Smaller homes will reduce waste, expense, carbon footprint

Friday, March 12, 2010

Last week the Charles County commissioners held an open forum to discuss a proposal to reduce the minimum home size in Charles County from 1,650 square feet to 1,250 square feet.

I personally feel that the idea of reducing the minimum home size builders can construct is an excellent idea.

What I have always found disturbing about the current minimum size regulation is that it limits what I would want/need as a homebuyer. Simply put, I could not see myself purchasing a new home with a minimum home size of 1,650 square feet.

I don't need that much space, and I have no desire to spend money on the higher mortgage and higher heat, gas and water bills.

Quite simply, I don't need to take up the carbon footprint that the county regulations would require if I were to buy a new home.

This is something I haven't heard mentioned yet, but it's an important factor. Even if a smaller home size only dropped the price of the home by a few thousand dollars, buyers would be able to purchase a home that required less expense in regards to maintenance and upkeep, furnishings and monthly utility bills. It all equals money saved.

On a personal level, it has always seemed that 1,650 square feet is more home than I want or need. Unfortunately, I don't have the right to buy a home in Charles County that's smaller unless I'm willing to purchase something built 20 or more years ago.

The real kicker to it all is that minimum size standards such as this have been found to be unconstitutional in several U.S. courts. When minimum laws were first passed, it was a boon to the construction industry because larger homes allow more profit per structure.

The cost of this sort of legislation in the first place has been the McMansion craze of the last two decades, higher building waste, bigger carbon footprints and suburban sprawl.

Lowering the minimum home size will promote affordability in Charles County and it's a great way to promote the "green city initiative" that has been talked about.

Why wouldn't we as a community want to reduce waste, reduce unnecessary expense and reduce the community's carbon footprint?

Jonathan Benya, La Plata