What’s the opposite of rent control? Whatever it is, Boulder is apparently poised to enact it.
That city’s planning board has recommended that the City Council get behind “SmartRegs” when it takes up the matter later this month. As the Boulder Daily Camera explains, SmartRegs “would create a point-based system for energy efficiency that the city’s 19,000 or so rental properties would all have to meet.” That’s about “half of the city’s housing stock,” in case you’re wondering.
And who will ante up the $17 million that officials estimate is needed to bring those properties up to the proposed code? Landlords, for the most part — and renters when landlords are able to pass on the expense. But what’s a small fortune when you’re saving the planet?
As climate-change activists push their agenda ever more persistently at the local level, SmartRegs and their offspring will become commonplace. So maybe we ought to stop and consider what might be wrong with such initiatives.
First, they’re symbolic. Reducing planetary greenhouse emissions to the extent activists foresee requires a fundamental shift out of fossil fuels — a process that will take many decades and require new technologies. Improving energy efficiency in a small Western town’s rental units is irrelevant to that journey.
Second, the rules are complex, intrusive and time-consuming, and reflect an attitude of Father Knows Best. Never mind those landlords bleating about being saddled with extra expense (the Boulder Area Rental Housing Association projects SmartRegs’ tab at $35 million). We’re to believe they’re either selfish or don’t know what’s good for them.
After all, a city consultant upgraded several properties to meet the proposed code and found that the savings in monthly utility bills slightly exceeded the cost of financing a loan for the improvements. So what’s the problem?
Here’s one: Even if the test cases fairly represent the sort of investments and fuel savings that landlords can expect, “the majority of tenants pay their own energy bills,” as the city itself notes in its SmartRegs documents. That means the only way most landlords can offset the cost is to jack up rents. But of course they can’t simply hike rents in all cases — because the housing market doesn’t always permit it.
As for landlords who are in a position to pocket the purported savings, why wouldn’t they make the necessary investments on their own? Former Boulder mayor and current county commissioner Will Toor has publicly defended the regulations, so I put the question to him.
“For years we’ve known that even investments that are cost effective tend not to be made” on rental properties, he replied. Sometimes inaction has to do with lack of information, but the “pain in the butt factor” also plays a big role, he said, meaning “it might save me money, but I’ve got a million things going on in my life and this may not be something I want to focus on.”
Toor’s explanation sounds plausible, but he and I differ on what conclusion to draw from it. He’d have government force rental owners to make the investments. I’d trust them to decide what’s best.
Maybe many of them can think of more productive uses of their time than lining up tests for air or duct leakage, dealing with a city inspector, applying for applicable subsidies (such as from Xcel Energy) and finding a bank to finance the investment, all for a payoff — maybe — of a few bucks a month.
Couldn’t you?
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
