Smart Math of Mixed-Use Development

Are cities across the country acting negligently in ignoring the property tax implications of different development types? Joseph Minicozzi thinks so, and he's done the math to prove it. I can only hope that this reaches the desks of the powers that be involved in downtown Johnson City. Maybe a financial implication will provide the city commissioners with the guts they need to make something happen as opposed to continuing with the urban sprawl through Boones Creek and Gray, TN...

Asheville, North Carolina, like many cities and towns around the country, is hurting financially. It’s not that Asheville is some kind of deserted ghost town. Rather, it’s a picturesque mountain city with a population of about 83,000 that draws tourists from all over the world, especially during the leaf-peeping season. But it’s also a city that appeals to its residents, who revel in strolling about a true walkable downtown chock-full of restaurants and retail shops featuring locally grown and crafted products. Downtown is not only one of Asheville’s main draws; it also serves as a major driver in helping the city overcome its budgetary doldrums.

Most of us – city planners, elected officials, business owners, voters, and the like – understand that the city brings in more tax revenue when people shop and eat out more. However, we often overlook the scale of the property tax payoff for encouraging dense mixed-use development.

Many policy decisions seem to create incentives for businesses and property developers to expand just about anywhere, without regard for the types of buildings they are erecting. In this article, I argue that the best return on investment for the public coffers comes when smart and sustainable development occurs downtown.

We’ll use the city of Asheville as an example. Asheville realizes an astounding +800 percent greater return on downtown mixed-use development projects on a per acre basis compared to when ground is broken near the city limits for a large single-use development like a Super Walmart. A typical acre of mixed-use downtown Asheville yields $360,000 more in tax revenue to city government than an acre of strip malls or big box stores.

Here is a breakdown of comparison of the Asheville Wal-Mart Center vs Mixed-Use Center downtown:

If you were a mayor or city councillor facing a budget crisis, this comparison should serve as an eye-opener, both in terms of your policies and your development priorities. The comparison should also get you thinking about not just how you could encourage more downtown development, but also what kind of development could increase the value of buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods.

It’s not just officials in Asheville who should be asking these questions. In the growing number of diverse cities where we have studied this same equation (such as Billings, MT, Petaluma, CA, and Sarasota, FL) we’ve found that the same principle applies: downtown pays. It’s simple math.

The more valuable downtown properties become, the more revenue the city can generate to address its budget gaps, while also serving the best interests of its citizens. Unfortunately, our public officials may not always make their decisions with full knowledge of the trade-offs.

Consider the story of how Public Interest Projects (PIP), a for-profit development company founded in 1990, first came to uncover this economic inequality.

A few years ago, PIP was looking to develop several parcels in a neglected section of downtown Asheville, just off the main core. At the time, it was filled with decaying auto shops, warehouses and semi-industrial space. In other words, it was ripe for mixed-use redevelopment. Unfortunately, while we saw visions of rehabbed living spaces intermixed with retail and office space, the leaders of Buncombe County had other ideas.

In close proximity to the parcels PIP was considering, the county owned a 1.7-acre parcel upon which leaders first announced plans to build a new jail, then, as an alternative, a 24 hour center for emergency vehicles. While few could argue that the community as a whole would benefit from the addition of such facilities, the county’s plan to plunk one of them right in the middle of an area so ripe for re-development didn’t make much sense to us. Although we weren’t on the same page as our county leaders, that didn’t stop us from trying to get them to see things our way.

Subsequently, we embarked on a comparative analysis of the impact of different development types and scales on the county’s tax rolls as a way to demonstrate the comparable benefits of mixed-use development versus the facilities they we considering. We tried to show them the money.

To do that, we set about analyzing various properties within our community to come up with an estimate of what kind of infill development would be feasible for the county’s site. What we found was striking. If the county continued with its plans for building the more objectionable uses, the loss of this property's tax base plus the detrimental effect on the surrounding property's development potential could actually result in a net loss of more than $1 million each year in property tax revenue for local government. That information got the County's attention and good sense prevailed.

Upon realizing that this equation had broader implication, we began applying the same analysis to other key Asheville landmarks. Our next test case involved a comparison of a high-visibility shopping mall located just outside of downtown with a historic downtown building, dubbed the Old Penney’s building, which we had restored into a six-story mixed-use structure. Once we ran the numbers, just as before, the results were dramatic. Whereas the mall, considered one of the county’s biggest revenue generators, yielded $8,000 an acre in annual County property tax, the downtown building’s yield was $250,000 per acre in County property tax.

It’s easy to see how you might now be scratching your head. How can you compare a mall with a building? Is that really comparing apples to apples? The point is that we have been perpetuating an error when it comes to how we think about real estate. Our mistake has been looking at the overall value of a development project rather than its per unit productivity. Especially relevant in these times of limited public means, every city should be thinking long and hard about encouraging, and not accidentally discouraging, the property tax bonus that comes with mixed-use urbanism. Put simply, density gets far more bang for its buck.

For comparison, let’s consider an everyday example of measuring economic value. When we buy our cars, do we make our buying decisions based on the vehicle’s miles-per-tank rating? If we did, we’d all be driving Ford F-150 Lariats that get, on average, 648 miles per tank versus a Prius, which boasts a modest 571 miles per tank. However when we look at the traditional metric for comparison - how many miles-per-gallon each vehicle gets - the value statement changes. The Lariat achieves a mere 13 miles-per-gallon while the Prius cruises along at 51 MPG. And, since you spend less to fill up the Prius, at today’s gas prices it covers 15,000 miles/year at $3,000 less the annual cost ($4,038/$1,029 respectively). We rank the value of our cars this way because we all know the price of a gallon of fuel. Why wouldn’t we do the same with our land? Shouldn’t we value the consumption of our land the way we value a gallon of gas? After all, an acre of land is far more expensive than a gallon of gas.

The flaw of our current property tax system is that when it comes to assessing how much a property owner owes, we place very little value on the land beneath a building as compared to the building itself. Compounding that issue is the fact that if you construct a building without innovative architecture or sustainable materials, you actually benefit by lower tax value. The combination of these two factors creates a disincentive for good architecture. The result is that the community loses, both in terms of the property tax it collects and the long-term legacy of cheap single-use buildings. In basic terms, we’ve created tax breaks to construct disposable buildings, and there’s nothing smart about that kind of growth.

What can we do about it? Moses did not come down from the mountaintop to deliver our current property tax policy on stone tablets. It’s just another rule we impose upon ourselves. And if we recognize that this policy is harming us in some way, it makes sense to change it. We simply cannot afford how the current system creates incentives for suburban sprawl – which is unsustainable both environmentally and, as I hope I have shown, financially. Communities across the United States are going broke, and we can rightly look to our municipal finance systems and our failure to fully appreciate the payoff for density as a big part of the cause. Let’s all do the math so we can make some positive changes in the system because, in the end, downtown pays!

We need incentives for downtown Johnson City re-development - big, financial incentives that the city is going to have to step up and provide. Here's another analyses from 1964 that discusses how 'vertical infrastructure' is taxable when 'horizontal' is not... http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/E3Containment_policies.CV.pdf

Source: Joseph Minicozzi, AICP, Principal Urban3, LLC via http://www.planetizen.com/

Too many potential real estate buyers pay way too much attention to short-term price changes. People are so worried that prices might drop a little and feel that maybe they should wait to buy something. So if you think you can predict the future, follow your beliefs! However, the reality is that the price, within reason, really should be a secondary matter in your search for a good property to purchase.

The main reason that price is less important is that individuals who want to increase their net wealth from real estate ownership, which is the goal of many buyers, should only be purchasing property that they will hold for a long time. The longer the better and a minimum of five years is probably the breakeven point to start building wealth. It is more likely than not that down the road, years after our economy has sprung back to life, real estate prices should be much higher than what people paid for properties in the next twelve months.

In 2020 or 2022, you won’t even remember the 2012-2013 price fluctuations. You’ll just be gloating to yourself how brilliant you were buying into the market ten years ago. Not only will you have purchased a great property at the most affordable pricing seen in decades, but you will probably have locked in an outrageously low interest rate on a mortgage that can be fixed for thirty years!

But, what if you buy and prices drop a little? Who cares! It won’t matter because you purchased a great property that you love for all the right reasons. You want to own real estate and any slight dip in the next year or two should be a wholly irrelevant short-term blip on the radar of a long term real estate holder.

In addition, in many areas right now, your monthly payment for ownership (including principal, interest, HOA fees if any, property taxes, and repairs) may be close to or less expensive than renting. That alone is an amazing turn of events in the history of personal residence ownership. This is more likely true for moderately priced properties. Even expensive, untouchable properties a few years ago are astonishingly affordable right now.

Now this doesn’t mean that it is the right time for just anyone to buy property. If you are not 100% sure you will own the property for a long time, it is probably smarter to stay a renter. If you move often, renting is probably a better option.

Additionally, this doesn’t mean that you can just buy any property to build wealth. You should probably avoid properties that need:
Significant rehabilitation work
Properties in HOAs where the association is in bad financial shape
Properties in areas where there are lots of foreclosures, high vacancy, near lots of buildable land
Areas where the local economy is in desperate shape.

Rarely are those wealth-building purchases. Go for the properties that are in better shape or in more stable areas with jobs and economic development.

For buyers who are too focused on price, are worried about short-term price drops and are holding off on buying, we long-term holding real estate buyers can only say thank you so much! Please keep obsessing over those monthly housing price reports and stay on the sidelines!

With less competition in the market, it makes the process of finding a great home to secure, and with those incredibly low interest rates, only sweeter for the rest of us who are charging forward to buy a property in the best buying environment in a generation!

Rent v Buy? What Should I do?

In having both rental and sales divisions within T. C. Lewis & Co, we are posed the question all the time about whether someone should rent or buy. What are the pros and cons? What should I do? Why? When will this change? Well the answers aren't simple, but one thing is for sure, paying rent is getting more painful for renters across the country in the face of rising demand and tight supply. This isn't as prevalent in the Appalachian region yet, but it will hapen.

Both the commercial and residential real estate markets are seeing increases, and more are expected in the months and years to come.

Office construction starts were at the lowest level since 1960, the oldest data available from McGraw-Hill Construction; and that means there will be less space available for companies looking to rent or expand their operations.

It’s also bad timing for people who have been spooked by, or pushed out of, the residential housing market and have decided to rent instead of buy. Home ownership in the United States is at historic lows, but at the same time rental prices are on the rise. Rent for a primary residence increased 2.5 percent in December, compared to the same month a year earlier, according to the Consumer Price Index. And Reis Inc.’s research shows that rents hit their highest level since 2007 last year, reaching $1,009 a month average rental price. At the same time, the company found, the vacancy rate dropped to 5.2 percent, from 6.6 percent last year.

“National vacancies continued to tighten sharply in the fourth quarter, bucking seasonal weakness typical of the colder months of the year,” said Victor Calanog, vice president of research & economic for Reis, in a report on the apartment sector. “In just two years after hitting all-time highs of 8 percent at the end of the tumultuous year that was 2009, vacancies have not just recovered, they have surpassed previous lows.”

Ironically, rising rents are actually making homeownership more attractive. One study by Trulia.com, a real estate research firm, found that “based on current market conditions, buying a home is cheaper than renting in 74 percent of major U.S. cities.”On the office rental side, this economic downturn has different from past ones, Calanog wrote, “Previous downturns for the office sector were complicated by overbuilding; this time around, the massive decline in aggregate demand at least isn’t weighed down by a supply glut.”

Unfortunately, that means the squeeze is on for renters from all walks of life as vacancy rates drop in the face of further shrinking of supply. Fewer places to rent means landlords have the upper hand when it comes to what they can ask. And that will probably be the case for the next few years, said Mark Stapp, professor of real estate practice at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.

On the residential side, there will be a push toward higher rents for the next two years, he explained, while commercial real estate rental prices may continue to increase for the next three to five years.

“The supply side is so constrained because no body has been building for years,” he said, because of the economy and the difficulties businesses and developers faced getting loans.

While lending is beginning to open up a bit now, it will take years before real estate firms are able to build enough space to meet the growing demand.

It’s good news for landlords, he added, who were forced to make concessions in recent years because of weakened demand, but it will be tough sledding for apartment and office dwellers who have to pay the escalating rents.

Is your rent bill going up?

Source: Eve Tahmincioglu

There are Realtors and then there are Realtors...

I'll start by saying that this is not meant to put anyone down, accuse anyone of intentionally not doing his or her job, or knock on those who didn't have higher education opportunities. But, there are Realtors and then there are Realtors.

If you have been in the market for any type of property, you have probably realized that everybody has a real estate license. Everybody.  It seems like everytime I walk in the Ingle's grocery in my neighborhood, I see at least one Realtor.  Frankly, it's too easy to get and maintain a license.  And some people don't bother and are still out managing rental properties (illegal in TN) and are now self-proclaimed "Real Estate Investment Coaches." I've always been a proponent of more stringent licensing and renewal regulations - even going as far as to suggest a minimum two year degree (Associate's) to work in the business.  Realtors have a big impact on local economies through pricing of properties, advice to consumers, which properties are shown, which are ignored, business expansion locations, business relocations, lobbying efforts locally, regionally, and nationally - a lot of things that the general public doesn't realize. And, most have an even bigger impact on assisting the average consumer with what will surely be the largest purchase in his/her life. Note, the National Association of Realtors is the largest (and one of the most well-funded) trade organizations in the United States.

The good thing about all that I mentioned above is that there is a lot of good that Realtors can do.  A good Realtor can help a client look at all angles of a situation.  A good Realtor can then assist the client in understanding all viable options to provide the client with the best possible information for a sound decision - even if it's not exactly what you wanted to hear.  Whether it's in commercial or residential real estate, a good Realtor will help the client make the best investment.  Even in the residential setting, when the average consumer is only staying in a home for an average of 5 years, it's an investment, whether the consumer realizes it or not.

The problem with the influential-nature of being a Realtor is that there aren't a lot of actual experts in the marketplace.  So, some of the largest corporations that may be looking to expand or relocate into the area, the investors looking to invest in our properties, and homebuyers looking for sound advice may be talking to someone who has no clue, no education, or a biased opinion.  Example - I've heard from a number of businesses that (in the past) they have been totally swayed away from the possibility of relocating into the downtown area of Johnson City.  And, it's usually based on this: "Downtown hasn't been anything in years, so I'd look for a nice place toward north Johnson City."  That statement isn't founded in any data or research, and is simply a biased opinion from a Realtor.

On the clueless side, there are a lot of Realtors who use real estate as a side job.  They count on friends and family to buy or sell a house or two every year, and they may or may not be up to date on education, paperwork, price trends, value changes, etc.  Most of those folks look at real estate like freelance sales - and that is a problem.  Realtors are a tool to match the consumer with the right product, and not intended to sell you on anything.  And this stuff happens VERY easily.  As I said, Realtors are everywhere - they're church-goers, non-profit members, neighbors, parents to friends of children, co-workers, etc. So, it's a good possibility that you're going to run into one.  And, when you're in the market for a property, real estate is going to come up.  Then you're hooked by someone just based on your casual conversations who may or may not know what he or she is actually doing.

Some entire real estate companies are setup to encourage their Realtors to recruit more Realtors in a legalized pyramid scheme where sometimes they become more obsessed with stacking their pyramid than with advising you on real estate matters.  But, I'm not just laying the blame here with Realtors because if consumers would take the decision of spending a couple hundred thousand dollars more seriuosly, most of these "hobby" and "pyramid" Realtors would have nothing to do.

So, my entry for this month is just to encourage all you consumers - buyers, sellers, investors, business-owners, etc. to think about it.  I'm not saying a Realtor from T. C. Lewis & Co. is the only one to use because there are other experts in the mountain south.  But I am saying that you should evaluate your Realtor on more than just a casual conversation that you had with him or her at a playdate with your kids.  Remember, there are Realtors and then there are Realtors.

Existing Home Sales Moving On Up / FHA Changes Minimum Credit Score

Existing-home sales rose in August following a big correction in July, according to the National Association of Realtors®. Existing-home sales, which are completed transactions that include single-family, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops, increased 7.6 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.13 million in August from an upwardly revised 3.84 million in July, but remain 19.0 percent below the 5.10 million-unit pace in August 2009.


Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said home sales still remain subpar. “The housing market is trying to recover on its own power without the home buyer tax credit. Despite very attractive affordability conditions, a housing market recovery will likely be slow and gradual because of lingering economic uncertainty,” Yun said.

According to Freddie Mac, the national average commitment rate for a 30-year, conventional, fixed-rate mortgage fell to a record low 4.43 percent in August from 4.56 percent in July; the rate was 5.19 percent in August 2009.

Yun added, “Home values have shown stabilizing trends over the past year, even as the economy shed millions of jobs, because of the home buyer tax credit stimulus. Now that the economy is adding some jobs, the housing market needs to steadily improve and eventually stand on its own.”

The national median existing-home price for all housing types was $178,600 in August, up 0.8 percent from a year ago. Distressed homes rose to 34 percent of sales in August from 32 percent in July; they were 31 percent in August 2009.

NAR President Vicki Cox Golder, owner of Vicki L. Cox & Associates in Tucson, Ariz., said consumers have been getting mixed signals about the housing market. “People understand the good affordability conditions with stable home prices in most areas, but they’re concerned about the economy and speculation on Wall Street,” she said. “We need to stick with the facts about the long-term value of homeownership and avoid unrealistic assessments. Tight credit and slow short sales are ongoing problems – expediting short sales will help the market to recover more quickly.”

Total housing inventory at the end of August slipped 0.6 percent to 3.98 million existing homes available for sale, which represents an 11.6-month supply at the current sales pace, down from a 12.5-month supply in July.

A parallel NAR practitioner survey shows first-time buyers purchased 31 percent of homes in August, down from 38 percent in July. Investors rose to a 21 percent market share in August from 19 percent in July; the balance of purchases were by repeat buyers. All-cash sales slipped to 28 percent in August from 30 percent in July.

Single-family home sales rose 7.4 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.62 million in August from a level of 3.37 million in July, but are 19.2 percent lower than the 4.48 million level in August 2009. The median existing single-family home price was $179,300 in August, up 1.2 percent from a year ago.

Single-family median existing-home prices were higher in 10 out of 19 metropolitan statistical areas reported in August from a year ago (the price in one of 20 tracked markets was not available). Existing single-family home sales were down in all 20 metro areas from August 2009.

Existing condominium and co-op sales increased 8.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 510,000 in August from 470,000 in July, but are 17.1 percent below the 615,000-unit pace in August 2009. The median existing condo price5 was $174,000 in August, which is 2.8 percent below a year ago.

Regionally, existing-home sales in the Northeast rose 7.9 percent to an annual level of 680,000 in August but are 24.4 percent below August 2009. The median price in the Northeast was $260,300, up 7.6 percent from a year ago.

Existing-home sales in the Midwest increased 5.0 percent in August to a pace of 840,000 but are 26.3 percent below a year ago. The median price in the Midwest was $149,600, up 0.4 percent from August 2009.

In the South, existing-home sales rose 5.2 percent to an annual level of 1.62 million in August but are 13.4 percent below August 2009. The median price in the South was $155,000, down 1.5 percent from a year ago.

Existing-home sales in the West jumped 13.8 percent to an annual pace of 990,000 in August but are 16.1 percent lower than August 2009. The median price in the West was $214,700, which is 2.5 percent below a year ago.

COURTESY WALTER MOLONY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (www.Realtor.org)

Additionally, On September 3, 2010, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released Mortgagee Letter 2010-29, Minimum Credit Scores and Loan-to-Value Ratios. This is in accordance with Federal Register Notice FR-5404-N-01, which proposes minimum credit scores and loan-to-value (LTV) ratios. So, we'll have to see what effect this new score guideline has on sales as we move forward. Here's the jist of it:

Effective October 4, 2010, borrowers with a credit score below 500 are not eligible for FHA-insured mortgage financing. Borrowers with a credit score between 500 and 579 are limited to 90 percent LTV, which requires a 10 percent down payment. Borrowers with a credit score of 580 or higher are eligible for maximum financing, which requires a minimum 3.5 percent down payment. Borrowers with nontraditional credit histories may be eligible for maximum financing.

If You're Not Buying Real Estate Now, You're Either Stupid or Broke

I'm taking this entry a little outside the bounds of my blog's title, but it still somewhat applies.  And, if the title offends, stop reading now.  But, it isn't my title- it's actually a slight variation of the title of an article in Business Week.  It's attention grabbing, but it pretty much sums up what those of us in real estate-related industries are talking about amongst ourselves.  So, there you go- the secret is out.  It's because of things like interest rates and prices of property being down.  I mean did you see where the Silverdome in Detroit sold for $583,000? The city spent $55.7 Million to build it- pretty sweet deal for some sneaky Canadian investors...

My situation is the latter part of the title because of real estate investments that I've already made personally.  But, the "stupid" part applies to a lot of folks who are waiting on the grass to get a little greener.  The truth is the grass can't possibly get any greener! Interest rates are at an ALL-TIME low right now- this week they're at 4.31% for a 30 year fixed loan and a minimal qualifying credit score.  This is by far more important than any tax credits (like the $8000) that are available to first-time homebuyers and the $6500 available to exisiting homeowners.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't give my tax credit back, but the interest rates are much more of a big deal.

Here's why.  By the end of 2010 or in early 2011, interst rates will be upwards of 7 or 8%- and maybe higher.  The Fed will have to do that to try and stabilize the economy and inflation rate.  And, right now, in most areas of the Mountain South, a buyer with a saavy Realtor (preferably from T. C. Lewis & Co.) can negotiate a house normally priced at upwards of $300,000 down to around $250,000 (in a lot of cases).  So, a monthly mortgage payment with a 5% downpayment at 4.31% on an above average home in the Mountain South- let's say $250,000- is going to be roughly $1171.00 per month.  When interest rates get to 8%, that payment is going to jump to around $1743.00 per month.  That's a huge amount- nearly $600 per month!  That's more than the total monthly rent that my buddies and I paid in college!

Now, here's the other side.  We also have those "smart buyers" out there right now that are thinking that prices may continue to drop for a few more months into 2010, so they'll just wait to purchase.  I use the term "smart buyer" loosely because the prices may indeed drop, but it's all in the math.  Check this out.  If a "smart buyer" waits to purchase a home for a few thousand dollars less sometime near the end of 2010 and has to take an 8% interest rate, he or she is actually losing money.  Let's use the same house example as before.  Let's say the house that we could negotiate to $250,000 now is still on the market in late 2010.  At that point, it may be that we could negotiate it down to $230,000.  But, a $230,000 mortgage with that same 5% down and an 8% interest rate will cost around $1604.00 per month.  That's still $433 above the mortage payment for that house at a higher price but lower interest rate now!  Let's run that purchase price all the way down to $200,000 at the end of 2010.  With the 5% down and 8% interest, that mortgage payment is still $1395.00.  That's still more than $220 over the first scenario!

So, the whole key to this is thing is the math.  Buy a $300,000 home today at a fairly discounted price of around $250,000 and get a mortgage at 4.31%.  Or, you can wait a year, hope it's still on the market, and try to possibly get the place for another $50,000 less (at $200,000) and actually end up paying more for it.  Consumers have to stop looking at the "sticker price" and start weighing everything that goes into the purchase.

And, don't even get me started on the "smart buyer" who buys for that $200,000 price and then decides to sell a year later for $350,000 after setting a terrible comp for themselves in the neighborhood... their own house!  I guess it will be the appraiser's fault at that point, right?

So, the moral of this post is to avoid being a "smart buyer."  Find somebody who knows how to help advise you, and then listen to them.  Please don't prove the "stupid" part of this title right...

Quantifiable Green VS Advertising Ploy- Ask an EcoBroker

Don't be sold on "green" advertising ploys- ask questions. It's important that you understand that one of the biggest problems facing green building are the companies that learned a few terms that they like to throw around in conversation and display on trucks and in advertising: "Ask Me About Energy Efficient Homes." Searching for a home is an exciting time, and it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of the possibility of living green- you just need to make sure that you're getting what you think you're buying. The best way for the consumer to overcome these advertising ploy problems is to ask questions. You might consider seeking out a Realtor certified in green homes- an EcoBroker. EcoBroker training puts the Realtor through rigorous classes that educates him/her with the same knowledge that a green builder obtains during certification. An EcoBroker can guide you to ask the right questions about the builder's experience and certification for building green. There are classes and certifications that green builders who actually build green will obtain. Ask what green building program the builder follows for his/her green-built homes. All green-built homes have to follow a green building program (NAHB/ANSI Program, LEED for Homes, EnergyStar, etc) to allow for third-party certification of integral parts of the home's construction (even in the planning phase). These programs also allow for the qualifying of tax credits, loan discounts, local benefits, and (most of all) they ensure that the home is a true, green home and that you haven't fallen victim to an advertising ploy.

Post your questions or comments... There are more green rants from a green builder/developer coming soon, so until next week- peace!