From: rogerv@sco.COM (Roger Vortman)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Things to look for when buying a house
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 02:35:34 GMT
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.


I'm sorry, but I can't let these comments go by without commenting 
again.  I feel that the poster has trivialized what I said, and since
I felt strongly enough to waste my time posting them, I feel that I
need to re-emphasize them...the things that I said are things that are
important in making the financial end of the house-buying issue, at least
to me.  I don't have an unlimited budget, and am grateful when someone
points out something to me that I hadn't thought about that might cost
me more money than I was expecting.

>>>...a home in the location that we want that is about 40 years old
>>>   >but in great shape....

>>   The critical factor to me about a house of that vintage and size is
>>   how much insulation is there? 

>Although heating costs are non-trivial, calling this the `critical'
>factor in buying a house seems to me exaggerated.  You can easily

I felt, and still feel, that there was an undercurrent in the original
posting that the poster was marginal on monthly expenses, as well as
savings.  Since they were enthusiastic about the house in other aspects,
such as the size and land, I felt that the critical deciding factors for
them were likely to be monetary considerations.  I have heard of heating
costs into the hundreds of dollars per month in cold areas in uninsulated
houses, and if the house is not built in a way where insulation and
other energy saving measures can be taken economically (single wall,
no attic construction, or large, floor to ceiling windows, for example)
then they could find themselves living to pay bills on their house rather
than enjoying the aspects of it that they liked.

>enough find out how much heat costs by asking the current owner for
>last year's utility bills (or getting their authorization to find them
>out from the utility directly).  You can also get an energy audit
>(usually free from the local utility under their conservation
>programs). 

So how does the fact that you can investigate this make it less of a
critical factor?  Later on, I suggest investigating it as well, but the
monetary effect of not thinking about it and investigating it could make
life difficult.  That's why I bothered to mention it, okay?  And I
also certainly advocate approaching investigating this stuff rationally...
where did I say to give up and not investigate?

>Then you can figure out rationally how this fits your
>budget.  There are often also low-interest loans available for
>insulation improvements.  A few hundred dollars' investment in
>weatherstripping and attic insulation can make a big difference.

This is true, but there can be things done during construction that
can make it very difficult to make real headway in conserving energy.  If
you don't know what I am talking about, then we could talk personally
about energy conservation.

>>   ...  40 years old means that it was made in the early 50's, when
>>   energy was cheap cheap cheap. ... houses constructed in the last
>>   5-10 years are much better insulated and engineered for the current
>>   high costs of energy.

>Actually, current energy prices are quite low when adjusted for
>inflation.  In fact, they may be lower in real dollars today than 40
>years ago!  (I'm afraid I don't have my statistics here.)  Certainly
>much lower compared to mortgage payments for similar houses (real
>estate has gone up a lot, and interest rates, although relatively low
>today, are higher than in the 50's).  Energy prices were at historic
>lows in the early 70's (just before the oil shock, surprise,
>surprise), and are probably not much higher now.

Energy prices in the 50's were based on the $5.00 or less barrel of oil
that we ripped off third world countries.  We don't have that opportunity
as much any more.  Maybe I am way off base here, but a heating
bill in excess of $200 a month would be a blow to my budget.  Especially
if I had just bought all the house that I could afford (i.e. scraping by
on all the expected expenses of mortgage, insurance, taxes, etc.).  So
you just went around the point that I was trying to make.  Whether energy
is lower or higher in real dollars relative to 1970 or 1950 was not the
point of the comment...the point of the comment was that houses were not as
well insulated in the 1950's in general, building codes did not require it.
And you have to pay for that out of your pocket...those are the dollars that
I am concerned about.  My experience has been that energy consciousness has
been raised in the last 40 years, and part of the reason is that whether
these are "real" dollars or not, they are dollars and have to be paid.

>>   ... why should you believe that the house has been better
>>   maintained than it was decorated?...  In my opinion you need to do
>>   some research on this stuff, have a home inspector with a good
>>   reputation go over the house carefully

>In my opinion, these are much more critical issues.

So why didn't you write your own response, rather than taking my response,
turning things around to fit your semantics, and making my points look
unimportant?  As I said, if I didn't think that these things were important,
I wouldn't have mentioned them...there are lots of ways to communicate your
points without trying to make the other guy wrong. 

I guess the metaphor is that I feel that you added a lot of heat and very
little light.

And I'm sorry, next time I'll try to anticipate what you think is critical
when I state what I think is important.

-Roger