Thread: Anyone see 60 Min. Sunday night?

I would imagine the woman is complaining that the older homes are getting torn down and replaced with over sized monstrosities they call McMansions. They are nothing but a blight and an eyesore in a neighborhood. I don's see anything appealing about living next to a house that barely fits on the lot.

That was EXACTLY the point, Brian. The woman had a nice, period-style, quaint house and the ones they built took up the whole lot.

Originally Posted by Bootsie

That was EXACTLY the point, Brian. The woman had a nice, period-style, quaint house and the ones they built took up the whole lot.

She is not alone. More and more people from different communties across the United States are complaining about these monster houses and want laws to restrict them. I'm personally not against someone building a large house but agree they do not look good on a small lot. If you want a large home build it on a lot with some acreage. If you search the internet you can find all kinds of articles on this subject. Here is one example I found.

County Board Sets Housing Limits
New measure restricts house size based on zoning district
By Seth Rosen
November 22, 2005

The Arlington County Board voted last week to place a more restrictive limit on the size of houses, in an effort to curtail the building of McMansions and protect neighborhoods from undesirable development.
After a contentious hearing that included more than three hours of public testimony, the board voted four to one to reduce the percentage of residential lots that can be covered by houses, garages and driveways. The regulation applies to new homes as well as renovations, and restricts lot size on a sliding-scale based on zoning districts.
Supporters of the measure believe it will help prevent over-sized renovations and the construction of sprawling McMansions, which dwarf adjacent houses and alter the character of Arlington’s neighborhoods. Many residents came to the meeting to express their displeasure with massive houses that reduce the amount of open space between homes, block out the sun and lead to the loss of trees.
Others said more stringent lot-coverage requirements are an attack on property rights, will drive down the price of land in the county and obstruct people from expanding their houses as they so choose.
County officials insisted that the measure will have only a marginal, positive effect and will not impede residents from building large additions to their houses.
“This will have a minor impact for most people and only affect the most egregious examples� of over-sized houses, said County Board Vice-Chairman Chris Zimmerman, following the nearly six-hour board meeting.
The new regulations will not eliminate the future construction of large houses nor drastically alter the personality of a neighborhood, said County Board Chairman Jay Fisette.
“What we passed will not prohibit poorly designed houses or over-stuffed homes ... but it will reduce the opportunity for the most egregious McMansions to be built,� Fisette said.
Officials stressed that the new rules would not abolish over-sized houses and that many of residents’ objections were matters involving design and height, not lot coverage.
“No proposal will completely solve the problems,� said County Manager Ron Carlee. “This is not a panacea.�

UNDER THE CURRENT RULES single family homes can cover 56 percent of a lot, regardless of land size or zoning district.
The new measure restricts the size of a house to between 16 and 34 percent of a lot, depending on zoning district. The maximum coverage on a R-5 district, the smallest classification, will now be 45 percent and on a R-20 district, the largest, it will be 25 percent. Extra density is granted for building a front porch or detached garage.
The provision makes it easier for “non-conforming� houses to build additions, as long as they fit the new guidelines. The objective is to encourage more people to renovate their existing homes rather than tear them down and build larger houses, county officials said.
A house that was destroyed in a fire or natural disaster can be re-built to its original size even if it exceeds the new limits. The regulations do not affect any lots with permits already filed.
The new guidelines cap a four-year process that has riled many homeowners in the county and produced little in the way of consensus.
The influential Arlington County Civic Federation called for the county to retain the status quo, while many of the recommendations of the Neighborhood Conservation Advisory Committee were incorporated into the Planning Commission's proposal that was ultimately approved by the board last Tuesday.
Barbara Favola, the one dissenting member of the county board, favored the less restrictive proposal from the County Manager’s office, which would have set regulations only on new construction.
Favola said she was concerned about the measure’s “unintended consequences� and that she expected the board to “use a scalpel to conscientiously control McMansions, the bulk of which are new construction.�

DURING THE HEATED public comment period, the more than 60 speakers were evenly divided between those who preferred the board take no action and those who favored the Planning Commission's proposal.
Some said the board was stretching beyond its authority and hinted at the possibility of a legal challenge to the new measure.
Tim Wise, head of the Arlington County Taxpayers Association, accused the board of, “trying to solve aesthetic and engineering problems with your own nuclear weapon rather than with a tuck here and a nip there.�
Arlington resident Robert Gregg said the new lot coverage limits may force him to move elsewhere to accommodate his growing family.
“We’re going to have to re-evaluate our plans because we can’t afford to tear down and rebuild,� said Gregg. “We may have no choice but to leave when our kids get bigger.�
Several developers said they would have no problem building the large houses their clients desire under the new proposal. This public testimony helped sway Fisette to vote for the more restrictive lot coverage.
“It made me realize you can do a four to five thousand square foot home with lots of new desired amenities under the Planning Commission’s recommendations,� Fisette said.
The County Real Estate Assessment Office and the Arlington Economic Development Office concluded that “no significant or widespread� decreases in land value would occur because of the new measure. But many critics of the plan said this claim was disingenuous.
“Owners will see a formal erosion in the value of their property,� said Arlington resident Joe Corey.
While Hans Bauman, president of the Waycroft-Woodlawn civic association, said the board “crafted a fair and acceptable compromise� others walked out of the meeting infuriated with the board’s decision.
“This is a sea change,� Wayne Kubicki told the board. “Sea changes should only happen when there is a clear consensus.�

Like you, I have no problem with a development with large homes. Most of those are STARTED as a large-home development and everything is about the same size. It's just those nice, old communities where someone comes in and starts tearing down pretty old homes and replacing them with monstrosities that bothers me. In fact, I think it's sad to see a lot of those 20's , 30's and 40's homes go. THEY have character.
These others are just BIG HOUSES. There is just a PLACE for those and it's NOT in neighborhoods where there are neat old homes.

Towns and local governments love it, rip down an old cheap house and build mcmansions at a higher assessment, gather more taxes. The owners get high values, take out an equity loan, buy a hummer, after having it built with illegal labor. It's beautiful.

And people wonder why Muricah isn't as popular as it once was.

It is the real estate version of out-sourcing and illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is the tip of the ice berg of a "wasted nation" Wasted on the drug of consumption. Go nuts Dudes. cheers glenn