Good Evening to all,

I went on vacation, more about that in later posts, I have a ton to write about, and so much business since I've been back that my head is spinning!  I should go on vacation more often, because that's when people seem to need you the most.

I thought I'd post this followup to my McMansions/Large size post a few weeks ago.  It was on the Realtor.org daily news.

Daily Real Estate News  |  July 24, 2007McMansions Under Attack by City Boards
Cities all over the country are fighting the growth of giant homes. In 1973, the median size of a new American home was 1,525 square feet; in 2006, it was 2,248 square feet.

Cities like Minneapolis and Atlantic Beach, Fla., have passed laws restricting home size to half the square footage of its lot. Boulder County, Colo., is considering forcing people in some rural areas to pay extra to build homes bigger than 3,000 square feet.

The unprecedented explosion in homes in the last five years "has produced so much change on the landscape that this is really a counter-response to it," says James W. Hughes, dean of Rutgers University's Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.

Opponents to these kinds of laws say they infringe on property rights. Bellevue, Wash., has tried to circumvent this issue while still protecting owners of small, older homes from view-blocking McMonsters by requiring preservation of trees and limiting height above grade.

"Change occurs," says Cheryl Kuhn, Bellevue's neighborhood outreach manager. "But you want that to happen in a graceful way."

Source: The Los Angeles Times, Nicholas Riccardi (07/23/07)

 So is passing a law to restrict home size, particularly in areas where there are older homes that would lose their views viable?  What does the Active Rain crowd think about this?  Could this be a new trend in government to limit energy costs and environmental hazards?

Take care, and more later.

Amy