make 585 new beds available. While advocates credit the county’s efforts with cutting the estimated homeless population by 14 percent since 2013, the number of people like Suzan, who hide in their cars, is almost certainly underestimated. But most such efforts are centered in San Jose. Chris Richardson, a director of the Bay Area’s Downtown Streets Team, said what needs to happen is not a mystery: Other cities have to fund affordable housing, they have to fund more of it, and they have to do it in their own neighborhoods, without relying on San Francisco and San Jose to absorb all of the area’s poverty and problems. “You can’t just ship them down to the big, poor city,” he said.

When Palo Alto originally passed the car-camping ban, it also devoted $250,000 to the county’s homelessness program. When they voted to rescind the ban, council members asked for an update on what happened to the money. The city staff was not prepared to report on how it had been spent at that council meeting, more than a year into the funding. Members of the council again reiterated their desire to help the homeless. “Helping the homeless” was tabled, as a general idea, for another agenda at another meeting, as it always seems to be, or passed off to the county, or to someone else—and so helping the homeless is something nobody does.

Through the winter, Suzan remained ill; it was a bad flu season. She kept paying the rent on her room, on her storage units, on her P.O. box in Palo Alto, and she tried setting aside money she owed on parking tickets. Some months she’d run out of gas money to drive the 15 miles to Palo Alto and check her mail or visit her social workers. She was waiting to hear about the affordable apartment.

In May, she was denied. Suzan had bad credit, both because of the unpaid storage unit she and James had lost and because otherwise her credit history was so thin. Julia Lang, one of her social workers, told me she couldn’t even get a credit score for Suzan. Lang said people get denied on credit, or because they make too little for affordable housing that’s supposedly intended for extremely low-income people, all the time. “When you’re that destitute and have gone through so many complicated situations, what are the chances that your credit’s going to be good?” she said.

Suzan was livid and despondent, and she decided to appeal. “I wasn’t going to take that lying down,” Suzan told me. “I was proud of myself.” Catholic Charities helped her appeal. Suzan had to write a letter showing how she intended to repair her credit, and that she understood why it was bad in the first place. During the months of back and forth, Suzan bought a new Jeep, only one year newer than the Explorer, in case she needed to sleep in her car again. In July, she learned she’d won her appeal. She had two weeks to get her affairs in order, pay the first month’s rent and security deposit, and move in. Her social workers helped her with some of the move-in costs, and she signed a lease for a year.

I saw Suzan again in August, about three weeks after she’d moved in. Her hair was trimmed. She was wearing a brightly colored muumuu, blue and green with tropical flowers—“It’s a housedress but you can wear it out on the street!”—and a green sweater tied around her shoulders. She seemed relaxed and rested, and I told her so. Her bed was full of folded clothes, and her room was still in disarray. She was trying to cull her storage unit so that she could get a smaller one and cut down on rent. Most of the people in her complex had been in the same boat as Suzan, or had been worse off. She pays $810 a month, the amount determined to be affordable for her income. It had taken her more than three years, help from at least three social workers, and thousands of dollars, but she was finally stably housed. At least, for a year.

Monica Potts is a fellow with the New America Asset Building program.

Latest California Buildings magazine covers Greenbuild, lighting, healthier buildings..

Click: http://issuu.com/easoncommunications/docs/californiabuildingsnewsnd2015

Californiabuildingsnewsnd2015 preview image


News about building operations, facility management, multifamily communities, sustainability and energy.

Is Tiny Living a form of poverty appropriation?

by Katherine Martinko (@feistyredhair)

mobile home

CC BY 2.0 Curtis Perry

There is a big difference between living in a tiny house by choice and living in it because you really can’t afford anything bigger.

Last week in the TreeHugger daily newsletter, Lloyd wrote, “Fortunately we all agree about cute tiny homes and sheds.” There was a time when I thought so, too. After all, the tiny house pictures and adorable, creatively simple dwellings are among the most popular posts on this website. Readers are drawn to that minimalist lifestyle, whether they adopt aspects of it themselves or just want to imagine and romanticize what it would be like to live that simply.

After reading an article by writer July Westhale called “The Troubling Trendiness of Poverty Appropriation,” however, I’ve been forced to reconsider Lloyd’s statement.“Tiny Living” and the minimalism that goes along with it may be appealing and trendy to many middle-class people, but it has complicated associations for those who have had tiny living forced upon them by lack of resources. There’s a big difference between tiny living by choice and tiny living by necessity.

Westhale draws on her rough, poverty-stricken childhood in a trailer park in rural California, where she lived in a corrugated home with extended family around, eating canned and frozen food and rice to the point where she can’t stand rice anymore. It is not a life that anyone in their right mind would choose freely, if given the option of greater comfort and stability, which is why Westhale finds the recent increase of fascination with trailer-park-style living very offensive.

“How many folks, I wonder, who have engaged in the Tiny House Movement ever actually lived in a tiny, mobile place? Because what those who can afford homes call ‘living light,’ poor folks call ‘gratitude for what we’ve got’.”

There are various reasons for why people choose to live Tiny – young professionals who can’t afford houses in overinflated markets; environmentalists who want to minimize their carbon footprint; nomadic, anti-establishment, and minimalist types who don’t wish to be tied down or want to take a stance against capitalism, among others.

“It’s likely, from where I sit, that this back-to-nature and boxed-up simplicity is not being marketed to people like me, who come from simplicity and heightened knowledge of poverty, but to people who have not wanted for creature comforts. For them to try on, glamorize, identify with.”

And ultimately leave, once the novelty wears off and the desire for comfort and more space kicks in. Or if they decide to have kids and no longer want to squeeze into a miniature home with multiple offspring bouncing off the walls.

There is nothing simple about being poor.

While Westhale’s feelings are understandable, there is also much to be admired about the way in which some poor people manage their lifestyles. Take my grandmother, for example, who grew up in a poverty-stricken farming family during the Depression. That experience greatly shaped the way in which she has economized food, clothes, fuel, and money, and constantly “made do” with what she had for her entire life.

As people become more aware of the negative environmental impact of the Western consumerist lifestyle, an increasing number (including myself) are turning to old-fashioned ways of doing things (reusing, repurposing, preserving, sewing, knitting, etc.) in order to tread more lightly. That could be interpreted as “poverty appropriation,” but it’s really more of a re-implementation of lost skills that makes more sense than maintaining the status quo and is meant to be respectful.

It’s a complex and uncomfortable conversation to have, and one that will not be resolved in a post like this. While I don’t think that underprivileged people should be offended that other, more well-off individuals may choose to live with fewer material possessions, Westhale points out the tremendous importance of being aware that others do not have the same range of lifestyle choices. She concludes:

“We need to shed light on the fact that many people who grew up wanting for more space and access to foods that weren’t available to them don’t understand the glossy pamphlets offering a simpler life. Because, let me tell you, there is nothing simple about being poor.”

When You Know It’s Time To Go

background-check-for-tenantsYour applicant sails through the screening process with flying colors, moves in, pays the rent in a timely manner and treats the rental with loving care. All is well in your world! Yes, all is well. That is, until:

  • His car suffers a major, expensive repair issue
  • He gets laid off, or loses his job
  • He becomes ill or has an accident that requires hospitalization
  • He goes through a divorce
  • He develops alcohol or other addiction problems
  • He gets into credit problems and has to file bankruptcy

All of these events have a negative effect on your tenant’s ability to earn income and pay the rent. When these things happen, the proverbial “writing is on the wall.” He may feel he can get caught up, and ask for some time to remedy the situation. So, what do you do?

I have a friend in the business whose tenant suffered an illness causing loss of work > loss of income > loss of rent for my friend. Mark agreed to give his tenant time to catch up on the rent. Three months later, he’s only seen $300 of the $1000/month rent he is supposed to be collecting on that property. (Whaaat?)

IF you’re willing to allow time for your tenant to catch up on monies owed, make a written contract signed by both of you, detailing time and amounts of payments to be made, and consequences (eviction) of missed payments. And be prepared to get them out quickly if they don’t deliver on the contract!

When eviction is imminent, I tell my tenants that if they can be out before the court date (two weeks following the day I file, here in Indianapolis) and leave the property clean and empty, I won’t pursue the case through the court system. If they don’t owe me much money — and I always file BEFORE it gets to that point! — it saves me time and money if I can get them out early. Quick exit on the tenant’s part, quick turn-around for the unit, and I’m back in the money. And in the case of a good tenant who has just had a terrible turn of rotten luck, it saves them having an eviction on their record. A win/win for all.

So, when it’s time to go, make a written plan to make things right quickly, or make the move to get them out. Although we’re witness to a myriad of sad situations, this is an income-producing business — first and foremost — and our decisions have to focus on that priority.

Barb GettyA Bit About Barb Getty:  Graduating Purdue and marrying soon after, Barb settled in Indianapolis in 1980.  In 1992, after the loss of her son and the ending of her marriage, Barb bought a fixer upper and moved in with her daughters.  With her first project successfully completed, Barb purchased her first duplex with little money, no credit, and no experience as a landlord.  Today she proudly owns over 27 single and multi-family units as low and middle income rentals. Her book, The Landlord Chronicles, Investing in Low and Middle Income Rentals, offers common sense advice to all types of investors.  She is financially and emotionally invested in her work with a positive attitude and a strong sense of humor.  Barb Getty is making a difference in her tenants’ lives, the neighborhood, and the city as well.  To learn more about Barb, follow her blog, or purchase her book, visit: http://www.thelandlordchronicles.com/


– See more at: http://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/property-management/landlord-quick-tips/know-time-go-2/#sthash.BTVKoFqm.dpuf

HOAs – 7 Insights for Property Managers


by  –

As more single-family subdivisions are built and more apartment complexes convert to condominiums, many form Home Owner Associations (HOA). These are opportunities for good property management!

Many an HOA would prefer not to deal directly with the myriad issues of coping with the needs of owners and their renter-residents. Enforcement of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) is one of the biggest reasons HOAs are likely to hire a property management company.

Having served on the Boards of several HOAs helped me to see this topic from both sides of the table. Many HOAs and their Board of Directors lack the knowledge, time and experience needed to cope. That said, the Board is often inclined to delegate to its property manager many of the critical responsibilities that everyone should be concerned about. Here are some tips that can help you avoid issues.

1. Offer to attend as many meetings as possible, but by all means attend the annual meetings. Annual meetings are often attended by more homeowners who often have questions that the Board needs help answering. Check with the HOA Board and ask if they want you there.
2. Listen, listen and listen some more. One owner of multiple properties who is an HOA Board officer told me that the Board’s #1 complaint was that the property manager was too bossy.
“We just want her to be supportive and answer our questions. If she’d listen more she’d know how to help us more effectively.”
3. Encourage the Board to carefully watch the financial numbers. Knowing how much is in the “reserve fund” isn’t only relevant to the Treasurer of the Board. Many Board members aren’t financial gurus or “numbers people,” so your clarifications on the HOA finances are needed.
4. Avoid playing politics and instead be a dependable advisor. It may be tempting to cozy up to the Board members who appear to be more influential. But if every Board member believes you are there to help them and the homeowners, your longevity as the property manager will improve.
5. Don’t be shy about asking for the homeowners’ opinions, recommendations and concerns. Yes, I know this may open a can of worms but I can assure you it will be worth it. Better yet, ask for specific feedback on carefully chosen topics and see how many replies you receive.
6. If the Board requests you to be the enforcer of the CC&Rs, don’t agree unless you’re up to the task. It’s wiser to say you’re willing to share the load then to agree and then disappoint.
7. Help the HOA avoid pitfalls. One HOA I advised didn’t know that if the number of owner-occupied units fell below 50%, lenders would be reluctant to finance purchases. The Board has the responsibility to preserve property values. Any suggestions on that subject are priceless!

We’ve all heard horror stories on mismanaged properties. If your reputation with HOAs says, “I’m a problem solver and a preventer of problems,” you’ll be so successful that you’ll either have to turn away potential clients or hire help to expand. What a delightful dilemma.

TRYING TO MAKE A QUICK ZUCK: How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself

02eb615465624292ba448ea4b0c9ec27_9f2533325a474372abeaf4bb0feac56d_headerMark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.

Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle.

Sorry for the slightly less sexy headline.

Zuckerberg is a co-founder of Facebook and a youthful mega-billionaire. In announcing the birth of his daughter, he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, declared they would donate 99 percent of their worth, the vast majority of which is tied up in Facebook stock valued at $45 billion today.

In doing so, Zuckerberg and Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His PR return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.

An LLC can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An LLC can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That’s what America is all about. But as a society, we don’t generally call these types of activities “charity.”

What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.

In covering the event, many commentators praised the size and percentage of the gift and pointed out that Zuckerberg is relatively young to be planning to give his wealth away. “Mark Zuckerberg Philanthropy Pledge Sets New Giving Standard,” Bloomberg glowed. Few news outlets initially considered the tax implications of Zuckerberg’s plan. A Wall Street Journal article didn’t mention taxes at all.

Nor did they grapple with the societal implications of the would-be donations.

So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing.

If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

Zuckerberg didn’t create these tax laws and cannot be criticized for minimizing his tax bills. If he had created a foundation, he would have accrued similar tax benefits. But what this means is that he amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world 2014 and is likely never to pay any taxes on it. Any time a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes.

Instead of lavishing praise on Zuckerberg for having issued a news release with a promise, this should be an occasion to mull what kind of society we want to live in. Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money.

In this case, it is different. One person will be making these decisions.

Of course, nobody thinks our government representatives do a good job of allocating resources. Politicians 2014 a bunch of bums! Maybe Zuckerberg will make wonderful decisions, ones I would personally be happy with. Maybe not. He blew his $100 million donation to the Newark school system, as Dale Russakoff detailed in her recent book, “The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?” Zuckerberg has said he has learned from his mistakes. We don’t know whether that’s true because he hasn’t made any decisions with the money he plans to put into his investment vehicle.

But I think I might do a good job allocating $45 billion. Maybe even better than Zuckerberg. I am self-aware enough to I realize many people would disagree with my choices. Those who like how Zuckerberg is lavishing his funds might not like how the Koch brothers do so. Or George Soros.

Mega-donations, assuming Zuckerberg makes good on his pledge, are explicit acknowledgments that the money should be plowed back into society. They are tacit acknowledgments that no one could ever possibly spend $45 billion on himself or his family, and that the money isn’t really “his,” in a fundamental sense. Because that is the case, society can’t rely on the beneficence and enlightenment of the superwealthy to realize this individually. We need to take a portion uniformly 2014 some kind of tax on wealth.

The point is that we are turning into a society of oligarchs. And I am not as excited as some to welcome the new Silicon Valley overlords.

This story was co-published by ProPublica and The New York Times.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for theirnewsletter.

What Makes a Home More Efficient?

Written by: Brendon Dennewill –

Doesn’t everybody want a home that’s more efficient?

My guess is that even though the answer is not literally ‘everyone’, there’s a large majority of folks who would prefer a house that costs them less to maintain.

The question therefore seems to be, not do you want a house that is more efficient, but rather do you want one that is less expensive to operate. For most people, the fact that it’s also friendlier to the environment, and more comfortable to live in, is a bonus. 

The biggest consideration that comes with a home that is more efficient to run is typically a higher upfront cost. These costs are calculated in ‘pay-back’ times. It seems 3 to 8 years is good (the shorter the pay-back the better), and beyond 8 years makes it less attractive to do.

Everyone we’ve spoken with in the last 6 weeks about the adoption of green or high-efficiency homes and buildings has said a variation of the same thing about the future of green building: 

  • “It’s a given”
  • “It’s just getting started”
  • “This is just the tip of the iceberg”
  • “Everyone expects it”

The same people are saying, however, “As long as it doesn’t cost too much more”.

As the price of all the materials and technology used to make homes greener decreases, more “green” is being adopted.

As I’ve heard more than once, “the green in my home and for the environment, has to match the green in my pocket”!

The good news is that it seems the difference in price between many “green” materials and traditional (less green) materials is narrowing fast. And in many cases the manufacturers of these materials are just building better, greener, products, either because they want to, or, because that’s what their markets demand, or a combination of the two.

The research our team has done over the past month all leads to the same conclusion: Everyone wants a more efficient home, but fewer than 2% are willing to pay more than a few thousand dollars for their build or remodel to be more efficient.

This reminds me of a saying that seems fitting: “The iron age didn’t end because we ran out of iron, it ended because we discovered something better”.

Another really interesting piece of feedback I got, from a friend in multi-family housing development, was specific to the technology known to most of us already as “IoT”, or, the “Internet of Things”. In short, theIoT technology that makes our homes and buildings “Smarter” is becoming one of the aspects that people are actually willing to pay more for. Again, it is something that people want for a different reason – being connected all the time, at high speed, and with remote access capability – that has the result of being more energy efficient.

The ability to control temperature and lights etc., from your mobile device, saves on energy costs, while giving you the flexibility to do things on the fly.

So apart from: 

  • Better insulation in your roof, ceilings, attic, walls, windows, doors and floors;
  • A More efficient HVAC system;
  • Renewable energy options like the various solar offerings;
  • More Water Efficiency in your home and yard, and;
  • Technology to save you energy and keep the temperature, lighting, air quality and security of your home optimal, 

what else can you do to have a home that is cheaper to operate, more comfortable to live in and just happens to be better for the environment?

Please share your comments below.

If you’re a builder, remodeler, distributor or manufacturer of building materials please complete our 1 minute survey below, or, if you think you could do with a new website Contact us for a website consultation for your green building business.


New Call-to-action