[TacticalTable]

These kinds of zoning restrictions cause so many more problems than they resolve. If somebody wants to live in a small home, the law shouldn't get in their way. They make sense for tenant rights, or home selling, but why impede someone's personal freedoms?

[mumblemumble]

I don't even see them making sense for tenant rights or home selling. Placing a minimum on the size of apartment someone's allowed to rent to me, or the size of home I can buy ultimately comes into conflict with my right to decide how much money I'm willing to spend.

Other housing codes - say, requiring the wiring not to be a fire hazard - make a lot of sense as a way to protect me in situations where I can't reasonably be expected to have the expertise necessary to assess the situation for myself. But I am the ultimate authority when it comes to deciding how much space I need for myself and all my crap.

[hellisothers]

I tend to agree with this sentiment but it does sound a lot like the whole “if people want to sign up to be slaves to Uber because they have no other options then that is their right” argument which I have mixed feelings about. I could imagine a situation where new construction in SF is all 100sft units because it maximizes rent ROI which would if anything make larger spaces even more expensive then they are.

[pochamago]

Wouldn't that still be better than the current situation? It seems like a lot of these laws, in an attempt to define the acceptable minimum as middle class, just end up pricing lower income people out of the market altogether. I think it should be alright to allow for lower minimums as long as the main priority of fluid class mobility remains high.