Low density housing is killing nh! (Manchester, Concord: sales, 2014, apartment)

[miu]

Originally Posted by whippany5

Not that this is about my personal needs, but I’d like a smaller lot and a decent sized house. Density is what I’m taking about.

BTW property taxes are determined in a large part by how much living space the house has. Being on a small lot wouldn't lower your property tax burden. A small lot wouldn't make property lower in price if the house was "decent size".

Also, many Boston area workers (and there are a lot of them) find NH a very appealing place to live... so building a lot more houses in Southern NH wouldn't necessarily translate to lower housing prices, not as long as the metro Boston area housing in MA is so strong in price.

When we bought our house seven years ago, $330K for our place with ten acres seemed like a huge bargain, compared to Boston area prices... $275K+ for a two bedroom condo in Brookline, or $600K for a small house on a quarter acre of land in Newton. Of course, the commute to Boston from our place is an hour and a half drive, but it's less painful than going from Newton into Boston using the MBTA system during rush hour.

[Leo58]

Originally Posted by KCZ

It's the maintain our privacy, open spaces, forests, rural lands, and avoid the excessive development and crowding seen in other parts of the country mentality. You really need to move to a major city because you have no appreciation for NH whatsoever.

I just responded on another thread in this forum about Live Free or Die, regarding New Hampshire not wanting excess government regulation; aka, the nanny state.

But isn't this the nanny state: government telling me how big of a lot I am allowed to have? There will be plenty of space for people who want to own several acres and enjoy the privacy and solitude that comes with it, but if others prefer to live on smaller (and less expensive) lots, should that not be their right?

It's not just New Hampshire. I had this same issue when I was looking at houses in Massachusetts. It seems to me that housing would be a lot less expensive if it wasn't for restrictive zoning laws. I was told for one thing you need a minimal lot size for a septic tank. I said why don't they put in sewer lines? They said they want to preserve the aesthetic character of the area. I asked what's so aesthetic about pumping raw sewage into the ground?

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by Leo58

But isn't this the nanny state: government telling me how big of a lot I am allowed to have? There will be plenty of space for people who want to own several acres and enjoy the privacy and solitude that comes with it, but if others prefer to live on smaller (and less expensive) lots, should that not be their right?

That's not what "nanny state" means.

Given that zoning is set town-by-town, at least it's not "big" government. All politics is local, zoning just makes this more apparent than other issues.

Once you accept that locally-controlled zoning is within the power of town-level government, then is it really unreasonable or overreach for the current residents to have some say in the future character of their town?

Originally Posted by Leo58

I was told for one thing you need a minimal lot size for a septic tank. I said why don't they put in sewer lines? They said they want to preserve the aesthetic character of the area. I asked what's so aesthetic about pumping raw sewage into the ground?

I assume by "aesthetic" they were thinking of the disruption from installation of water and sewer mains and connecting residences, or more likely, about the millions upon millions of dollars it would cost for even a small town to make the switch.

[miu]

Originally Posted by Leo58

I just responded on another thread in this forum about Live Free or Die, regarding New Hampshire not wanting excess government regulation; aka, the nanny state.

But isn't this the nanny state: government telling me how big of a lot I am allowed to have? There will be plenty of space for people who want to own several acres and enjoy the privacy and solitude that comes with it, but if others prefer to live on smaller (and less expensive) lots, should that not be their right?

It's not just New Hampshire. I had this same issue when I was looking at houses in Massachusetts. It seems to me that housing would be a lot less expensive if it wasn't for restrictive zoning laws. I was told for one thing you need a minimal lot size for a septic tank. I said why don't they put in sewer lines? They said they want to preserve the aesthetic character of the area. I asked what's so aesthetic about pumping raw sewage into the ground?

Are you nuts? Who is supposed to pay for the installation of sewer and water lines? Who is supposed to pay for the processing of said sewage or treatment of the water supply???

People like you need to stay in MA and stop trying to make rural NH into something that it isn't.

Personally, I think that the minimum lot sizes for new homes should be larger, like 3 or more acres. Depending on the area. I moved up to NH for the open undeveloped spaces. If I had wanted to live around more people, I would have stayed in the congested Metro Boston area.

[miu]

Originally Posted by Leo58

I just responded on another thread in this forum about Live Free or Die, regarding New Hampshire not wanting excess government regulation; aka, the nanny state.

But isn't this the nanny state: government telling me how big of a lot I am allowed to have? There will be plenty of space for people who want to own several acres and enjoy the privacy and solitude that comes with it, but if others prefer to live on smaller (and less expensive) lots, should that not be their right?

It's not just New Hampshire. I had this same issue when I was looking at houses in Massachusetts. It seems to me that housing would be a lot less expensive if it wasn't for restrictive zoning laws. I was told for one thing you need a minimal lot size for a septic tank. I said why don't they put in sewer lines? They said they want to preserve the aesthetic character of the area. I asked what's so aesthetic about pumping raw sewage into the ground?

No. The Boston area is a particularly desirable area to live in, it has been for many decades. Maybe eventually, things will change, but it would be a huge mistake to shoe horn in building houses on every open scrap of land in the area. No one in New England wants to live in a high density neighborhood area that looks like a borough of NYC.

More houses, would also mean more classrooms needed to educate all the school age children that would come with doubling the housing density of an area. And the capacity of the MBTA system would also be overwhelmed and would need additional funds from the state government. So eventually the tax burden would increase and offset any possible savings of building homes on tiny lots.

Maybe instead of looking for a small house on a tiny piece of land, you should look into buying a condo.

[tamajane]

I responded to your post in the urban planning forum that there are plenty of houses on small lots all over New England. They just are not new. There are also renovated mill buildings, condos and apartments. There are multi families and condexes in small towns. There is something for everyone.

Do you have a response?

[baysky]

Originally Posted by KCZ

It's the maintain our privacy, open spaces, forests, rural lands, and avoid the excessive development and crowding seen in other parts of the country mentality. You really need to move to a major city because you have no appreciation for NH whatsoever.

Exactly. If City is what they want, move out of NH. These YIMBYs need to go start a colony on Mars where they can share toothbrushes. They certainly don't like trees and greenspace so Mars is perfect!

[CrazyDave]

Originally Posted by whippany5

Does anybody know what can be done about the excessive amounts of 1-2 acre lot building requirements? It’s insane. It basically means the only new construction that can be done is houses fit to be on 1-2 acre lots- aka big houses. In concord there was a few developments built on the way to Hopkinton off of 202 and although the houses are nice- they are on big lots and they fetch $650,000+. Not reasonable for any family who’s not making 6 figures.

Is this just the way that is going to be? Are we going to end up like Arizona and Southern CA with stupid shouts of sprawl? Or is this just the ever lasting keep people under 55 out mentality?

Well, some folks don't like knowing what their neighbor is doing in their backyard.. you have a problem with that?

[ben young]

Originally Posted by whippany5

Does anybody know what can be done about the excessive amounts of 1-2 acre lot building requirements? It’s insane. It basically means the only new construction that can be done is houses fit to be on 1-2 acre lots- aka big houses. In concord there was a few developments built on the way to Hopkinton off of 202 and although the houses are nice- they are on big lots and they fetch $650,000+. Not reasonable for any family who’s not making 6 figures.

Is this just the way that is going to be? Are we going to end up like Arizona and Southern CA with stupid shouts of sprawl? Or is this just the ever lasting keep people under 55 out mentality?

You need the acreage for Septic fields and pure drinking water. As for keeping folks out, only Socialists who think folks SHOULD only have a certain amount of land.

You know the saying Whippany; "From each according to his ability , to each according to his needs "

[baysky]

As a person from Manhattan, have you not noticed that in contrast to popular belief, high-density induces demand and prices skyrocket. Were this not true, Manhattan would be dirt cheap!