Landlord Green Mandating Green Retrograding Among Income

Landlord Green Mandating Green Retrograding Among Income Property Owners The movement for improved environmental sustainability starts with individual property owners. However, property ownership remains one of the most significant and determinant socioeconomic dividing lines in American society. The result is a clear socioeconomic dividing line where sustainability and conservation are concerned. In spite of the critical importance of adapting our consumption habits, lifestyle orientation and energy usage to meet changing needs, many Americans lack the basic ownership rights to participate in some key initiatives.

Central among them is the impetus for Green building practices. As the research and discussion presented hereafter with show, this is an impetus to which most home-renters are unable to respond. As the research will note, the need to account for the significant population of Americans who rent when imposing regulatory policies effecting green building standards is today a central element of any plan to reduce our dependency on aging technology and environmentally destructive fossil fuels.

According to one of the leading experts on demographic data regarding home ownership and renting, the National Multi-Housing Council (NMHC), statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey indicate that 34% of the U.S. population rent rather than own the property they and their family live in (NMHC, 2011). This is therefore a very significant number of people and number of households that lack the type of decision-making authority that property owners are likely to possess.

This contrasts directly with what is required of the resident in order to be compliant with today's emergent 'best practices' in the area of household efficiency. Indeed, on order for the American household to truly 'go green,' it is typically necessary to engage in a number of major household upgrades. Such upgrades will include the installation of energy-efficient windows, the elimination of outdated, energy guzzling appliance and the installation of efficient heating and cooling units.

However, because such changes are typically far outside the reach, capability or even legal entitlement of those renting their homes, this decidedly large population may be seen as something of an 'elephant in the room' where the process of 'greening' American homes is concerned. To this point, Gardner & Stern (2008) as well as many others contend that the missing link between property owners and renters is significant in every sector with regard to upgrading homes for optimal energy efficiency (Gardner & Stern, 2008, p.13).

The missed opportunity for progress in this area, represented in the gap of upgrading accessibility between the property owner and the renter is substantial. And though the significant cost which this levies on our economy and overall energy efficiency as a nation is deleterious especially in an era of recession, this remains a rather poorly researched area of lost opportunity. This is because there are competing microeconomic interests at hand and these make it less appealing in the short-term for property owners to adopt major structural changes.

Indeed, the property owner in most cases owns the property with the intention of producing an income from its rent. Property owners are also often either not aware or not concerned about the costs associated with heating. This is because in the typical landlord/lessee relationship, these utility bills are solely the responsibility of the renter. Owners are likely only to have limited knowledge regarding costs for utilities.

As a result, it is not uncommon for a property owner to lack relative knowledge of the energy efficiency of a structure, with said knowledge usually emerging from the limited experiences with the structure during repairs, regular maintenance activities or vacancy between renters. These costs are not likely to reflect the real and sustained cost of providing energy to the home or apartment. Moreover, as noted here above, the owner is also burdened with a great many other issues of safety and integrity associated with maintaining the property.

The result is both a limited understanding and a limited prioritization of the energy-efficiency demands for a structure in need of major upgrades. As the research conducted here shows, the incentives produced at the public level for encouraging green retrograding of residential housing are decidedly limited and may well fail a basic financial pros-and-cons test for the inquiring property owner.

Indeed, on one level, federal laws and tax credits have been in place for several years that support the necessary energy efficiency transition by offering corporations and private property owners tax breaks to upgrade property or install efficient appliances in both newly constructed homes or in a retrograding fashion. Unfortunately, substantial evidence persists to suggest that these programs do not go far enough to address the renter/owner conundrum. Many tax incentive options are available only to property owners in their primary dwelling.

Though some owners may see breaks on insurance of income properties for certain upgrades there is no significant program that aides property owners in upgrading income properties for energy efficiency. The owner of the property has a conflict of interest in that their desire is to have the home occupied, with the least possible out of pocket expense for the property. Therefore installing energy efficient appliances is often far from the top of the priority list, as the cost of running appliances falls on the occupier (Gardner & Stern, 2008).

Additionally, the value of properties from which owners collect rent is often viewed as profitable in the short-term. This differs from the property owner with intent to maintain, improve and eventually resell a property for profit. In today's particularly anemic housing market, collecting a monthly rent check stands as a much sturdier priority than such.