Boulder County is moving ahead with proposals for new "Sustainability Elements" within the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Four public forums are scheduled for feedback on new rules that will apply to house of a certain size in unincorporated Boulder County. Based on "green" principles, new homes and retrofits would be mandated to use certain construction materials and overall building size would be limited. Read the press release here.
In an effort to encourage energy efficiency and reduce the County's overall greenhouse gas emmisions, the County wants to step way over the line and dictate how large a home someone can build. That's indefensible.
This issue picked up momentum last year following a citizen survey. Here were my concerns back in September 2005, excerpted from the Yellow Scene:
"The survey asked pointedly about large, single family homes: are such houses in the unincorporated areas "too big and should be restricted in size?" While 56% said no and 35% said yes, the nature of the question should disturb anyone who owns a home. Just asking this exposes a premise that large homes are inappropriate. "Too big" is way too vague a criteria to use in such a question. People can consider something "too big" based on all sorts of subjective motivations ranging from envy to ignorance.
Building on this notion of how some people know what is appropriate for others, the county asked if you think that the Land Use Code should be revised to "require environmentally friendly building practices...for houses above a certain number of square feet." That's a manipulative qualifier in the question. It is vague and means every respondent can create in his head an image of a house that is "above a certain number of square feet" that they think is deserving of further regulations. It leads to an unjustified presumption of support for such regulations, when no detail has actually been provided.
The bias against "larger homes" with larger not being defined is disturbing in these two questions. For those of you reviewing plans with your architect, heads up! 77% of the respondents agreed this would be a good idea.
Continuing in the we'll-tell-you-what-you-can-do mode, people said they favored regulations to strengthen historical preservation requirements (75%) and promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy (89%). The County is hearing loud and clear that people support restrictive guidelines - for everyone else.
When asked a question that turns the thought process back towards themselves, the message Commissioners hear is the opposite. 72% said more emphasis should be placed on individual property rights. This response rate blows a big hole in the integrity of the previous answers. How can the County create policy based on such conflicting sentiments?"
Well, they're going to try. Is this good policy? No way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I will not disagree the results of the County's survey are that we'd all like to have our cake and eat it too. There is no mention of the trade-off between unfettered property rights and overreaching regulation, or how to accomplish a satsifactory balance. So the survey is not helpful in that regard, and it was also susceptible to your criticisms about the subjectivity of its terms.
But is the sky really falling? The press release you linked to does not confirm anything more than the preliminary stages of a possible comprehensive plan amendment. By definition, the mechanics of regulation, the alleged discrimination that would apply to "larger" homes, none of that is on the table. By the time "green building" regulations get fleshed out, if this happens at all, I'm sure the County will have heard from more than a few people who may be affected.
Lafayette and many jurisdictions are also currently studying "energy-efficient" building regulations. In Lafayette, as far as I'm aware, these are still being looked at in terms of incentives and hypotheticals, not hard rules, but I don't believe there has ever been any discussion of limiting regulation to "McMansions" in Lafayette. Is that okay with you, is that less "over the line"?
And now answer this: Is it better to saddle the well-to-do with additional regulation, since they can pay for it most easily? Or is it better to force those of modest income to pay a premium cost for green building, in the name of saving them more on energy costs in the long run?
Instead of asking real questions about the mechanics of "green building" regulation, this post is a rant on, supposedly, property rights.
I will not hesitate to point out, Dan, that you apparently didn't think the property rights of the owners of the Eagle Place parcel in Lafayette had much to do with the policy that should be applied there. In that case, you advocated that the City impose commercial uses on a parcel undergoing application for a conforming residential use.
How are "property rights" a banner for attacking regulation concerning the bulk of buildings if the same banner doesn't fly for those aggreived owners who have to suffer complaints from neighbors who don't like the use proposed for a piece of property? You haven't done anything to convince me that somehow bulk regulation is less worthy or less legal than use regulation, so how do you resolve the contradiction?
While you're at it, you might also want to tell us why you don't think government can regulate building size. There are certainly a host of zoning controls that say otherwise.
My read is that the County ultimately doesn't want to "dictate how large" homes are in unincorporated areas. Rather, certain trigger points might be established for additional green building regulation. Might those regulations not be directly related to size of the structure?
The bottom line is that property rights are important, but, among all the sticks in the bundle of property rights, the government has always held the right to reasonable regulation. Saying that the County is taking a "swipe at property rights" with prelimary public hearings on a planning exercise that may or may not yield new regulations is not only premature, it only begs the question of what property right you're talking about and who had the right to control it in the first place.
Post a Comment