DeKalb commissioner: Retrofit legislation ‘in jeopardy’
November 28th, 2007 by Thomas Wheatley in NewsA proposed ordinance requiring homes in DeKalb County to be retrofitted with water-saving plumbing fixtures before they are resold is in jeopardy of being quashed unless it gains more public support. That’s the take of DeKalb County Commissioner Jeff Rader, who earlier this morning sent out an impassioned e-mail to various environmentalists and members of the community seeking to direct attention to the measure. The commission decided last week to postpone a vote on the ordinance until the next meeting on Dec. 5.
Retrofitting pre-1993 plumbing in metro homes has been a frequent suggestion offered by city and regional officials to Atlanta residents as a way to conserve water. Antiquated plumbing fixtures waste more water than their modern, more efficient counterparts. According to Rader, low-flow toilets and shower heads could reduce demand by an estimated 3.5 million gallons of water per day in the county. The cost — $450 is listed as a high-end estimate — would be recouped in the form of lower water bills in three years, he said.
“This is essential because we’re in a drought crisis and this is the single most cost-effective thing we can do to conserve water,” Rader said in a phone interview. “We’re not asking people to tear up their lawns or anything like that. This is a win-win situation for everybody. It’s a very effective thing we can do to reduce structural water consumption.”
According to a press release from the Atlanta Board of Realtors, the lobbying group inundated commissioners with phone calls opposing the DeKalb ordinance. It’s another battle in a familiar war — previous attempts at similar legislation have been met with opposition by the same industry. Realtors say ordinances such as the one proposed in DeKalb would negatively impact the market and place home buyers and sellers at risk of being fined. ABR’s offices were closed for the day when CL tried to reach them for comment.
In his e-mail, Rader urged the recipients to contact the other DeKalb commissioners and to attend the commission’s upcoming meeting, where they will vote on the ordinance. The commission will meet in the Maloof Auditorium Wed., Dec. 5, at 6:30 p.m. to vote on the ordinance.
Click here to read the Retrofit on Resale legislation being proposed by DeKalb County.
To send your views to the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners, click here to visit their website and access their e-mail addresses.
Send to a friend:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Any truth to the rumor that CL Corporate Offices are moving to Macon in about ten weeks, due to the water shortage? You can’t have ink without water, maybe that’s Cousin Sonny’s masterplan.
We had 3/4 inches of rain on Monday, so the promise land to your south is still loaded to the gills and ready to be media central usa.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Most REALTORS® strongly support water conservation efforts. We realize that vibrant, growing communities rely on smart water use plans to sustain their viability. However, the measure that is currently proposed does virtually nothing to address the current drought. There are approximately 163,000 homes in DeKalb County that were built prior to 1993. Less than 4% of these properties will be sold in 2008, many of which have already been upgraded to low flow fixtures.
The estimate by Commissioner Rader that 3.5 million gallons could be conserved by conversion to low-flow fixtures is based on all structures in the county converting immediately. However, sales history for the DeKalb County market indicates that it could take approximately 25 years until all residences convert under this proposal.
If DeKalb County is serious about conserving water through the use of low flow bathroom fixtures, then the county should implement a program that provides an incentive to all property owners with older fixtures with the goal of reaching every household and business. The real solution rests with widespread community participation.
Mike Wright
President
Atlanta Board of REALTORS®
November 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Here’s an incentive: investments in low-flow toilets and shower heads pay for themselves in savings in three years.
By the way, let’s also assume Mike Wright’s numbers are correct.
3.5 million gallons per day (notice he doesn’t mention the “per day”)
4% of that number is reached in year one, as 4% of houses are sold. So in the first year, DeKalb is looking at a savings of 140,000 gallons per day.
That’s 51.1 million gallons of water saved in the first year of the ordinance. That’s certainly worth something.
I would agree with Mike Wright that incentives to change out bathroom fixtures would also be a good idea. Both of these ideas are just two tools in a much bigger toolbox.
And the problem we’re discussing — the water shortage — requires a lot of tools be used. If we don’t, the value of real estate throughout the metro area will take a bigger fall than a mortgage crisis could inflict. I would think that to a REALTOR(R), the prospect of losing a lot of money in commissions would spur some real action behind empty claims of “strong” support for conservation efforts.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
One disagreement with your numbers Joevntures…all of the fixtures would not be replaced on January 1, 2008 because the home sales occur throughout the year. Assuming that the sales are equally divided among the months, you would have to assume that the total water savings would equal 25.6 million gallons in the first year (using Commissioner Rader’s assumptions). In other words, in the FIRST YEAR this program would save the equivalent of 2.6% of what is currently be released in ONE DAY from Lake Lanier by the Corp of Engineers. While this is not insignificant, it is far less than could be achieved with a countywide replacement incentive program, which has not been considered by the commissioners up to this point. REALTORS® do strongly support a water conservation program and have proposed one that will have a much greater impact than the one currently on the table.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
rosebud - impact fees
and move some state & government offices out of the ATL…
November 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Mike… so why not do both? Why oppose a conservation measure that won’t have any significant impact on your business? Perhaps it’s because you’re only in support of subsidies for Realtors(R) — even if they’re indirect?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Hey Mike Wright, maybe selling a house with low flow already installed will be a selling point! There’s a reason why people are demanding EarthCrafy houses. There’s a reason why conservation subdivisions in California are selling out qucikly.
Realtors do not give a damn about communities. They sell, they get out. long term problems and solutions to fix them? Don’t ever look at realtors for help or step up. It’s all about the commission, and nothing else.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:30 am
To infer that Realtors don’t give a damn about communities is ignorant and self serving. Who are Realtors clients? You, me, the young family looking for their first home, the elderly couple looking to retire. If a Realtor is not serving the best interest of their clients they are not going to be in the business very long. If you really examine this issue, Realtors commissions are not a part of this debate at all. The proposed ordinance in DeKalb county will not affect the Realtors bottom line, but it will affect the sellers of homes, placing a fee of around $300 per toilet just to sell your house. That is why Realtors are paying attention to this issue. It effects home sellers and actually places criminal penalties on them. CRIMINAL PENALTIES!!!!
If this is a good idea, what about all of those homes with single paned windows. Next time gas is an issue like water is now, will the government then make you replace all of your windows, have an insulation inspector make sure you are in compliance and make everyone buy all new energy star appliances?
This is the point. Is the best way for government to act, by reaching it’s long arm into your home and dictating if your home is eligible for sale or not, or is the best way for government to act, by offering education on the benefits of conservation and offering the tools to it’s citizens to be effective?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Phaedrus: WM didn’t infer Realtors don’t give a damn about communities. He said it.
But I do disagree with that point. My personal experiences with Realtors is that, with only a few exceptions, they do care. But there are times — such as with this issue — that Realtors as a collective can be a little shortsighted.
But I also believe this is not overreaching by the government. That’s a bit of a hyperbolic argument, especially when you consider this in the context of a home sale. If a home has more toilets, it has a greater impact on the water system.
If a home’s water use had no impact on the rest of the system, then there would be no need for regulation. That I have neighbors using more water than they need to use has an impact on me, even if I buy low-flow toilets and shower heads.
That’s why I like the approach of having both the regulation, and a tax credit (or rebate) of some sort. The two together would really speed up the process of getting people to convert, and it would place everyone on a level playing field.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Joe,
You are correct that WM did say it, and I am glad that we disagree with his statement.
When I brought up the windows and insulation argument, I meant to add in order to sell your house. How much different is it for the government to be able to say, you can’t sell your home if you have these kind of toilets, than for them to tell say that you cannot sell your home unless you have certain kinds of windows, certain types of appliances and a certain level of insulation?
All of these things use natural resources and depending on the current situation different natural resources are brought into the spotlight. I don’t think anyone in this discussion is denying we have a problem or believes water conservation is a bad idea.
Why don’t we examine the DeKalb County Government Buildings and all of DeKalb County Schools to see if their toilets have been retrofit? If they want to legislate with a heavy hand and place criminal penalties on its citizens, shouldn’t they take the lead and first fix leaking pipes and retrofit all of their fixtures? I guarantee you they waste more water than all of your neighbors combined!
An incentive program is a win-win for the county, the consumer and the general public. We all chip in and we all reap the benefits without threat of criminal penalties!
December 1st, 2007 at 9:38 am
Phaedrus: That’s just a slippery slope argument, and I’m not buying that. Some slippery slopes may be believable, but this one is too hyperbolic to buy. Just take the slippery slope the other way — perhaps all building codes, zoning ordinances and all other housing- and land-use-related policies should be abolished, instead.
As far as examining existing DeKalb government and school buildings goes, I think that’s a very good idea.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Joe,
I agree, it is a slippery slope. That is exactly my point. Abolishing all building codes and zoning ordinances is not even remotely close to entering into this argument. What we are talking about is the government telling private property owners that they cannot sell their house until they meet their requirements for fixtures in their home. I believe education and incentives to retrofit are the best course of action. I for one do not want the government in my life anymore than it already is and I don’t think criminalizing the selling of your home is appropriate.
You can sell your house if it has lead paint in every room, you can sell your house if it is ravaged by termites, but under this ordinance you could not sell your home unless you had the right kind of toilets. Also, if you wanted to buy a house simply to tear it down and build a new home (which would have low flow fixtures), the seller would first have to retrofit the toilets in order to sell the home, just so you could tear the entire house down. It is a poorly written ordinance and bad public policy.
Joe…I appreciate the discussion. I think in the long run, we agree we should retrofit as many older toilets as we can to conserve. We simply disagree on the level of government intrusion we wish to see.