I live in Portland. Lots of small, one-story houses being torn down and replaced with something that has 2 more floors.
What surprises me is that roofing on these new homes isn't required to have a south-facing exposure. Seems like that would make it a lot easier for homes to add solar.
Maybe they don't want solar or don't want their roof facing that direction. Let people do what they want with their belongings. If south facing roofs have higher demand it will be reflected in the value of the home.
They will when the cost of traditional electricity is priced to better reflect it's environmental impact.
In fact, I personally think nobody should be permitted to not have solar in a new building in 2016. You can't remove the seatbelts from your car in 2016. You can't build a new building with asbestos in 2016 and you can't turn your semi-auto rifle into a fully-auto (in most states).
Just because you own it, doesn't mean you can do anything you want, that argument makes no sense.
If all roofs had south facing PV panels, there would be huge peaks at noon. This is already a problem in some German towns, where the installation of new south facing panels is no longer allowed.
Lobby your local representatives to update their code to require it. The increase in monthly mortgage payments to roll the system in at construction time is less than a utility bill would be (typically).
What surprises me is that roofing on these new homes isn't required to have a south-facing exposure. Seems like that would make it a lot easier for homes to add solar.