Size restrictions for homes should be repealed

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

What a revelation on the front page of the Independent April 2, ‘‘Smaller is better for homes, say builders.”

I have just finished reading the ensuing story about the reconsideration of the maximum square footage of houses being built in the county since the 1990s. You will notice I used the word ‘‘house” and not ‘‘home.” I don’t believe you buy a ‘‘home,” but that’s a whole other subject.

The chairman and CEO of the developer of St. Charles is quoted as saying, ‘‘We need to sell houses, and we need to get the prices down to sell houses.” Duh.

The county attorney is cited as explaining that the building restrictions were designed to prevent the flood of ‘‘disposable housing.” Pray tell, what is disposable housing? Is that like disposable diapers?

Did the commissioners’ president really say, ‘‘What I’m hearing is people can’t afford these homes”? Duh.

Where are the foresight and wisdom and common sense we have a right to expect from those making decisions that have an impact on all of us?

None appears to be evident in the people mentioned in this article.

The buyers have a responsibility in this game, too. You contributed to today’s dilemma if you bit off more than you could chew. You knew what was in your wallet.

Getting back to size – I have never been able to accept the ruling that made the size of my house the business of anyone besides me. I should be able to build or buy whatever I want and can afford.

This statute should be repealed as soon as possible. The market has decided and spoken; I hope it is not too late to listen and learn from the lesson.

Patricia S. McCauley, Waldorf