Kevin Casey was “blown away” this summer when nearly 400 people came out to have a peek at two of his firm’s accessory dwelling unit projects.

Now that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed new legislation that will make ADUs -- aka granny flats, in-law suites, casitas or any number of other monikers -- more accessible for Golden Staters, Casey is absolutely ecstatic.

“The state is finally seeing the value of ADUs and we couldn’t be happier,” said Casey, the owner of design-build firm New Avenue Homes, in an email. New Avenue has built more than 100 ADUs, mostly in Northern California, at prices ranging from $130,000 to $750,000. “We’ve always been sure of one thing: Accessory dwellings will revolutionize housing.”

For the uninitiated, ADUs are basically small houses or apartments that are built on the same lot as a larger single-family house. They can take the form of individual buildings or converted attics, basements or garages. But in all cases, they are self-contained, independent living spaces.

While they’ve only become prominent over the last few years, they have been with us, in some form or another, for much longer.

Casey pointed out that Arthur Fonzarelli -- better known as Fonzie -- of “Happy Days” lived above the Cunninghams’ garage. And in “Full House,” Tanner family friend Joey resided in a room in the family’s garage, while brother-in-law Jesse and his bride lived upstairs in an attic studio apartment.

Today, proponents of accessory units believe they will help ease housing shortages by expanding the options for people of all ages. They are aimed at young renters who don’t need a lot of space; moms, dads or other relatives who want to be closer to their loved ones; or caregivers who need to be nearby. And they offer an opportunity for their owners to generate a little side income.

Many communities throughout the country have been relaxing their restrictions against ADUs, and some states have been encouraging their local jurisdictions to allow them. According to AARP, the cities of Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Seattle now allow accessory units. Oregon requires cities and counties of a certain size to allow them in single-family neighborhoods, New Hampshire says they must be allowed in nearly every single-family neighborhood, and Boston-area communities are slicing red tape so units can be built.

But California is leading the way. In 2017, the state required all cities and counties to allow ADUs as long as the property owner secured a building permit. In September, San Jose named design firm Abodu as its first pre-approved “backyard” homebuilder under its ADU master plan. “We won’t solve our housing crisis $650,000 at a time,” said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, referring to high-end single-family houses.

Now, Gov. Newsom has signed several bills that will make it even easier for property owners to build accessory units. One eliminates occupancy requirements; another makes it easier to add not one, but two ADUs as long as they contain at least 800 square feet of floor space; and a third creates a tiered permit structure based on the size of the unit and its location.

Legislation like this will help boost ADU production in the state, which already has the most in the country. For example, between 2015 and 2018, applications for 8,279 ADU permits were received by the Los Angeles Planning Department alone. The number of permit requests jumped from 282 in 2015 to 3,922 in 2018.

Other California cities have been slower on the uptake, but the number of ADU permit applications is still rising: from none in Long Beach in 2015 to 42 in 2017; from 33 to 247 in Oakland, and from 41 to 595 in San Francisco.

The 2017 law was “a big deal,” Casey told me on the phone. “We’ve been talking about this for decades, but that was the turning point. It’s almost like the whole state got the memo. California has made so much progress.”

With progress, though, comes the opportunity for shysters to enter the market. Consequently, anyone thinking of adding a second dwelling on their property should proceed carefully, warns Casey. “A couple of hundred startups are all planning to jump on the bandwagon,” he says. “If people aren’t careful, hucksters and amateurs will disappear with their deposits.”

For starters, do your research. Look for an experienced company that knows your city’s rules, as well as the state’s, knows design, and won’t hit you with surprise fees or delays.

Some firms, New Avenue and Abodu among them, handle the entire permitting process, guarantee a fixed price and can deliver a factory-built unit to a client’s backyard within two weeks. A complete 495-square-foot Abodu model starts at $199,000. Another outfit, Modative of Culver City, California, designs, permits and builds its units.

For a good understanding of ADUs, AARP has two great publications: “The ABCs of ADUs” and “Accessory Dwelling Units: A Step-by-Step Guide.” They are free to members at AARP.org/ADU. Also, the July-August 2018 issue of Realtor, the official publication of the National Association of Realtors, has a good piece on ADU basics.

Your government at work: good and bad. First, the bad.

Homeowners took a trillion-dollar hit as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, according to ProPublica.

The math is difficult to follow, but the independent investigative newsroom reported recently that President Trump’s tax reform package bestowing nearly $700 billion in benefits to corporations also harmed millions of homeowners, who are paying the price of Trump’s largesse.

Because the 2017 law capped the deduction for state and local property taxes at $10,000, everyone who owns a house has seen its value decline.

Consider someone earning $200,000 a year who purchased a million-dollar house. Assuming a mortgage rate of 5%, the inability to write off real estate taxes means the place is now worth $138,720 less, according to ProPublica. At 4%, the loss jumps by nearly $35,000, to $173,400.

Of course, big losses like that don’t apply across the board. If you take the standard deduction, for example, you can’t deduct property taxes. And taxes can be higher or lower depending on where you live and on the value of your house.

But the principle is the same, and “applies to everyone who owns a home or is interested in owning one,” reported ProPublica’s Allan Sloan.

And there’s this kicker: “According to the Tax Policy Center, the Treasury will get $620 billion of additional revenue over a 10-year period because people can’t deduct their full state and local taxes. That, in turn, covers most of the 10-year, $680 billion cost of the income tax break that corporations are getting.”

The bottom line: Homeowners, now and in the future, “are paying more federal income tax in order to help corporations pay less federal income tax,” writes Sloan.

Now for some better government news: The Department of Veterans Affairs has paid out more than $400 million in refunds to borrowers who overpaid their home-loan-funding fees.

The returns stem from an inspector general’s finding that military personnel who used their VA benefits to buy houses were charged extra fees at closing. The fees involved some clerical errors, but for the most part, borrowers were simply charged too much. The IG found at least 53,000 cases where borrowers were overcharged one way or another.

The VA reviewed 130,000 loans going back 20 years. “Our administration prioritized fixing the problems, and paid veterans what they were owed,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie.

The total payout was “significantly above” the nearly $290 million investigators estimated earlier this year. Refunds ranged from a few thousand dollars to more than $20,000.

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission is in the process of mailing some 8,000 refund checks, totaling nearly $2.7 million, to timeshare owners who paid upfront fees to Pro Timeshare Resales to help sell their unwanted vacation-home weeks.

The average payback is $332. Unfortunately, Pro Timeshare charged customers $2,500 or more, in advance, on the false promise that it had a buyer or renter ready to buy or rent their properties for a specified price. In other instances, the company falsely promised to sell the timeshares quickly, sometimes within a specified time period.

At the same time, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection has sued a “flipping system” purveyor for making false claims that its program on buying houses on the cheap and reselling them at big profits involves little risk, time or effort. Like most such affirmations, it just isn’t so.

The company in question, Zurixx, promised people who attended their free seminars that they could generate substantial income by flipping houses. It often used celebrities from popular home renovation television shows to lure its marks to free seminars, where the outfit showed supposed “success stories” of customers who claimed they made thousands using the system.

But, according to the FTC and DCP, the free event is just a scheme to get people to buy Zurixx’s three-day “risk-free” beginners’ workshop, which costs $1,997. Presenters also tried to upsell advanced programs that totaled $41,297.

To pay for the programs, the complaint also alleges, the company told attendees to obtain new credit cards, or to increase the credit limits on existing cards, supposedly to help finance real estate deals.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. This is just the latest example of similar rip-offs by get-rich-quick scam artists.

Last year, for example, a federal court dismissed a suit by students of Armando Montelongo, the one-time host of the A&E series “Flip This House,” alleging that he and three of his companies engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The court ruled that the accusers failed to meet the standards required by the RICO Act.

But the plaintiffs aren’t going away. Now numbering more than 420, they have re-filed their suit, this time in Texas, where Montelongo is headquartered. Montelongo has countersued.

While those cases play out, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah has issued a temporary restraining order against Zurixx and affiliated companies.

Warns the FTC: “If someone promises that you can earn a lot of money with little risk, time or effort, that’s a sign of a scam.”

Most buyers, understandably, would want to know if a violent death occurred in the houses they are considering. And as it turns out, most states require sellers to divulge the fact that a suicide, murder or some other villainous act took place, even if it was years ago.

But what if someone died a more natural death in the residence -- say, by accident, or in his or her sleep?

Since it’s not considered a “material fact” that may impact the value of the property, only three states -- California, Alaska and South Dakota -- compel sellers to reveal such a demise. And California only requires such disclosures if the death occurred within the previous three years.

Still, it is interesting to note at Halloween time that 7 out of 10 people told a poll commissioned by Trulia a couple of years back that they would not want to live in a house where any kind of life-ending event took place. Would-be buyers are even more spooked by the idea of residing in places where the death was gory. And they’re especially fearful of houses that are supposedly haunted by a former resident. But for the most part, they don’t want anything to do with any place in which someone passed away.

Even though most sellers don’t feel the need to disclose this kind of information, most real estate agents know it is their duty to do so. Otherwise they might violate not only their code of ethics, but also the law.

While most agents do what’s right, some believe the rules have gone too far.

“What’s next?” questioned a Pennsylvania agent. “Are you going to disclose if anyone (passed gas), cut themselves or had a pet buried in the backyard? ... What if the person died on the front lawn and not in the house?” As far he’s concerned, all this amounts to too much information. “Buyers should focus on the condition of the house” rather then if someone died there, he said.

A Florida agent agreed. “I tend to think that unless there is blood on the walls, the homeowners and the home’s value shouldn’t be penalized for being the locale where the circle of life comes around and wraps up,” he said.

A discussion of this sort pops up almost annually at this time of year, when our thoughts turn to All Hallows Eve and house-hunting becomes a tad scarier. Sellers may be worried that the specter of specters will spook potential buyers, and buyers are concerned about sharing their new homes with unwanted paranormal residents.

I mean, have you seen “Beetlejuice,” the wonderful 1988 Tim Burton film starring Michael Keaton?

In its 2017 poll, Trulia found that 43 percent of respondents would be less likely to buy a home if they suspected something ghastly -- or ghostly -- had taken place on the premises. And an earlier Trulia Halloween-centric survey found that a crime of any kind would be likely to turn off would-be buyers, even in a house “that otherwise has everything” someone is looking for. (About 2,000 people were surveyed in both online studies, which were done for Trulia by Harris Poll.)

A house being located near a highway or trailer park are other big turnoffs -- more so than the death of a resident or the “demon numbers” 666 in the address. But the majority wouldn’t care if the place they loved was adjacent to a cemetery. Indeed, once such situated resident told me that, save for some high-school and college kids who occasionally found the graveyard an ideal place to party, his neighbors were extremely quiet.

Trulia also discovered that if a house was haunted, buyers would rather it be possessed by a vengeful ghost than a demon. And, apparently, they’d be willing to live with the antics of the poltergeist: Less than half would be willing to pay for an exorcism.

For what it’s worth, a rather chilling 2015 study by data analytics firm RealtyTrac found more than 22,000 vacant single-family houses nationwide that are owned by someone now deceased. That’s 1 in every 6,000 houses nationwide that very well could be haunted. And in more than 20 ZIP codes, the ratio is roughly 1 in every 175.

If you are one of the many who are concerned about this sort of thing, there’s an app for that -- or at least a website. Isn’t there always?

For $11.99, Diedinhouse.com will tell you whether there was a death in a house, whether it was because of an accident, natural causes, murder or suicide. The site also provides information about the deceased and the names of folks associated with the dearly departed. It will also report on any known drug activity or fires at the address, as well as sex-offender registry information.

On the other hand, HomeDisclosure.com, a site operated by realty analytics firm ATTOM Data Solutions, no longer provides information about in-home deaths. “The cost of maintaining that data was greater than the delivery,” a company spokesperson told me.