Question 10: Would you support removing or reducing the 1000-sq.ft. minimum dwelling size to promote more affordable home construction?

I was pleasantly surprised that moderator Bob Sahr kept the floor open for questions as long as he did. I didn't want to hog the floor, but I also didn't want my friends at KJAM facing too much dead air. So I offered the final question before closing remarks: "Current housing regulations and development covenants make it difficult for Habitat for Humanity and others to build small, affordable houses. Would you support removing or reducing the 1000-square-foot minimum house size to promote more affordable housing?"

1. Myron Downs: My garage is bigger than a 1000 square feet. A house shouldn't be too small. I have no idea if I would support that. People have to be able to afford the house they buy.
2. Mike McGowan: I live in a thousand square-foot house. There is no reason to have a house smaller than that. You have to have room for your kids.
   
3. Karen Lembcke: The city has no such minimum dwelling size on new construction. The city has a 1000-square-foot minimum on modular homes and mobile homes that are brought in, but not on stick-built homes, which is what Habitat puts up, so there should be no problem for Habitat. I can check, but the city is working on updating the code, so if you look online, it's hard to find. But go smaller than that and the house is too small.
4. Nick Abraham: You might be thinking of the Governor's House, which is 974 square feet and thus would be affected. I'm open to lifting that restriction. We should bring those houses in, absolutely. We should look at allowing variances.

Now Karen may well be right and I may well be wrong. My wife, who is on the Habitat board, is of the impression that our local Habitat chapter has changed its normal building plans to accommodate size requirements from the city. I read through the city's zoning ordinances again, and Karen is definitely right: they are a mess. Matter of fact, they aren't there. Since the city aligned its rules with the 2006 International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, 2006 International Building Code, and 2006 International Mechanical Code the ordinances available online are simply a list of amendments and exceptions to said codes. (Said codes are available from the International Code Council for $254.50... about the same price as a copy of the LAIC housing study.)

Still, the city is still permitting a private developers to set up covenants that establish minimum sizes and other cosmetic requirements that put houses out of reach for a number of workers. But I really was looking for something bigger here: an acknowledgment of the concept that bigger is not better, that smaller houses have a valuable place in an overall community housing strategy. With that in mind...

• 4 points for Abraham: Only Abraham gets the bigger issue. He welcomes mroe Governor's Houses.
• 1 point for Lembcke: She gets a point for setting me straight, but still embraces the fallacious and patronizing notion that someone has to tell folks how much house they need.
• 0 points for Downs and McGowan: no grasp of the concept I was after. We still have some culture-jamming to do.