On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Or buyers could self-regulate and not purchase a home with an >> unattractive community landscape, and then complain about the fact >> later. >> > > If you're buying a new home today, you don't have a choice. This is partly
Sure you do. You just don't have an affordable choice. I could go buy 10 acres right now and build a house on it. Likewise, I could subdivide that 10 acres and sell 10 houses on it... But guess what, I would quickly find that people aren't willing to pay for 1 acre lots. So then I would divide the lots to 1/2 acre, sell a few, realize that the profits (or lack there of) wasn't worth the effort, and the next time I develop a subdivision, I'll be sure to sell 1/4 acre lots (or smaller). It's not rocket science, it's basic economics. > because of developer choice, but mostly because pretty much every tree along > the Wasatch front was planted by humans. As a result, the only mature trees > in the state exist only in older neighborhoods. Daybreak is poised to change > this since every house has at least two maple or sycamore trees in front > (most lot sizes are still too small for my cup of 1/4 acre decaff though). I don't care what Daybreak is doing. Any community that has a shared "common yard" for three houses might as well be a polygamy compound. I know I've been arguing in defense of developers choosing small lots, but honestly, that is just too bloody small for me. I would gladly spend more for my *own* private yard. Daybreak is weird. > You forgot: 11) Profit. :-) That's just it. There is not "Profit" step. All you end up with is a greater surplus of unsold homes and increased unemployment for builders/developers/realtors (through Realtors should always be out of work regardless -- I'd be in favor of passing a law that would enforce that!) >> Why not just buy in a city or community that has current rules on the >> books that meet your requirements without imposing those restrictions >> on me or anyone else who wants an affordable house firstly and a big >> lot secondly? >> > > Because such a city does not exist in Utah for the reasons I outlined above. Not true. Lindon has a 1/2 acre minimum lot size Pleasant Grove is the same There is a gated community near the point of the mountain (can't remember the name) that has a minimum lot size (I don't know the exact size). etc. There are choices if you have the money. > Bummer, eh? Check out North Carolina: Lots of inexpensive beautiful real > estate. Try Charlottesville or the tri-city area (Red Hat is hiring in > Raleigh, I believe). I don't understand the inexpensive part. I notice that too. You sure don't seem to get your money's worth for a home in Utah compared to some other states (particularly the south east). Too many people moving here that pushes the price up -- supply vs. demand... Oh well. It's a good thing this thread is marked OT :-) -Bryan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
