No. 42
January 10, 2000
Laura Steadman*

Urban sprawl has been resurrected from the 1960s and declared a national problem for the 1990s. But attempts to halt the menace defy common sense. Consider, for example, the case of San Jose, CA, mainstay of Silicon Valley.

Many San Jose residents live in modest bungalows that reflect the charm of a bygone era but provide little living space, typically less than 1,500 square feet and considered inadequate for a growing family. Some families have decided to solve this problem by expanding and remodeling their homes. Renovations preserve land and increase property values for an entire neighborhood. But some in San Jose see them as a threat.

"It’s a monster," complained Larry Breed of his neighbor’s newly remodeled house. "It’s two stories and it flaunts it. It gives the feeling of lording itself over the street like the lord of the manor. My family is losing something valuable and precious—our privacy."

City government agreed and responded with regulations restricting expansion to 45 percent of lot size. Those expanding to 65 percent of lot size must meet a list of seven criteria and gain the approval of a planning director. The practice of tearing down a house and rebuilding is also restricted.

Regulations like these are not new to Silicon Valley. Many communities have enacted "monster home" ordinances designed to protect the historic character of neighborhoods. Recently, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted emergency regulations placing caps on the height and floor area of new houses in the unincorporated communities north of Half Moon Bay. The city of Palo Alto recently enacted size restrictions.

These and similar restrictions subject property rights to the whims of local politicians and bureaucrats. They have also been enacted without consideration of their consequences, leaving homeowners to either follow the City Council’s bidding or get out of the city. The effect of San Jose’s latest restriction will force families who need more space to buy larger lots, thereby using more land.

Since large lots are scarce and expensive, many will be forced to move even further away. This makes for longer commutes, more traffic congestion, and contributes to the very sprawl that many Americans say they want to stop. But millions of Americans also object to the congestion of high-density housing.

The NIMBY syndrome—Not In My Back Yard —has metamorphisized into something of a Dr. Seuss rhyme from the grinch who stopped remodeling:

Moving farther out is not always an option because there is little open land available in Silicon Valley. Housing pressures combined with a booming economy have elevated home prices to unprecedented levels. In Santa Clara County, the median price for a house is $500,000. These are not new houses either, but relatively small two-bedroom homes.

Most Bay Area residents cannot afford to buy that brand-new dream house. The most sensible and ecologically-sound course of action is to buy an older house and renovate. But in San Jose, it seems the only entity allowed to expand is the power of city government.

Imposing new restrictions on homeowners is not only unjustified, it creates environmental consequences, including sprawl. Ultimately, this is not a problem of land use but government control. The time has come to stop government sprawl and start making sense.

* Laura Steadman is a research assistant at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute.