For the first time in decades it’s cool
to be a renter. So why is it so hard to rent a home and still be
“green”?
This week, as news outlets across the
board reported a steep decline in home sales and prices in July,
especially in the West, some reported increased preferences for
renting, especially with the added uncertainty wrought by high
unemployment levels. Particia
Orsini of AOL’s
Housing Watch
reported
Aug. 26 that Americans, particularly homeowners, are now more
likely to think that renting a home is more prudent than buying one.
Other news outlets, such as Forbes
and the Real
Estate Channel
and Time’s
“Curious
Capitalist” blog, also recently dissected the growing
preference for renting.
Orsini
cited statistics
from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies.
I took a glance at that report – titled State of the Nation’s
Housing 2010 – and found it shows that rental vacancies grew from
2006 to 2009, even though the renter pool was growing at the same
time. In fact, U.S. Census Bureau housing vacancy
survey data cited by the report shows that fewer people own homes in
the West compared to any other region in the nation. The same numbers
also show that nearly three-quarters of white Americans own homes
while fewer than half of minority populations do.
So, what does this all have to do with
the environment?
Everything. When we discuss incentives
for energy efficiency we often focus on homeowners. Doing so leaves
out millions of Americans, who by necessity or choice, rent their homes
instead of buy. These renters may not be paying property taxes, but
they still often pay for utilities such as electricity, gas and
garbage disposal. As fewer Americans own homes, more will rent. Since
they’re more likely to be renters, minorities are less likely to have
access to financial incentives for making their homes more
environmentally friendly. (The same could be said of residents of any ethnicity living in
the West, where home ownership rates are low.)
In an Aug. 18 Palo
Alto Online article,
Ryan Deto points out that the thousands of dollars in upfront costs
for homeowners to install solar systems or edible gardens are out of
reach for low-income renters. Those costs would be even greater for a
multi-unit property owner who, in many cases, isn’t the one who would
see the savings of efficiency measures on utility bills.
That’s why it was encouraging to read
Willey Staley’s Aug.
24 “Urban Nation” column in Next American City.
In the piece, Staley described how an 81-unit senior housing complex
in Boulder, Colo., was one of 100 affordable multi-family housing
complexes to receive a share of $112 million in stimulus grants and loans from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development for green retrofits
such as solar panels and new, more efficient appliances.
In lauding the grants, Staley captures
some of the early drama and, dare I say it, hope for a possible
“Green New Deal” that surrounded early coverage of the economic
stimulus.
“In a sense, this is a perfect
example of what the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act was
supposed to accomplish,” Staley writes. “It saves money both for
property owners and tenants (emphasis mine), the federal
government, creates domestic green jobs, and will contribute to
reducing carbon emissions down the road. It’s hard to imagine a
program that better encapsulates the Obama Administration’s policy
goals: public spending that attracts private investment in more
sustainable technologies, and helps ensure long- and short-term
prosperity.”
Staley’s optimism is great, but there’s
a problem. The West – which is being hit harder than anywhere else
in the country by the shifting housing market – received far less
than other regions from HUD’s recent series of green retrofits. Of
the 100 green retrofit awards announced by the department (the
department’s press
release about the retrofits includes a link to a PDF copy of the
list), only 17 were directed at projects in the region. In fact,
money was doled out for projects in but five states in the region –
California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado. Of the nearly
$112 million in awards, only a little more than $15 million, or about
14 percent, went to these states.
Even so, the grants only serve
low-income renters who live in federally assisted housing. Millions
of low-income renters don’t, as detailed in the Harvard housing study.
“Despite federal support for rental
assistance of about $45 billion per year, only about one-quarter of
eligible renter households report receiving housing assistance,” the report’s executive summary said.
If we want lasting economic and
environmental prosperity shouldn’t we as a nation be investing in
everyone who is participating in our economic system and interacting
with our environment?
Bill Lascher is a Portland, Oregon-based freelancer. He focuses
on the environment’s intersection with science, business, culture and
policy.
He got the name for his Web site, Lascher at
Large, from the legal column his father penned for 20 years
before his death. Lascher is currently working on a project with his
grandmother to tell the story of her cousin, Melville Jacoby, a foreign
correspondent who died in the early days of World War II.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
