OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
bryan.sant at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 12:44:37 MDT 2008
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Josh Coates <jcoates at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Only those lower income scum folk
> would be financially barred from home ownership... <snip bryan sant rant>
> bryan - it sort of sounds like you are implying that this argument is bias
> against "lower income folk".
> it's the higher-end of the market that we're talking about.
I agree with you. You're talking about city/community regulation.
There are some cities where mostly upper-income people live, where a
lot size regulation would benefit the community while leaving plenty
of other locations for lower income persons to live. I am totally in
favor of an isolated city/community having strict CC&Rs or laws on the
books that require builders and home owners to not let their community
go to crap.
I'm just saying that if that policy were adopted by all communities,
or worse state-wide, it would hurt lower income persons because it
would make the minimum lot size a person could purchase so
prohibitively expensive that only wealthy persons could afford a new
lot/new home. I don't think your intention would be to negatively
affect low-income persons, but we rarely notice how are addiction to
ever-increasing legislation continuously erodes our freedoms in
diverse and sometimes unexpected ways.
The biggest single expense when building a home is often the lot the
home is built on. Small lots with packed in homes is annoying, and
maybe even unsightly, but having as many home owners as possible is
good for society. Home owners are less likely to commit crime, more
likely to give a crap about their local community, etc.
The McMansion phenomenon may be tacky, but people seem to like the
idea of getting as much house (in square footage and amenities, not
necessarily quality) as they can for their money. Hence, the
McMansion -- the tastiest house ever placed between a sesame seed bun
and covered with a special sauce (small print: decent lot size not
included). The people who buy them LIKE them. I should have just
saved a lot of typing with this whole thread and just replied to your
original post with, "Good luck with that."
> oh, and while i'm catching up, you said something earlier:
>>but if I truly felt that where I lived was
>>"embarrassing", I would try to retain some semblance of self-respect
>>and move. Why stay in Utah if it is such an embarrassment?
> and you *aren't* embarrassed by some utah-specific phenomena? do i really
Sure I am. But only mildly so. Not to the extent that I would make a
sweeping statement about Utah being an embarrassment in general. I
think that California is an embarrassment in general and would not be
happy living there for example.
> need to make a list? and you ask why stay in utah? how about i'm sticking
> around to try and HELP instead of cutting and running (ugh, and if you are
> reading this in an archive, don't get all snippy if i happened to have moved
> away since i posted this...;-)
Ha. Well, I honestly hope you don't move. We are better off for
having you here. You're right that your opinions and proposals are as
valid as any other Utahn's are. I shouldn't be so critical. I just
always get squeamish when people want to utilize the heavy-hand of
government to accomplish something that could be solved much more
easily within the private sector. You should buy a few hundred acres
and develop "Coatesville" with large lots and reasonable CC&Rs. I
would move there :-).
> btw - the kids swinging the signs around on the street - geesh, this should
> be illegal too. highland has a law against signs being posted on the side
> of the road, but this how the developers get around it. best i can tell,
> lehi doesn't have any laws at all. you can pretty much build, post or do
> whatever you want in that city as long as it generates tax dollars for them
> (not that highland doesn't have issues like this too - cause it does..)
I don't like that people get intoxicated either, but I think it's
ridiculous that Utah has such totalitarian control over the sale and
availability alcohol. I'm only as free as my neighbor. I say let
people purchase alcohol if that's their choice, and let builders
advertise with dorky kids swinging signs on the side of the road if
they want to turn off potential buyers with their lame, gimmicky
> i'm all for free speech and all, but do these commercial ventures have to be
> in face all the time? it's like spam - but it's real life and i can't just
> filter it.
But, see, now this is why we all need hand guns.
More information about the PLUG