Should Charles County Reduce the Minimum Home Size?

How Small is too small?

Last week the Charles County Commissioners held an open forum to discuss a proposal to reduce the minimum home size in Charles County from 1,650 square feet to 1,250 s.f..

I personally feel that the idea of reducing the minimum home size builders can construct is an excellent idea, and I was dismayed to see the article in the Maryland Independent that gave what was (in my opinion) a biased, narrow-minded viewpoint of the proposal.  I wanted to speak about some of the inaccuracies that the article printed as fact without any editorial verification.  Perhaps if people looked at this issue from a broader standpoint, this proposal would make a lot more sense.

First, Nanjemoy resident and Republican District 2 county commissioner candidate Rick Campbell was quoted as saying:

“I don’t think a government should be in the business of getting into mandating the housing market”

To Mr. Campbell, with all due respect, isn’t the government already “in the business of getting into mandating the housing market”  by mandating the current minimum of 1,650 s.f.?

It’s also inaccurate for Mr. Campbell to suggest that a smaller home would sell for the same price as other new homes currently on the market (“Just because the county says a developer can build at 1,250 square feet doesn’t mean a developer is going to lower prices. There’s no correlation”).  If a 1,650 s.f. new home sells for $280k in today’s market, How would anyone in their right mind buy a 1,250 s.f. home (with the same features) for the same price??  A smaller home would cost less to build and, in the current market, would sell for less as well.

Gilliland shared a similar concern with Campbell about smaller homes, saying that even if a house with a reduced blueprint comes with a cheaper initial price, when you factor in the excise and property taxes along with a possible homeowner’s association fee, homeowners could be looking at more than $500 added to their monthly mortgages.

While it is true that HOA fees, excise and property taxes increase the cost of a home, they increase the cost of EVERY NEW HOME BUILT in Charles County.  This is not some phenomenon that would occur only if the home has a reduced blueprint, and as Ms. Gilliland stated, the house itself would have an initial cheaper price.  The cost increases that she mentions impact every new home, regardless of size.  Even if the fees added up to more that $500/mo, the number would be higher (As a home gets larger, so does the tax bill).

In addition to that, there were several erroneous statements included in the article:

“homeowners trying to sell homes right now are experiencing an average of 140 days on the market.”

According to the Metropolitan Regional Information Systems (MRIS) current average time on market is 114 days, not 140. (Download Data, Excel Format)

“There are currently 194 foreclosed properties listed for sale in Charles County and 161 of those properties are listed for under $300,000″

While there are 194 foreclosure properties listed for sale in Charles County, and over 160 of them are listed under $300,000, what the article fails to mention is that of those 194 foreclosures, 115 of them are under contract! Only 79 of them are actually list as “active”!  There are 965 homes listed as “active” in Charles County in the MLS today.  79 (12.2%) of those are foreclosures.

“Perhaps the one bright spot in the current housing downturn is that we now have a 20-month supply of housing available for sale”

Again, inaccurate.  Truth be told, the supply is much lower than that (which is much better news!).  As I mentioned earlier, the MLS shows 965 homes as “active”  according to the MRIS market data I posted above, 68 homes sold last month. According to that data, that means the supply of housing available is really 14.2 months, not 20!  While 14 months is certainly not ideal, it is a huge improvement from where we were a year ago, and a much brighter picture than 20 months supply would portray.

Why Does The County Encourage McMansions by Prohibiting Smaller Homes???

What I have always found disturbing about the current minimum size regulation is that it limits what I would want/need as a home buyer.  Simply put, I could not see myself purchasing a new home with a minimum home size of 1,650 s.f..  I don’t need that much space, and I have no desire to spend money on the higher mortgage and higher heat/gas/water bills.  Quite simply, I don’t need to take up the carbon footprint that the county regulations would require if I were to buy a new home.

This is something I haven’t heard mentioned yet, but it’s an important factor.  Even if a smaller home size only dropped the price of the home by a few thousand dollars, buyers would be able to purchase a home that required less expense in regards to maintenance and upkeep, furnishings, and monthly utility bills.  It all equals money saved!

On a personal level, it has always seemed that 1,650 s.f. is more home than I want or need.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the right to buy a home in Charles County that’s smaller unless I’m willing to purchase something built 20+ years ago.  The real kicker to it all is that minimum size standards such as this have been found to be unconstitutional in several US courts!  When minimum laws were first passed, it was a boon to the construction industry because larger homes allow more profit per structure.  The cost of this sort of legislation in the first place has been the McMansion craze of the last 2 decades, higher building waste, bigger carbon footprints, and suburban sprawl.

Lowering the minimum home size WILL promote affordability in Charles County and it’s a great way to promote the “green city initiative” that ACPT has been talking about.  Why wouldn’t we as a community want to reduce waste, reduce unnecessary expense, and reduce the communities carbon footprint?