The County planners on Wednesday evening revealed a somewhat more flexible proposal re: home size limits - various combinations of green building requirements and transferable development rights credit purchases. So they heard the argument for energy efficiency standards, yet all they did was ADD that to the indefensible de facto open space funding fee that the TDR credits entail. The County Planning Commissioners will forward these details as a recommendation to the County Commissioners.
Interestingly, basements could be excluded from sq-footage calculations. Imagine the semantic definitions and arguments, especially for homes built into a slope. The county calls it a regular level, homeowner calls it a basement. And anyway, an exemption for basements? How does that square with the energy efficeincy premise of size=wastefuleness? It doesn't, it gets back to the indefensible "rural character" argument. We know "too big" when we see it. Dig deep enough, hide your girth, and its okay. Whatever. Excavating companies in Boulder County, rejoice!
Being a leader on climate change technologies I support - I'll even support some regulations along with incentives. But this drive to put a limit on a home size because it seems like "too much" is not right.
The fact any such restrictions give current homeowners a grandfathered spike in valuation is an unintended consequence that Commissioners should also consider.
Welcome!
This forum is a sounding board for a range of issues facing eastern Boulder County. I will prompt discussions with my posts and elected officials can tap into the concerns of citizens here, and explain their rationale on decisions.
Follow along with the latest discussion by checking the list of recent comments on the right. You can comment with your name, a nickname or anonymously if you wish. You can become a contributor as well. Thank you for your comments!
Latest Post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Many have, at least partially, blamed the growth restrictions in the City of Boulder for causing the high valuation of property in the city. Pitkin County enacted similar size restrictions 7 years ago, and an "unintended" consequence was a huge increase in the valuation of existing large homes.
With this track record, higher valuations could hardly be considered an unintended consequence.
"Rural feel" can't be the real goal, because these restrictions allow work arounds in the form of extra fees, so the building won't stop. Huge homes will still be built, they'll just cost a little more.
And, regarding rural feel, one of the Planning Commissioners is Barbara Connors of Erie, who lives in a typical suburban sprawl subdivision. Her part of the county had more of a rural feel when it was a farm. She's very vocal about the restrictions not being strong enough. Typical "now that I'm here, let's put onerous rules on the newcomers."
There are highly efficient, very large homes being built around the country. There are inefficient, very small homes being built as well. In this case, size doesn't matter.
If the commissioners were really working toward sustainability, they'd implement green building requirements for all homes, regardless of size. Now, that could mean more restrictive green rules as the home gets larger, but at least this direction could be defended.
The real outcome of this proposal will be higher property taxes as valuations are pushed up, and extra funding for open space without having to ask for a tax increase.
Gee, it's ok for the County to approve actions that decrease prop values but not ok when they increase?
Basements in large homes can essentially be another living space. Lot's of folks completely remodel their basement.
Energy efficiency as mentioned has little to do with home size. If one designs green and installs green, a lot can be done to make 'em better than a lot of homes half the size.
The commissioners are caught in the middle. If they push green standards on new homes, up go the prices and buyers may head east out of the county, especially on the low end of the market. Qualifying for a mortgage is the issue regardless of energy savings over time. Then if the same folks have to drive into Boulder to work, where are the energy savings?
And all TDRs do it put more money into the open space fund. Take $300,000 and amortize in a mortgage over 30 years. Remember the interest payments are tax deductible. So the pain isn't that big a deal for folks who have the money.
This is off topic, but a quick word on County Commissioner Mayer's passing might be timely here.
Post a Comment