A Letter to My Congressmen

You don't have to watch the news or listen to the radio for more than a minute to know that there is plenty of turmoil with regards to our state and federal financial situations.  This week I took the opportunity to write my state senator and representative to express my concerns with the budget proposed by Governor Dayton. Since this budget has direct implications for my business and therefore my clients, I thought I would share my thoughts with you:

I am a self-employed building and remodeling contractor that lives and works in the district that you represent.  I am writing to you asking you to reject the budget put forth by Governor Mark Dayton.  The budget that he has proposed is not good for the State of Minnesota, and it certainly is not good for the middle class, as he claims. 

Speaking with regards to the construction industry, we are one that is an already heavily regulated and governmentally burdened industry.  We face increasingly restrictive measures that hinder the way we are able to perform our work, run our businesses, and make it nearly impossible for us in the private sector to develop new and better methods with which we can serve our clients.  Many of us in the construction industry strive to do our work with excellence, keeping the safety and well being of our clients and their families as our top priority.  It is our clients and prospects who should be the ones deciding which companies succeed and which ones fail based on the level of excellence that we provide, not who can afford to pay all of the fees, keep up with all of the changing regulations, and keep from being heavily fined for minor details that have no bearing on the quality of services performed. 

Governor Dayton’s proposed budget will make it even more difficult for those of us who own businesses in this already highly taxed and regulated state.  He claims that his budget proposals  “will yield returns in new jobs, private investments, vibrant communities and additional state and local tax revenues; and they will help keep our economy moving forward. They represent my best judgment about what Minnesota needs to grow our economy, expand our middle class, improve our quality of life and take care of those most in need.”  Yet these proposals include businesses like mine having to pay a “business to business” tax.  In an already competitive market with tight margins, the last thing we need is to have to raise our rates to absorb the added tax.  Many of us will already be forced to pay steep fines with the Affordable Care Act because we will not be able to provide health insurance to our workers.  Now Governor Dayton wants to tax us even more under the false pretense that it will help the middle class.

Furthermore, by raising taxes on the top 2% income earners in the state, the proposed budget is putting an increased burden on those who have the greatest ability to hire contractors, such as myself, to build and remodel their homes.  By taxing them at a rate higher than the already high rate that they currently pay, they will have less available funds and will likely have to choose not to invest in many job-creating activities, including building and remodeling their homes.

The construction and housing industry have been the hardest hit by the recession, caused specifically by the collapse of the housing bubble – a bubble made possible by government-mandated sub-prime loans.  We have sacrificed and worked hard to keep our businesses going.  Yet those of you in government insist on taking every opportunity to add more taxes and regulations to those of us who are the real job creators, who build the vibrant communities, and who keep the economy moving forward.  It is in spite of proposals such as Governor Dayton’s budget that we continue to work and provide for our families and communities.  I am asking you as my representative in government to do what is in the best interests of those you represent and reject the proposal put forth by Governor Dayton.

Sincerely,

Nate Basinger

Northfield, MN

Sustainable buildings cannot be sustained by subsidies

A lot of good things have been done to improve the quality of living and sustainability of the resources that we use to build our homes.  Homes are becoming increasingly energy efficient - reducing both their consumption of energy resources and the harmful effects of poor air quality (allergens, mold, rot, etc).  Green building is heading in the right direction, but it's important to make sure that it is not being propelled by a superficial force.

As a believer in free market economic principals, I am leery of any program or initiative that is dependent on public funding for any significant part of its sustenance.  This is for two reasons – 1) I don’t think people should have to pay for other people’s homes and, 2) public funding is very unpredictable.  The two are co-dependent, but the second is my point of emphasis.  For green building to be sustainable it needs to be able to operate and continue independent of political agendas.  As the political biases of government change, so too do the programs that they support.  A person’s reason for wanting an energy efficient home – either new or remodeled – should be for health of occupants, the cost savings on energy consumption, and a desire for environmental stewardship.  It should not be because someone else is going to pay for it in part or in whole.

I am not opposed to public funds being designated for assisting green building initiatives in the community.  Green building is a relatively expensive practice, at least for the initial investment, and many people cannot afford the upfront costs to enjoy the long-term benefits.  But we are not doing any favors by subsidizing the industry.  What incentive is there for companies to make their practices and products more affordable when they are already being guaranteed by public funds?  Newer, smaller companies struggle to bring their cheaper and often better products to market against government contracts.  It is also impractical to demand that builders conform to standards set by many who have never participated in the building of homes, or even studied building science.  What sounds good in a meeting and what looks good on paper is often impractical in the field.  If regulations are not practical in the field, they will get altered or skipped altogether and we are no better off than we were at the beginning.  The more we draw from private firms and businesses with building experience the better the solutions will be.

Economic theories and political persuasions aside, I want to see the green building industry succeed.  Not primarily to make money off of it or use it as a marketing gimmick as many do, but because I have seen the harmful effects of poor building practices on families, particularly resulting in poor air quality.  And I have seen the health and wellness benefits that green building offers to all those who dwell in its actualization.  Add to that the additional benefits of lower energy consumption and good stewardship of the environment and I don’t think that there is a better way to go.

Proper Priorities for Sustainable Green Building

As we look further into the sustainability of green building then a discussion of priorities is in order.  First a point of clarification: when I use the term “green building” I am referring to the practice of building and remodeling homes with products that are sustainable/renewable, and that are as efficient as possible to reduce the consumption of energy and maximize the quality of the indoor air. 

In last week’s blog I suggested that the priorities of most that are pursuing a “green” lifestyle are backwards – particularly when it comes to building and maintaining an energy efficient home.  The priorities of most seem to be 1) environment, 2) money, 3) people.  Let’s look at why that is problematic.

I love the outdoors.  Camping, hiking, fishing, skiing, biking… you name it.  I am a firm believer in environmental stewardship and protecting our natural resources.  That being said, I also believe that the earth was given to us for our use – to make our lives safer, better, and yes, more convenient.  Does our use of the earth and its resources get abused, absolutely.  Far too many things are done without considering their long-term effects on the environment, leading to deforestation, water and soil contamination, endangering various species, etc.  Unfortunately as these abuses have become acknowledged they have caused many to put the earth and its resources ahead of their families and themselves in terms of value.  In short, the philosophies of individuals and policy makers alike have become more concerned about the earth than the people who live on it. 

When the groups and individuals that regulate the building trades care more about the earth than its inhabitants, then the regulations that get put into place cannot be sustained for very long.  When the earth is the number one priority then the assumption is that it should be protected whatever the cost.  Yet, just as the earth has limited resources, so, too, do those who live, work, and play on it.  Most people already want to do what is right for the environment - who doesn’t want to lower their energy bill?!?  But when their resources – monetary, intellectual, physical – are being disproportionately levied for the sake of the environment, then there will be a point in which they no longer care about it, for nothing they do, no amount that they pay, will ever be perceived as enough to help the environment.

As we consider how to make homes more energy efficient and how to build them in a renewable manner, we need to do so with people as the number one priority.  And as we consider people we need to consider their personal, hard-earned resources.  Many are already willing to pay a premium for anything labeled “green,” “organic,” or “eco-friendly.”  They want to do what is best for their families and also good for the environment.  But in order for green building to be sustainable, it must be practical and affordable (without subsidies – next week’s topic!) 

I would suggest that if we have the first two priorities, people and money, in their proper order then the environmental benefits will naturally follow, and do so in a way that can be sustained.