Wednesday the County Planning Commission holds a meeting about the proposed restrictions on home sizes. As we've discussed, you can buy your way out of the limit, which is disingenuous but avoids the potential of a constitutional property rights battle in court. The County can mandate energy efficiency requirements; I support that.
But the premise is still flawed- the new rule delineates mountain and plains homes and there are different size thresholds for each. How that distinction is made will be of course debated; sq footage relative to lot size would be more defensible.
This hanging-on of a sq footage limit because it seems "too big" is myopic and arrogant. A subjective opinion driven by a "We must do something" mindset is not good government. What is the problem we're trying to solve? If you believe energy consumption to be the problem, the green building regs are the right route. But if you believe you "know too big when I see it", then you'll like this arbitrary size limit idea. That's not defensible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dan, I don't think you intended it, but your 2 recent posts are related. Nor would most people see the connection. No connection between a county that is becoming more and more exclusive in which to live and Human Services? Check again.
Restricting home size in the county will make existing homes, and any newly built ones even more expensive. With ever higher property values, the county will become even more exclusionary.
The home size restriction as presently proposed, with buy-out options via development rights, is just another way of collecting Open Space tax.
It always fascinates me how the wealthy in this country can be such easy prey. The irony is most would rather be wealthy than not. Just ask those who have to use Human Services whether they'd rather be wealthy.
Since the green building requirements are very lacking in this discussion, it seems this is driven by pure envy.
Post a Comment