Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors:  We Vote to Raise the cost of NEW Housing by $100,000

Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors:  We Vote to Raise the cost of NEW Housing by $100,000

Who needs laws when your Board of Supervisors refuse to obey them.  Don’t like it, sue.  Spend millions on a lawsuit while the Board uses your tax dollars for attorney.  In this case, the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors by a 3-2 vote decided to ADD $100,000 to the cost of new homes.

“As I reported Monday, the county is trying to do a ‘go around’ the court decision by not expressly prohibiting these same pieces of equipment from being used in new instruction by ‘encouraging’ builders not to build using natural gas equipment.  The problem is it really isn’t a voluntary ‘encouragement’ as builders who choose to use natural gas equipment will be required to spend up to $100,000 additionally per home in installing the highest grades of energy-efficient doors, windows, walls, etc.  They will even be required to provide on-site a solar-operated generator.  So given that ‘mandate’ builders will clearly choose to not install natural gas pieces of equipment in the new construction.  This prohibition even applies to all agricultural operations.”

Government is the cause of high home prices.  We do not need affordable housing; we need responsible elected officials.  Until then, California will continue its DOOM LOOP.  Looks like Santa Barbara has decided to allow only Oprah and her friends to live in the County.

Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors:  We Vote to Raise the cost of NEW Housing by $100,000

Mike Stoker, Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center, 9/18/24  https://www.sbctac.org/

I wanted to give you an update regarding the county’s efforts to enact a “no natural gas” ordinance. 

On Monday I advised you that the County Board of Supervisors would be considering this matter on Tuesday.  I provided you a copy of the written comments the SBCTAC submitted opposing this proposal.

For background purposes, in April 2023 the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in California Restaurant Association vs. City of Berkeley invalidating the City of Berkeley’s ordinance prohibiting natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings.  The court held the ordinance is federally preempted by Section 6297 (c) of the federal Energy Policy & Conservation Act (EPCA).  Under the EPCA, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) sets energy conservation standards for many common building appliances such as furnaces, HAVAC systems, and hot water heaters  (just a few of the many EPCA ‘covered appliances’), and state and local governments are mostly preempted from setting energy standards for those same pieces of equipment.

As I reported Monday, the county is trying to do a ‘go around’ the court decision by not expressly prohibiting these same pieces of equipment from being used in new instruction by ‘encouraging’ builders not to build using natural gas equipment.  The problem is it really isn’t a voluntary ‘encouragement’ as builders who choose to use natural gas equipment will be required to spend up to $100,000 additionally per home in installing the highest grades of energy-efficient doors, windows, walls, etc.  They will even be required to provide on-site a solar-operated generator.  So given that ‘mandate’ builders will clearly choose to not install natural gas pieces of equipment in the new construction.  This prohibition even applies to all agricultural operations.

I advised the board that the SBCTAC is opposed for several reasons.  First natural gas is a clean, inexpensive, and abundant source of energy.  People should have the right to make their own decisions whether they use or don’t use natural gas.  I also pointed out that recent studies show that by 2030 the cost to charge an all-electric car will cost more than to fill your car up with a tank of gas for your traditional internal combustion engine car.  This year alone, PG& E has requested 4 rate increases.  Consequently, such a policy if adopted, is elitist and regressive as it will proportionately hurt renters, the poor and middle class the most who will have to pay substantially higher electric bills in the years to come.  Finally, I pointed out that the ‘go around’ approach very well, like the City of Berkeley ordinance, will be struck down by a federal court if legally challenged.  

At the hearing, in a very arrogant tone, Supervisor Williams said, “It’s just not correct that natural gas is better for the consumer.”  Supervisors Lavagnino and Nelson said to let the consumer decide and that it is not the role of government to tell a person what’s best for them.  Supervisor Lavagnino even mentioned the racist aspect of such a policy pointing out that the Latino culture is oriented around using natural gas for cooking.  (He is absolutely correct.)  And he concluded by saying, “Letting people choose is the American way.” 

The board voted 3-2, with Lavagnino and Nelson opposed, for staff to come back with a draft ordinance.

The SBCTAC will continue to monitor this proposal and I will keep you advised of any developments. The SBCTAC strongly opposes this arrogant, elitist and regressive proposal and it will be one of our top priorities to defeat.

Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Mike Stoker
President & CEO, SBCTAC