It may not be "green" but why should the government tell us how big our houses can be?

SilentChamber:

"The government" already supplies these houses with roads, sewerage, policing, emergency, etc. It also has a mandate to minimize the third party effects of the inhabitants, like the pollution from their cars which are made to go further because of these huge houses. It will also have a stake in the local utility, which supplies these houses with subsidised electricity.

And actually, the government isn't telling you how big *your* house will be, but setting a limit to how big houses will be on average.

But if you still want the government off your back, move to the country and live off-grid.

The government tells us how big every building can be through building codes and zoning regulations. No matter how much I might want to I can't build a 20 story "home" in my neighborhood, even if I called it "green".

It may not be "green" but why should the government tell us how big our houses can be?
Maybe because we allow and require our government to regulate any number of factors related to our homes in the form of zoning.

In a generation or two a great number of these huge homes are likely to be remodeled into 4 or more rental apartments each because the first owners kids can't afford the tax bill. The neighbors who CAN afford to own and occupy one will scream for the government to do something about the undesirable people (median income types and below) moving in.

I don't think size is the main issue, but the wasteful energy used to sustain the large homes. Granted it takes more resources to build a larger home, but the more immediate problem comes from energy consumption. I think limiting energy lets people continue to be creative individuals whereas limiting square footage encourages the same practice undermining sustainable building: get the most cheapest.

If a plot of land is allocated x number of (sustainable) energy units, the land owner whould be able to use up to that amount as s/he pleases. I'd rather see a big green home than a small cheap toxic wasteful one.

I don't think the gov't should tell us how big our houses can be, but I do think some control is necessary to keep idiots from harming the country, which cheap McMansions do. As do giant cars and trucks for casual transportaion and errand running, and so on.

Colorado's plan is prime for corruption. They are telling the rich that they will have to pay more for a bigger house. Big deal. Who do I pay?

Tax proportionately by the area of living space. Problem solved.

The amount of resources used in the construction of the absurdly-proportioned home is not so much the worry... what's worse is that the home may last a long time. Then the water usage, heating and cooling become THE issues.
These communities might consider rationing the energy and water into these too-large homes. When they exceed the average customer's ration they pay a punitive rate for any water or energy in excess. [This policy could be adapted to auto fuel taxation to inhibit gas-guzzlers; simply have a bumper-mounted barcode to set the tax for each gas customer, in say, 8 strata of MPG efficiency, aligning with CAFE standards.]

Such localities as you mention, willing to try to rein in threats to community, are to be praised. Here in Charlotte, the local government is very backward, (except when caring for the elite) allowing mansion owners to privately drill into the common aquifer to avoid paying for their water during the most serious regional drought in our history.

In many, many places in the United States, zoning laws include MINIMUM home sizes (as well as MINIMUM lot sizes). These are in essence mandates to prevent green [small] homes and have been roundly criticized by affordable housing advocates for making it impossible to build affordable housing (which can be done with smaller or no subsidies on smaller lots with smaller homes.)

"The Government" should be allowed to regulate house size (and in my modest opinion, should be doing this kind of green regulation more often) for the same reason it regulates how much toxic gasses your car is allowed to put out, whether or not you can burn down trees on your property, whether or not you can dump biohazardous materials on your own property, etc.....

Simply put, if people (American's especially, and yes I am also American) weren't stupid and selfish about super-sizing their homes and cars for no reason other than to maximize their comfort or sense of self-importance, there wouldn't be a need for this kind of regulation. When people refuse to regulate themselves, they must be regulated for the good of everyone. That is a fundamental element to civilized society.

Maybe not as significant for the survival of the world, but an emotional issue for many people is that when you occupy a piece of land (and whatever structures you build on it), you are also occupying the "common" resources of sunlight, air flow, view, etc., as well as the subjective resources of "good taste" and "esthetic sensibility" and those affect people who are not on your property.
Traditionally this resource has been protected or allocated by forming a local government entity to regulate what newcomers to the area can do, so that their actions fit with the desires of those who are already there. Or this can be enforced through deed restrictions enforced by associations.
The dark side of this in the past has included prohibiting Blacks and Jews who would be "bad for property values" but there are arguably legitimate uses for it in the case of McMansions.

Very well said, Tendo.