It is hard to read this, because some of the stricken text appears to still be there (without the overstrike font to make clear it is being removed). However, this ordinance appears to do just what Mason told me it would do: it establishes a minimum house size of 1,200 square feet in all residential zoning districts. Since almost no one wants to purchase a new house less than 1,200 square feet, this ordinance does nothing to influence the size of houses being built in Evansville. We will be back the the way it was when I arrived in Evansville in 2003: every house being built was a 3 bedroom of around 1,300 square feet, either a ranch or a split level. No variety of house sizes. No opportunity for those who have outgrown their starter homes to purchase larger homes. No protection for the property taxpayers of the city. A complete abandonment of the city's Smart Growth Plan. What a waste of time, energy, and money the Smart Growth plannning process has turned out to be.
Bill Connors
Former Evansville City Administrator
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree it's unfortunate that this provision was overturned. On the other hand it becomes easy to do this when the underlying issue of who is helped and who is harmed by residential housing growth is never fully addressed. It's always postulated as a near article of faith that market demand at any level and amount is a good thing and should be accomodated always. But it's never take into account what it actually costs residents who are already here, both in tax dollars and in their quality of life. All of the current residents are in effect asked to subsidize this growth for the sake of some of the people who benefit from it. Unless and until an honest accounting of the winners and losers in this is done the proposition that any residential growth is good will win out every time. The average property owners who do not benefit from it in any way will continue to take their losses and be the shut out.
ReplyDelete