We bought our 70 year old house 10 years ago with the intent to expand at some point. Its on an over-sized lot, with PLENTY of room to expand impermeable surface.

As our kids approach the age where they need their own bathrooms to maintain family harmony, we were planning to expand our house to update it and add about 20-30% more space. So our 1800 sq ft house might increase to about 2300 square feet and retain the character of an original Decatur home. I’ve done the math – it makes sense for us to expand our house to avoid the transaction costs of buying a new house.

However, adding in the complexity and incremental costs of this ordinance will add friction to our plans to expand.

Given our lot is somewhere between 40-50% canopy at this point, i can expect the requirement to plant trees where i don’t want them. But the worst part is these trees will now be protected in perpetuity – essentially establishing an easement on my property.

So what is a homeowner to do? Given i have an oversized lot, I can sell at a premium to a developer who will maximize the impervious surface to put a massive new home on the lot. Will they keep the existing trees? I don’t know, but I know this ordinance will not stop them from cutting them down. I will then buy MY new home from a builder who has done this on a smaller lot that i can afford.

This illustrates how the new ordinance will actually stimulate tear downs.

Living here is not a must and plans for kids are nil, so where’s my incentive to stay? As others have stated, the cost of living was a reason they left. What about new commercial business? This will change Decatur. I’m one example, who will, if restricted from my plans, leave my “teardown” as-is and sell to the highest bidder when I’m ready (likely a developer), who will demolish it for something newer and larger on my 1/3 acre. That’s not doomsday; it’s reality and you will have some bitter people leaving. +1 for reputation / image control. I just wonder whom the supporters will blame?

When I mentioned respecting private property rights, the response was it’s a privilege, not a right. When I mentioned that you can’t legislate emotions or morality, it was ignored. No cost-benefit analysis equals no problem. The lack of a population-wide information campaign returns crickets. Mentioning the lack of a defined problem (i.e. canopy cover) and the lack of community-wide majority consensus (even the results in the city forum) are also ignored. Safety concerns and individual preferences (diversity!) are dismissed; Instead, we’re told that we don’t get it and need to be educated (by them). Questioning the high costs of the proposed program has elicited responses from “You live in Decatur, you can afford it” to “It’s really not that much.” Suggestions of using incentives and volunteerism, instead of penalties, are immediately dismissed because obviously, us humans are all evil. Using public land is deemed insufficient… This is simply a case of some people screaming I want, I want, I want!