Since the drought of the 2000’s, residents of the metropolitan area of Atlanta have become painfully aware of the scarcity of water resources.  It has apparently taken such a severe natural event to make a notable impression.  Now that the drought has passed, the question is:  What have we learned from it?  Many now advocate conservation, and this is good.  Under any circumstances, this is good.  But this is not enough.  Our political leaders still have not helped us understand the root problem.  Perhaps it’s because they don’t really understand the problem. 

Many may recall back during the dry spell panic, one of our most prominent leaders actually made known publicly of his initiative to pray for an end to the drought.  The logic being that if God created the problem, only God could fix it.  This accusation is akin to blaming the design-engineer for a failing, but misused machine.  Few are willing to argue that this planet was not well designed by its maker.  But the earth, too, will break, if like a well-designed machine it is misused.  The astute among us recognize that the fault in this situation has been more the result of the hand of man, than the hand of God.

Our drought was moreover caused by an overzealous appetite for development, and thoughtless land use in and around Atlanta.  We have built too much impervious surface in this geographical area.  And because of this, the limited amount of rainfall received, was not plentiful enough to provide all the necessary water resource.  But also important to know is that even the skimpy quantities of rainfall should have been enough—even during the apex of what we had labeled a drought period.  I’ll attempt to explain this in scientifically unworthy laymen’s terms.  But I would suggest that if you really want to understand the scientific basis for this argument, read: The Realities of CO2: Seeing Through the Smog of Rhetoric and Politics.¹ 

The key to understanding this argument is recognizing that highways, parking lots, and rooftops are not the only impervious surfaces built on a typical parcel of developed land.  And let there be no doubt about it, the problem surely has everything to do with the construction of impervious surfaces.  But another equally environmentally damaging, yet unsuspected culprit in this ecological offense would be the turf lawns in our residential subdivisions and on our corporate campuses.  These lawns are typically comprised of non-indigenous, short rooted grasses that are kept mowed to within a few inches from the soil.  The result of this behavior is that the lawns are unable to generate sufficient rainwater-retaining root mass.  This pervasive landscaping feature, heralded by horticulturalists, notwithstanding its subliminal evil, has been eagerly perpetuated by an unaware public to such an extent that it has become a cultural norm. (It hasn’t always been this way, it just seems like it.) 

The problem with this steadfast contemporary norm is that these introduced plants are unable to absorb the rainfall natural to their new habitats.  This is so, even for quantities of unsubstantial rainfall.  The water that we so desperately demand is, indeed, furnished as wished for, but it is granted to us as it falls on our incompetent lawns.  Then, coupled with the water falling on our rooftops, driveways, and streets is whisked away, overcharging the creeks and streams, gushing into the Chattahoochee River (in the Atlanta case), and eventually but rapidly dispatched into the Gulf of Mexico.  And then, having made certain that the resource offered (by God) has been squandered, we are amazed that we have no water.  Few stop to consider that we intentionally engineered it away through the highly effective, but ecologically faulty design of our developed landscapes.  And the irony is that, during high precipitation periods, these same systems are moreover the fault of the ever increasing number and ferocity of floods, witnessed all across the United States in recent years.  Unfortunately, this concept evades some government water conservation and planning initiatives, as exemplified in a recent north Georgia storm and waste water management plan.²  This plan suggests that, since only about 1% of ground-water contributes to the water supply, it is hardly worth spending money and time to convert it into a more substantially consumable asset.  Another irony here then, is that precious surface water (rainwater) then becomes 99% of the available resource, yet we illogically turn our backs on the bulk of it.        

In the time before development of any parcel of land, the surface was adorned with natural flora that was a delicate part of a balanced ecosystem—one that inherently understood how to receive the rain, and how to retain it as a sustainable resource.  Undisturbed natural landscapes were designed to compensate for weather cycles that could be expected to bring more or less rain.  And at the risk of stating the obvious, we might acknowledge that such native lands could withstand these fates of nature with a casual, but supportive interrelationship with mankind.  The human being is indeed, an integral part of our ecology, and does have a critical role as responsible steward of the land.  The issue taken here is that, as a culture, we have lost sight of this caretaker role, and rather have become destructive, perhaps beyond the point of redemption, in many cases.

Fundamental is the understanding that, through a natural process (that only God could have built), these natural landscapes are more than mere, cosmetic icing on the cake.  They play a critical role in feeding the underground aquifers, and continuously, but in a naturally measured way, refurnish with cool, fresh water, our streams, rivers, and lakes.  In a properly functioning ecosystem, these water resources never go dry.  Drought is an unlikelihood because the supply process can continue for months and months without rainfall of any substance.

Contrast this to the current sate of affairs where the introduction of imported, nonnative plants has overtaken the natural flora.  The ecological problem then becomes the reality that these, uprooted, new species do not know how to participate in an unfamiliar ecosystem—in a foreign environment.  These species will invariably perish without the unnatural help of the agent that transplanted them.  But for the sake of this argument, note that they will not do their naturally assigned role of reintegrating water into the system.  They simply cannot hold the water resource.

What we risk in this thoughtless intervention is environmental sustainability, and as a consequence of that, all other species of life, otherwise dependent upon the land, will perish along with its inability to sustain itself.  And this fact includes human beings, over time.  This is a fundamental reality that must be understood if our hope is that subsequent generations will have a bountiful land, with plenty of fresh water, upon which to continue the human experience. 

A significant contributor to the problem is the leadership of our federal government, which has chosen to follow the lead of the global warming celebrity-advocates, that have done a credible job convincing the American public, and maybe even the better part of the world, that carbon foot-printing is our most grave environmental problem, and that conservation and alternative methods of power generation are the solutions.  So the pursuits of energy conservation and renewable energy sources have come to overshadow some of the other vital environmental components that many might well argue are of even greater significance.  We can live forever without power, but we can survive only mere days without fresh water.  

It baffles me why so many in the green movement are so quick to jump on the energy bandwagon relegating other program components to casual interest.  Perhaps it is because the rhetoric appears to advance their genuine environmental objectives, even if only a little bit.  About this there should probably be little surprise, since the green movement has never before enjoyed such public resonance, credited to any other environmental initiatives to date.  But the question we should be asking is whether this concession is worth the cost.

At a meeting of green minded REALTORS^®, I was amazed at a story related to me by one of my colleagues.  Let’s name him Joe.  Joe had been told, covertly, by a vendor that sells rainwater retention systems, that what his company was doing was ultimately contributing to the drought problem.  He pointed out that his retention systems served to merely rob the lakes of their rightful supply source—rain.  He had convinced Joe that if too many people installed this system, the result could be ecologically catastrophic.  This is an absurd argument, of course, but Joe had accepted it as plausible.  To me, this was a frightening revelation, because I consider Joe to be an educated, intelligent man.  As diplomatically as possible, I pointed out to Joe that the rainwater filling the retention system would have been otherwise whisked away into the storm drains, and lost to the Gulf of Mexico anyway.  It wasn’t headed into the lake.  It wasn’t going to hang around long enough to be useful to anyone around here.  The real tragedy is that hundreds of millions of gallons of rainwater are lost with each rain shower.  Too many of us think this is normal.  We have come to believe that rivers and streams should bloat, and look muddy shortly after a rainfall.  That’s the only way most of us have ever known things to be.  But it is not natural, it’s just become familiar. 

So what can we REALTORS^® do?  What role can we play that will make a difference?  First is to recognize the problem.  Then, to educate ourselves to such a level that we can become conversant about the issues.  Sustainability should become a popular term in our lexicon.  As we pursue this feat, we will discover that the word sustainability, much like the word green, has become a versatile term meaning different things to different people.  For most it implies some observance of energy or water conservation strategies, interior air quality improvements, or construction with recyclable materials.  And these are essential concepts for us to grasp, indeed.

But another less exercised component among these virtuous concepts is the fully-integrated, green-minded, mixed-use community.  Such developments include environmental considerations of the surrounding landscape, as they carefully and artfully construct residential, social, commercial, and recreational features in such a way that they do not totally upset the ecology of the place.  We must learn to recognize this sort of artful development when we see it.  We must engender sufficient self-confidence that we can adequately promote such places, as the currently rare but essential places that they are.  We must be able to do this for a generally unaware marketplace.  That means we must be able to discuss the benefits of such places rather than simply listing the features that might fall deaf upon the ears of an ignorant public.

And this is a problem too.  Why is the public ignorant?  Why are there not more of these sustainable mixed-use developments?  The scarcity of these precious gems may be in some part due to the fact that it is such a hard nut to crack.  It demands a shift in a well ensconced paradigm—the pride of achieving a carpet-like grassy yard void of competing species.  Competing species that we have learned to label weeds.  After all, we can earn yard of the month, if we sufficiently comply with this ecologically misguided social expectation. 

As we REALTORS^® advance our appreciation for the green movement, we should become aware of the evermore popular, yet misleading ruse called greenwashing.  We owe this duty to our clients.  And I would like to take it a step further noting that even processes, programs, and materials that demonstrate environmental regard, may not fully embrace the ecology, and therefore, may not have rightly earned the designation eco.  This is a crucial differentiation that REALTORS^® must be able to discern.  I call it ecowashing when the marketing name or concept implies embracing the ecology of the place, when in realty it only touts green-conscious attributes. 

Eco should imply appreciation and respect for ecology.  Ecology is a fully integrated system, not a component of one, whether functional or not.  So the test is to ask:  What favor to this purpose do we see in a green community that has an inclusive relationship with the local ecology—one that respects the very land upon which the project is built?  Should we be satisfied to build structures that are validated green, such as LEED certified or EarthCraft homes, yet fail to incorporate regard for the land upon which they are perched?  I think and hope not. 

Thankfully, there are some, real life, virtuosic developments that do observe the ecology—the place.  These projects are examples of how the design team broke the code, and figured out that it is not more expensive to develop green, if the multiple disciplines from engineering, to architecture, to construction are considered in the conceptual phase, and remain an integral part of the process through to completion.  From the perspective of protecting the water resource, it cannot be over emphasized that the design teams absolutely must include the landscaping component, not as an add-on, or unnecessarily expensive afterthought, but as an integral part of the overall scheme.  It is in this integrated planning and execution that economy is found.  We find encouragement in the example of communities such as those below (see Internet links in the references) that have found some success in this development format: 

A.  Serenbe is an Atlanta area example, with a 40,000 acre development that protects 80% of its land mass as green.  It integrates a variety of green features from responsible handling of storm water to the exclusive use of native plants and organic landscaping.³

B.  The 677 acre community at Prairie Crossing, in Grayslake, Illinois was designed to combine the preservation of open land, easy commuting by rail, and responsible development practices.  60% of the development is protected open land.⁴

C.  Village Homes, a 70 acre subdivision in Davis, California, “was designed to encourage both the development of a sense of community and the conservation of energy and natural resources.” ⁵

D.  The Josey Heights residential neighborhood in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, promotes a “sustainable stormwater management system including permeable paving, biofiltration rain gardens, and bioswales distributed throughout the site.”⁶ 

E.  The 170 acre Tryon Farms development preserves approximately three-quarters of the landscape as rolling pasture, meadows, woods and ponds.⁷

These are just a few of the successful attempts at responsible, ecologically-aware development.  There are surely others.  But it is important to recognize the common thread among these projects is that they all honor the land itself.  These developers and designers have fully integrated, to the maximum extent possible, the entire ecology of the site. 

These cutting edge projects and communities represent the must of tomorrow’s architectural and landscaping design concepts.  We have the technology to do this today, in virtually every construction project, but in many instances we lack the public will, a factor that can only be attributable to a continuing ignorance in the consuming sector.  Even with a growing environmental consciousness, too few people understand the necessity to implement what some know emphatically to be essential to the survival of our species.  Hence, the purpose of this article has been to inform those not yet apprised, to reassure those that already know, and to signal to the REALTOR^® profession that we have an important ecological duty to perform.

By Daniel R. Wilhelm, ABR, ABRM, CRB, EcoBroker, RMP

 dan@3optionsrealty.com, 678-397-1282, www.3optionsrealty.com

1.  The Realities of CO2: Seeing Through the Smog of Rhetoric and Politics, Wilhelm, 2004, Rev. 2008, http://cdfinc.com/images/download/Realities_of_CO2_revised.pdf  

2.  Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, Public Comment Draft, Dec  2008. http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/files/2008-12-12_Watershed_Public_Comment_Draft.pdf

3.  The Serenbe Development Team and Consultants, Palmetto, Georgia.  http://serenbe.com

4.  Prairie Crossing, Developers George and Victoria Ranney,  http://www.prairiecrossing.com/pc/site/index.html

5.  Village Homes, Davis, California, Mike Corbett, principal designer.  http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/home

6.  Josey Heights, Josey Heights Development and the Conservation Design Forum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, http://cdfinc.com/images/download/cut%20sheet-Josey%20Heights.pdf

7.  Tryon Farms, Michigan City, Indiana, Tryon Farm Partners, Ltd. and Edward Noonan & Associates, Ltd. http://www.tryonfarm.com

For lots of reasons, more and more people are becoming interested in the environment— some from an altruistic motivation, others from a purely economical or utilitarian perspective.  But the reality is that we, the people the-world-over, have wholly abused our local ecologies (the places we live) to such a devastating degree that regardless of our motivations, many people have begun to recognize that we must start paying attention, or else find that we will have misused and abused the land to such an extent that it no longer sustains life—our life!  Now, having begun to recognize this, many people are in agreement that our behavior simply must change.  And it seems to me that we are generally prepared to accept the fact that this revelation may entail an acceptance of the personal sacrifice of convenience. 

It should not be surprising then, that there is increasing buzz within the real estate community about conservation easements.  A method devised to protect designated land by assigning certain lasting protective covenants.  We should feel gratified that society has discovered a tool to capture what is left of natural lands, and to preserve them in perpetuity, at least for as long as the existing government and its laws survive.  But if we are genuinely concerned we should ask which land is worthy of preservation.  Should just any parcel of land earn this protection?  How do we know which parcels are dear and which parcels are of questionable value?  Upon what logic can we base such decisions?

There is a widely spread myth that any natural area (someplace with trees on it), and little or no manmade “improvements”, is valuable and worthy of preservation.  And it may be so by some dubious standard, but the problem is determining which of several parcels is genuinely more valuable than another, if a choice must be made.  This is a hard question, but it is one that has been answered by a pair of notable 20^th Century, American botanists, Swink and Wilhelm, with their Floristic Quality Index:  

“… a tract of land occupied prevailingly by weeds or non-conservative

native species cannot be viewed as natural area and is quite replaceable. 

Our interest in natural area identification and floristic quality assessment

focuses on the extent and promotion to which constellations of conservative

species are present.”¹      

To really understand this quote, we must first understand what these fellows consider a weed, and what defines a conservative plant.  A weed is a plant not native to the ecosystem, and a conservative one is one that belongs there—one that is truly endemic to that place.  With this in mind, trained technicians can rate one parcel against another by a common and undisputable standard.  The Floristic Quality Index establishes this mechanism, and has been adapted to address regional ecosystems within many states in the USA.

The point that must be made here is that conservation easements are a worthy instrument of environmental stewardship, but we must not delude ourselves into thinking that we have done some environmental good by preserving a place overridden with weeds.  Unfortunately, laymen would hardly recognize an invasive weed from an endemic plant.  For example, we are generally misled into believing that planting a tree, virtually any species of tree, virtually any place, is a good idea.  If we really are concerned about improving the ecology of the place, we will either take the time to learn the difference for ourselves, or consult with someone that knows.  Planting the wrong kind of tree in the wrong environment does nothing to improve the remant ecosystem.  In fact, it most assuredly contributes to its ecological failing, probably even more so than if the land had just been left alone to recover on its own—which it probably will not.

Conservation easements give landowners the power of law to protect those few remaining parcels of land with redeeming ecological value.  This is significant, because what many appear not to understand is that the vast acreage of agricultural land, such as the endless crop fields in the heartland, and the overgrazed cattle farms in the south, east, and west, represents land which has been virtually destroyed.  We could say the same for 99% of the ecologically divested land that hosts our residential subdivision and burgeoning urban areas.  These places lack any hope of ecological redemption.  But if a landowner has a parcel on which the soil has not yet been cultivated, it may retain sufficient genetic memory to be restored, with proper human stewardship.  This is the sort of judgment that can be made by applying the Floristic Quality Index.  It would be a worthy undertaking to preserve and renew such a place, even if only for the sake of posterity.  Indeed, if only for the sake of posterity!  This should be motivation enough.

So what’s the connection between conservation easements and green landlording?  If you own an investment property that either encompasses such an easement, or sits nearby or adjacent to one—one that is legitimately ecologically significant, then the property may hold special value indeed.  If so, this fact should be promoted in the marketing and pricing strategies.  The property is surely unique, and this feature should be acknowledged.  You can be certain that the marketplace will respond to it.  But then it also becomes incumbent upon the landlord to properly educate the tenant about how to properly respect the natural area, so that it is not abused or misused, and remains a “natural area”.  Clearly, both intrinsic and market value is there.  So we should not only take advantage of these special places, but seek to aid in the rehabilitation of potential parcels.  Among the consciously aware, this inherent duty of mankind will resonate to the spiritual core.     

References:

1.  Plants of the Chicago Region, 4^th Edition, Floyd Swink & Gerould Wilhelm, the Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, 1994, P12

    It seems lately that every industry in the free world is claiming some stake in the surging green movement.  The Baby Boomer generation has been forever passionate about its health and the state of the environment, and both generations “X” and the latest generation “Y” appear to be no less interested.  So why shouldn’t residential landlords jump on the green bandwagon?  I ask because I see little evidence that we have joined the movement.  What’s the reason for this?  I think it’s a mindset—one that can change.  I’ll let you decide whether it should.

     From what I can discern, the primary drawback to our industry’s full embracing of sustainable practices is perceived cost alone.  I say “perceived” because there are mitigating circumstances that may offset these costs, thereby relegating this perception to mere myth.  Certainly, I need not elaborate on the sensitivities of the prototypical landlord’s bent for profitability.  Any landlord that doesn’t get that is either asleep at the wheel or just hasn’t been doing this gig very long.  After all, profitability is a rightful pursuit, if not the main goal, from the perspective of most investors.  So this concern must be adequately addressed, if those of us who are altruistically motivated wish to see “green” growing in the rental industry.

     Let’s take a glance at what sustainable or “green” features look like from the perspective of operating and capital costs for residential properties: 

     1.  Green-built appliances, such as those that are EnergyStar rated, are more expensive than their non-green counterparts.

     2.  Low or no VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) paints, carpets, adhesives, and other building materials are more costly than their non-green competitors.

     3.  Replacing energy-wasteful home systems such as poorly engineered doors and wood-framed windows with newer energy efficient ones can be very expensive.

     4.  Re-insulating the property with products containing little or no formaldehyde certainly costs money, and is a difficult choice when it’s spent to fix something that’s not even technically broken.

     5.  Active solar-energy systems are super expensive, and like eco-friendly insulation products, not a perceived necessary improvement to satisfy most consumers.

     6.   Installation of grey-water recycling systems is again expensive, just as is installation of elaborate rainwater-capturing systems, as well as storm-water management retrofit systems.  (This does not include rain barrels, which are an inexpensive yet effective alternative.)

     7.  Low-flow plumbing fixtures are expensive to replace, and the expense may be hard to reconcile if the old ones are still functional.

     8.  Water filtration systems, while clearly beneficial health-wise, are expensive to install and do require ongoing maintenance—an additional operating expense.

     9.  Programmable thermostats can cost double or more than the old manual types.  This might be a tolerable trade off, however, since when used properly they can save in utility-consumption expenses.  They can also help prevent overuse and premature obsolescence of the cooling and heating systems themselves, because they are employed only as necessary. 

     10.  Wind screens and shading in the landscape can be a costly proposition and may demand the expertise of a knowledgeable landscape architect.

     11.  Self-sustainable landscaping is the environmentalist’s dream, but can be expensive to install and does require some awareness to avoid destroying it, such as occasional controlled burning, and avoidance of traditional practices of watering, mowing, pruning, fertilizing, etc.  In the long run, such a landscape is much cheaper to maintain, but it does demand awareness on the part of the landowner and tenant.

     So having highlighted all of these hurdles, what’s the point in going “green” if expense is the primary consideration?  Is there any need for further discussion?  Obviously, I think the answer is yes, or I would not have troubled myself with writing this article.  So before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, let’s please examine this a little further.

     I would not advocate that landlords make wholesale changes on their property simply for “green” sake, unless they were just so altruistically moved, which is a virtuous motivation in and of its self.  But since the bottom-line seems to be the standard, then maybe we need a thoughtful and perhaps graduated approach that promotes the long-term impact of green-based decisions that affect the bottom-line. 

     There are more and more homes being constructed from the bottom up that meet green standards established by institutions such as the U. S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification program.  In these cases, the simplest solution is for us to simply recognize that the home is green-built, or has been recently retrofitted with new appliances and home systems that meet green standards, and then to promote the benefits of these systems in our marketing programs.  These green initiatives can easily translate into higher rent rates.  And even if the rent rate is not enhanced, we may get it rented faster, and this is big money in terms of preventing lost opportunity costs.  But it can also mean longer duration occupancies because the tenants are more comfortable living in these environments.  They may also enjoy the lower cost of utilities, which again goes back to reducing lost opportunity costs. 

     The good news is that the added costs of green construction may be declining.  According to a 2003 report, by Real Estate Journal on-line, the cost premium for new green construction has dropped by 2% as builders, planners, and developers have been learning how to use sustainable building products more efficiently.¹   Plus, the federal government, and even many local governments, offer rebates and other tax incentives for constructing or remodeling with green certified products such as EnergyStar appliances and others.

     Who can’t understand and appreciate the benefits of energy savings alone?  Buyers surely do.  And how many times have you been asked by tenant prospects about utility costs?  Budget-minded prospects really do care about this.  One Texas builder that has been building with high-efficiency windows since the early 1980’s has created a growing competition in his market.  He has demonstrated a savings of as much as $150 per month in energy costs for his homes.²

     What about existing homes that have not been built or yet upgraded to green standards?  It is clearly the harder solution if we want to go green with the extra expense in routine repairs, and this is especially true during turn-over.  But at least in these cases, we can at least investigate green alternatives, which will ultimately approach similar benefits as those yielded with green-built homes.  And we should always remember that these upgrades will be eventually recognized at the time of sale, having a positive effect on sales price and time on market.  So landlords can benefit both immediately and in the long term through application of green products and systems.

     Another cost factor looming darkly on the horizon is the impervious surface tax.  This tax is calculated on the square footage of area on the property that has water impervious surface, such as a roof or concrete slab. This is happening all across the nation as municipalities are finding a revenue opportunity in the green-movement rhetoric, justifying the tax as an effort to compensate for the cost of dealing with storm-water run off.  The irony is that the tax does nothing to prevent the problem—it just pays for the inconvenience.  It is a roundabout way of forcing citizens to be more conservative with resources.  Nevertheless, the problem is real and landlords will pay.  The long-term solution is construction of better engineered driveways that accept the rainwater, and the installation of green roofs or elaborate rainwater capturing systems.  These are all good ideas, but they can be expensive and may not be cost effective in terms of ROI captured over even the near long-term.  However, that tax will surely add to bottom line expenses.  So I think that these solutions must be at least considered for those holding for the long term.    

     Perhaps not surprisingly, there is growing consumer awareness about environmentally-friendly homes.   Survey after survey bears this out.  According to a 2004 survey by the city of Seattle, 96% of homebuyers say they are willing to pay more for a home with green features.³   In another Seattle-sponsored survey in 2000 and 2001 by Cahners Residential Group, more than two-thirds of those surveyed reported that they would pay additional up-front costs, by as much as $5,000 for green features. In this same survey 20% said they would even be willing to pay as much and $10,000 in extra costs.⁴   

     Thinking “green” is something we, as landlords, can and should be doing.  This evolving discipline is no longer a mere aberration perched out on the distant horizon.  It is virtually standing at our front door.  Perhaps it’s time we get on board, unless we wish to find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to play catch up.  And some of us may even find that we feel good about the environmental considerations, despite a possible slight cost to the bottom-line in the near term. 

1.  Muto, Sheila, “The Public Sector Spurs ‘Green’ Building,” Special to RealEstateJournal.com, July 16, 2003, accessed at http://www.realestatejournal.com/columnists_com/bricks/20030716-bricks.html  8/2/05

2.  Carlton, Jim, “Builders Adopt Green Goals, Pushed by Rising Energy Bills,” The Wall Street Journal Online, 2/5/03   

3. “Green Home Remodel Guides: Helping You Create a Healthy Homes and a Healthy Environment,”  City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development, 2004 issue of dpdINFO.  

4.  “Built Green^TM Residential Green Building Program,” City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development, reprinted from the March 2003 issue of dpdINFO.

• 2 bath, 3 bdrm bi-level - $175,000 - Exceptionally Well Priced

Parkwood Commons, Acworth  -  Great walking neighborhood with friendly neighbors. Magnificent fiireplace that has a gas strarter, and burns real wood. Kitchen has stainless steel appliances, and stained and larger than normal cabinet doors. Garage is big enough for 2 SUVs, and a work bench. Private backyard has a deck, and direct access from the garage. Home is naturally well-insulated. Owners barely need to turn on the heat or A/C during the peaks of each season.

PROPERTY VALUES HAVE HELD UP WELL DURING THE PAST YEAR.

Please call 404.313.0979 for any help or questions you may have.

Property information

• 2 bath, 3 bdrm 2 story - $1,145 USD Monthly

Evergreen Trace, Alpharetta  -  Freshly painted neutral color. New wall-to-wall carpeting. Built in buffet in dining room. Built-in shelving in great room. Large second bedrooms. Vacant and ready to move-in! Owner is a licensed Georgia real estate agent.

Property information

• 2 bath, 4 bdrm 3-level split - $1,250 USD Monthly

Roswell, Fulton County  -  Freshly painted interior. Wide open floor plan. Big kitchen. Chef's dream! Located in center of Roswell. Easy access to GA 400, and the North Point Mall. Finished basement with gas starter fireplace.

Property information

• 2 bath, 3 bdrm single story - $1,195 USD Monthly

Ansley Forest, Woodstock  -  Wondeful family home! Huge great room with gas starter fireplace. Fenced, level back yard. Stainless steel appliances. Ceramic tile floors in kitchen. Energy efficient windows.

Property information