OT - Gas to hit 4.00

Levi Pearson levi at cold.org
Mon Jun 16 22:32:52 MDT 2008

Dave Smith <dave at thesmithfam.org> writes:
> Yes, I suppose some home buyers have *consciously* opted to sacrifice
> acreage in favor of a larger house. I just don't happen to know
> any. Whatever the case, you can't deny or discount the fact that it's
> in the developers' best money-making interest to pack as many houses
> on as little land as possible. Having witnessed the real estate boom
> in Northern Virignia from 2000 to 2003, and having watched developers
> buy up small plots in my own Murray back yard , I have seen huge 3,000
> to 4,000 square feet homes erected with barely 6 feet between
> them. 

That's the crux of it here.  In a real estate boom, land prices are
skyrocketing.  People generally prioritize features of the home over
the size of the property, and they also have a limited budget, so this
naturally leads to smaller lots.  I think you'll find lot sizes vary
inversely with land cost, and the extreme end of this is the downtown
high-rise condo building.

You're going to end up with this effect whenever the market is allowed
to do its thing.  If you create minimum lot size covenants or laws,
you can get around it, but hey, that's intervention in the sacred free
market, so it' can't be a good idea.


More information about the PLUG mailing list