OpEd: On the Minimum House Size Ordinance: On Robber Barrons

November 2007

As a young college student, I lived with my grandmother near the University of Minnesota, and studied in the living room, with the large Oriental rug. Taking a break one night, I asked her:

Grandma---where did this oriental rug come from?

She replied, "Your grandfather won it in a poker game at the James J. Hill Mansion one night back in 1929."

That made sense. The rug was a bit worn. Still....just the idea of a poker game with the legendary James J. Hill, the Robber Barron, really got my interest.

In the olden days, when Robber Barrons were robber barrons, the Federal Government had a development program-----they cut deals for the railroad, for states, for land....directly with the Robber Barrons. That was the development plan.

In the modern age, this policy has been modified-----now it is established practice that the Community has a role in establishing what is in the community interest. They have input in the development process. It is not just a back room deal.

So----mouthing by politicians about "The Market" ---you may have heard some of this in audio lately----is just nostalgia for the days of old when the Robber Barrons met and cut deals in the back room----nowdays, the public has a say----and some folks, namely folks who think themselves robber barrons, find this offensive.

In the Planning Commission meeting last week was a thoughtful dialogue on this issue. The developers noted that the current ordinance was too complicated. It needed simplification. It was too rigid. It needed some flexibility. Their remedy was to junk the ordinance completely. They accepted no ideas for limits of any kind.

The Smart Growth Plan of 2005 made a finding of fact that there was an excessive number of lower value homes in Evansville which has led to higher property taxes since new homes built did not develop enough revenue to pay for infrastructure for the city---and not enough revenue to pay for the building required for the school system. This finding of fact at the Smart Growth plan has been extensively documented by school and city officials. It represents a valid community need. That valid community need cannot be dismissed by mouthing by folks about the "Market."

To be successful in promoting Evansville to the hinterlands, we need a community that offers affordable family living---at the current time we are on the high end of the tax spectrum. To eliminate the minimum house size ordinance would make this worse.

I believe it is prudent to modify, simplify.....but NOT eliminate the minimum house size ordinance. It represents a valid community interest for Evansville. Please tell your alderman what your thoughts are about this issue.

Click on the post for the housing section of the Smart Growth Plan adopted by Evansville in 2005.