Minimum Lot Size in Growting Suburbs

[aboutmetro]

Many argue both sides of this issue. What is undeniable is that, regardless of the motivation, the policy drives up costs in several direct and indirect ways. Initially, costs of new homes rise because more land and infrastructure costs (roads, waterlines) are figured into the price of each unit. Next, maintenance costs for communties rise as there are more road miles and utility infrastructure to maintain. Lastly, and more indirectly, the policy ultimately creates an unsustainable dynamic. The community economics are disrupted that generate density for retailers and employers. As homes become increasingly costly, workforce housing gets squeezed out. Without these to contribute to tax bases, the burden falls squarely on aging homes and homeowners. Further, the dynamic is disrupted by the communities ability to provide education, public safety protection, health services and so on needed now or in the future by these aging homeowners. Some studies also demonstrate an adverse environmental affect. And so, ironically, the policy creates a self purpetuating detriment to the community overall.

The FHA has determined that the policy is, in some cases, potentially ethnically biased. Because many potential low-moderate income homeowners, or even apartment renters, are disproportionatly minority, large-lot minimums and other zoning regulation could be used to limit ethnic diveristy. NAHB Article

[lammius]

The FHA has determined that the policy is, in some cases, potentially ethnically biased. Because many potential low-moderate income homeowners, or even apartment renters, are disproportionatly minority, large-lot minimums and other zoning regulation could be used to limit ethnic diveristy. NAHB Article