There’s currently a proposal before our county commissioners to reduce the minimum home size regulation from 1,650 s.f. to 1,250 s.f. I don’t want to get into the discussion of what’s right or wrong in my particular locality (although I do think that 1,650 s.f. is an awfully large minimum), but the concept of “minimum” home sizes is something worth discussing.
Why Keep It Large?
In a word, it’s all about money. Bigger houses are easy to fall in love with. They’re flashy, glamorous, and they make the owner look fabulously successful! Home owners see their home as a reflection of themselves, and who doesn’t want to look great to all of their friends? Local governments love big houses too! Bigger homes mean higher taxes and more revenue per household, so encouraging larger homes makes sense for local politicians looking to expand the budget.
In fact, even local businesses win with larger homes! Home owners need more furniture and “stuff” to put in that home, utility companies sell more power, gas, oil, water, etc. to keep those homes running, construction firms buy more materials per home, and builders don’t have to worry about building smaller, less profitable structures because the government demands they build big!
The Biggest Loser
Unfortunately, requiring big homes has a tragic downfall. Selling those big homes was fast and easy when the market was loose and credit was easier to find than sunburn on a beach. Suddenly builders find themselves languishing and the very same regulations that allowed them to build “bigger and better” are now forcing them to struggle to find profitability. (Is that the worlds smallest violin I hear?)
My sympathies do go out to people who simply don’t want or need a large home to live comfortably, however. I can understand certain areas mandating minimum sizes to prevent ramshackle construction, or situations where health and safety are compromised due to undersized homes, but there has to be a point where people can live comfortably and still not be over-burdened by bills because the government wants them to live in a certain sized home. Think about all of the costs that increase as a home’s footprint expands:
- Property Taxes
- Utility Bills
- Maintenance Costs
- Furnishing/Decor Costs
- Insurance Costs
Laws and regulations like this are economic segregation, IMHO. They force people on fixed and/or limited incomes to either spend the money on more house than they want/need, or they prevent them from buying altogether. They also impact people like myself. I live in an older home with a total square footage of 1,400 s.f. It’s far more house than I need, but I can’t buy smaller. I would personally love to build a new home; upgrade to higher quality insulation, better, more efficient utilities, Energystar appliances, dual pane windows, on demand hot water, geo-thermal heat, and watch my utility bills sink like a stone. Unfortunately I spend as much on utilities now as people who buy new homes with 2,000 s.f. of living space!
There Are Options!
For regions that want to regulate minimum home sizes, I say don’t! If the concern is protecting home values, then why not regulate higher codes of construction rather than size? Governments can modify local building codes, require better insulation, demand brick front dwellings, anything other than forcing people to buy more home than they need! In an age where “going green” is really gaining ground, jurisdictions that force people to buy big, over-sized homes are encouraging consumption and profit over fiscal and ecological responsibility.
