It’s been a few weeks since this poll started so it is time to move onto a new poll on green construction. The results here seem to speak for themselves. I come down heavily on the side that dual agency should not be legal and it appears that most voters agree. Keep in mind that results can only be considered illustrative, they are not scientfic as there is nothing from stopping one person from voting multiple times (though I ask that you don’t).
There was some discussion on dual agency in my previous post.
Only six votes on this one and it was up for a few weeks. Why the lack of interest on this particular topic? Did people just not understand the implications? (I was one of the no voters myself, so we agree on this one Charles).
My bad. I posted the wrong graphic this morning, now fixed. 31 votes.
I didn’t vote, as I think the best vote would be “Yes, with extensive disclosure to both parties.”
Should it be legal without full disclosure? No.
The current poll has so many different facets that I don’t think it is reasonably answerable.
“Would you stretch you budget to buy your dream home built with green construction?”
In general I don’t “stretch my budget,” but the right “dream home” opportunity, maybe, but then am I to guess “green construction” is more expensive, and at what point in time? Is green construction worth more or less when I go to sell?
Dual agency is legal with full disclosure but why? I don’t have the answer. What is good for the buyer is (most of the time) not good for the seller and vice versa.
JP, it is not universally true that green construction is more expensive. Some green methods are becoming main stream and thus going down in price. Kind of like that $4000 flat screen TV a few years ago. I don’t think anyone would choose the non-green house all other things being equal so my question asks whether you would spend more?
All things are not equal with “green” technology.
There are two considerations:
1. Net Present Value
If the Net Present Value is greater than or equal to zero, then why not. The NPV computation must be performed on a risk adjusted basis with reasonable assumptions.
2. Save the Earth-
Each person will value saving the Earth differently. If it makes me feel good, then maybe I can assign a specific value to that.
Here is the problem with the way you have crafted the situation: “stretch budget” implies a high discount rate (I want the home today, but I don’t have the money), thus the initial cash flow probably cannot be justified on a NPV basis. It should also follow, then, that I don’t have the money, so I should not pay extra for the green technology.
That being said, there are plenty of times that I buy green where it does not “stretch” my budget. My discount rate is sufficiently low that I can justify the initial cash outflow for lower future cash outflows.
By the way, we both know that each person has a different discount rate…
My favorite are the “sustainable” 5000 square foot McMansions. The ones with the 4 car garages for the Priuses and the automatic lawn sprinklers that use 100,000 gallons of water a year on the rhodies.
Sure, I’ll turn off the tap while I brush my teeth and rinse out disgusting dog food cans for recycling so that some yuppie family with their affluent lifestyles can use my resources and the resources of 100 other people.
There is nothing sustainable about the American lifestyle particularly as one goes up the economic class scale.