Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman
Upon further reflection, I wonder if any of that detailed analytical verbiage is needed. I think the image speaks for itself. If labor and materials were the expensive part of home-building, then they'd be building 1500-SF ranchers on 1/4-acre lots. This is not what they are doing. |
It's what the zoning allows.
Big daddy bureaucrats get incentivized to change allowable lot usage and you have what you see there.
This one metric is why I chose to buy live where I live - relatively large lots for house size. This is to the detriment to tax revenue as the taxable density is lower than the surrounding areas, even though the house value is higher. - Say, the average house is 2mil/per qtr acre. The same house in say Seattle is 1.5mil on 1/8th acre. (3mil taxable on 1/4 acre)
So really, municipalities are looking for the maximum taxable base. Few care about quality for those who live there.