Planners Move to Close the Window on American McMansions

[forrestkc]

LOS ANGELES - For many they are a blight on the American landscape. For others, they are an expression of freedom and success. Now legislators in cities across the US, alarmed at the spread of

[chrisb]

That article is complete socialist tripe. I love how they have the law professor talking about the environment. Classic.

[forrestkc]

That article is complete socialist tripe. I love how they have the law professor talking about the environment. Classic.

True Dat. Think luxury tax on boats. Killed the industry. Big homes need big amounts of "stuff" in them, which is why homebuidling is such a good barometer for the economy. On the other hand, I'm in if the first place they go after is the compound in Hyannisport.

Something tells me the famous compound in Hyannisport probably is not at risk due to any zoning laws.

Having been in many McMansions, most of them don't have much "stuff" in them. Basically, most of them are big homes with a couple of leased big SUVs out front, and hardly any furniture because the owners cant afford it.

I don't think the point of the article was to promote some form of socialism, but rather to make a commentary on just how materialistic our society has become. Its all about "me" and how much stuff I can accumulate in life anymore rather than a traditional sense of community. More and more it seems we are looking to "things" to make us happy rather than friends, family, and community. I don't think thats a left or right ideal either.

[chrisb]

I agree to a point on the materialism issue. It is however completely socialistic for the government to try to involve itself in such things.

[forrestkc]

I agree to a point on the materialism issue. It is however completely socialistic for the government to try to involve itself in such things.

Well wait a second. I don't think anyone is saying the government should forbid you from having a larger home. However, local governments have always had zoning laws. If a community can dictate the smallest size a home and lot can be, then it can certainly dictate the largest size a home can be in its community.

For example, those of us that do live in older neighborhoods with older homes, would probably fight a developer tooth and nail if they started raising the older homes and putting the biggest McMansion they could fit on the lot in its place. There would be nothing socialist about that, it would be just grassroots community action.

[chrisb]

I agree to a point on the materialism issue. It is however completely socialistic for the government to try to involve itself in such things.

Well wait a second. I don't think anyone is saying the government should forbid you from having a larger home. However, local governments have always had zoning laws. If a community can dictate the smallest size a home and lot can be, then it can certainly dictate the largest size a home can be in its community.

For example, those of us that do live in older neighborhoods with older homes, would probably fight a developer tooth and nail if they started raising the older homes and putting the biggest McMansion they could fit on the lot in its place. There would be nothing socialist about that, it would be just grassroots community action.

I am pretty libertarian. If you own the land you should be able to build whatever you want on it. Obviously certain things don't make sense. You don't want to build a gas refinery in the middle of a neighborhood, but that is pretty self evident and what zoning laws are for.

This article has nothing to do with that. It is about local governments trying to change society based on their political whins. I wonder how many of the city councilpeople that voted for that live in giant houses that will be grandfathered in.

[forrestkc]

I am pretty libertarian. If you own the land you should be able to build whatever you want on it. Obviously certain things don't make sense. You don't want to build a gas refinery in the middle of a neighborhood, but that is pretty self evident and what zoning laws are for.

This article has nothing to do with that. It is about local governments trying to change society based on their political whins. I wonder how many of the city councilpeople that voted for that live in giant houses that will be grandfathered in.

Wait a second though. If your a taxpayer in a community, then zoning laws can and do protect your interests as a taxpayer. For example, larger buildings require more infrastructure, thus everyone in the community gets stuck footing the bill for it. Moreover, if a neighborhood is a historic district, then communities can certainly take measures to preserve it. Another situation is where utilities are at capacity, and larger homes would over tax them, in that event, the local taxpayers certainly have the right to vote on ordinances that restrict building size or mandate efficiency standards rather than to overtax utilities or force the communities taxpayers to foot the bill for new powerplants just so a handful of the new money bunch can have their massive cookie cutter homes.

My wife is from Houston, and when we go down there I always think about how everything in Houston and Dallas is new and usually gaudy, and if there is a nice old neighborhood, invariably the old cape cods, bungalows, and tudors in it get torn down and the biggest McMansions you could possibly fit on the lot get built in their place. Now, if those communities and neighborhoods want that, then its their community and their neighborhoods, so they have every right to allow it. However, pretty much anywhere else in America people pay top dollar to live in older established neighborhoods and fight tooth and nail to preserve them and they have every right to do that as well.

[chrisb]

So is it about materialism or is it about zoning?

[forrestkc]

Isn't the crux of the article not where to build (zoning) but what to build? Zoning just says if you have an historic or old neighborhood, you need to fit the style if you add on or build. The next neighborhood over can have the big houses. This article is citing places that they just don't like big houses--anyplace.

Zoning is both where to build and what to build. For example, many neighborhoods have zoning laws that require buildings to have so much rock or stone, or that trees are left in place when possible, or sign height and so on.

Its also worth pointing out that cities that have done a great deal of urban planing, such as Portland, Oregon, are also as a result widely regarded as some of the most desirable places to live in America as well.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I don't think the point of the article was to promote some form of socialism, but rather to make a commentary on just how materialistic our society has become. Its all about "me" and how much stuff I can accumulate in life anymore rather than a traditional sense of community. More and more it seems we are looking to "things" to make us happy rather than friends, family, and community. I don't think thats a left or right ideal either.

I can agree with you about this part of the equation Forrest. However as you have personally stated in other threads. We have no business meddling in the lives of others who can afford to build or buy these homes.

It is a systemic problem with our society and Socialism isn't the answer. A revival is.

A return to God is the answer.

The article is suggesting Socialism though. America is all about private property rights. If I buy a huge lot and desire to put a huge arrogantly large home on it and burn lights all hours of the night, like some former Vice Presidents. As long as I can afford the bills, whose business is it?

I also Love the Mc Mansions because they give me a place to go and service my clients from. There are often nice size partys to be had there

The Mc Mansions aren't the problem and severly limiting them will only serve to hurt the economy and small business owners like myself.

The problem is heart disease and only Jesus has the cure.

Peace,

Dave