Paul McKean, Amy Donohue, and the second house fetish
November 9th, 2007
One of the current top articles on the NY Times Web site is this one, about a couple who built a “green” second home on 2 acres in Hood River.
WHEN Paul McKean and his wife, Amy Donohue, talked to county officials in Hood River, Ore., about buying a two-acre parcel to build their second home, they got a less than positive response.
“They said, ‘Oh yeah, that’s a tricky one,’” said Mr. McKean, a Portland architect.
In fact, 10 people had put an offer on the property, which sat on a flood plain, and then backed out, he said. But Mr. McKean and his wife were interested in going against the grain.
“Part of it was doing something on a marginal piece of land nobody wanted,” said Ms. Donohue, who is also an architect. Another goal was to “build small,” she said.
This sort of thing really annoys me. I don’t know these people, nor do I know any facts beyond what the article notes. But I get the impression that this couple feels as though they have done something noble, by building a small green house on poor, lonely land “that nobody wanted”. (What sounds like wetlands.)
Americans need to realize that green consumption is still consumption. And that building green does NOT excuse needless 2nd house development on small lots in agricultural areas. Now that this couple and their friends come hither and yon to the house, how does this impact farmers ability to move machinery and grow food on their nearby land? And maybe that farmer will eye this little house on 2 acres, and do the math and realize, hey, maybe I can sell my land into little subdivisions to rich liberal Portlanders who want to build green houses.
Why were there so many Measure 37 claims in Hood River? Could it be the fact that there is indeed huge demand from so-called “green” people like McKean and Donohue? Do these people have any sense of the larger picture outside of their cozy little board games in their award-winning house?
This modern dream of a 2nd house in the countryside needs to be thoroughly excised and debunked. See, here’s another. This modern house is at Smith Rock.
Rich liberal Portlanders need to realize that WE are the ones primarily responsible for the loss of agriculture and forestland to sprawl. Sure, we may not build ugly McMansions. We build tiny little ones that are green, with fancy solar power and dual flushing toilets. Oh and of course we want a few acres, because we want room for our pets and we want to be close to “nature”.
But the end result is still the same: a house on a small acre lot on rural land. That fragments habitat and farmland, increases congestion and pollution, and simply increases development pressures all around.
It has to stop.
Related posts: Columbia River Gorge Commission sells out to mega-developers, Tiny houses, The myth of land availability and affordable housing
5 Comments Add your own
1. Terry | November 10th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I heard on NPR that if all the world consumed as much as an environmentally green family o four outside of Los Angeles –a real family that lives in a 1000 sq, ft, house and hardly drives at all — it would take three earths to sustain that rate of consumption.
That ’s something to think about.
2. Terry | November 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
That should read family “of” four.
Good post, by the way, Peter. Americans are definitely driven to excessive consumption.
3. M | November 11th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Take it up with your planning deptmnt….
4. Pat Martin | November 18th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Hey, turns out they rent this house out to other weary yuppies looking for some rest and relaxation:
http://www.vrbo.com/132726
So does all vacation rental property come under the same condemnation that private 2nd homes get? What about hotels and motels in tourist destinations?
Pat Martin
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed