Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor | Some costs are fixed, even for smaller houses
A recent letter to the editor claimed that simply requiring 20% of new homes to be between 1,500 and 1,800 square feet would bring prices down for local workers and retirees. It’s an idea that sounds tidy on paper — and perhaps even “spot on” to those who haven’t looked closely at how our housing market actually works — but in Gig Harbor’s reality, it falls apart quickly.
The problem is that land and infrastructure costs, not just construction size, drive prices here. Whether a house is 1,600 or 2,800 square feet, the lot cost, utility hookups, and impact fees are the same. Smaller homes save a bit on materials and labor, but those savings are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost.
Then there’s demand. Our median home price is around $940,000, with nearly half of homes selling above asking. Buyers — often from higher-priced regions — will compete for any new home, regardless of size. In this environment, “smaller” doesn’t necessarily mean “cheaper”; it just means a shorter bidding war before the price climbs back to the neighborhood average.
The reality is that many new builds in Gig Harbor already command luxury prices, even when modest in square footage. Builders price based on what the market will bear, not the size of the living room.
It’s also worth noting that the Multi-Family Tax Exemption program being debated at City Hall applies to apartments and condos, not single-family houses. Trying to fold a small-house requirement into that discussion is like trying to fix ferry delays by adding more parking meters — the tools address different problems entirely.
Gig Harbor’s housing challenge stems from high land values, limited supply, and intense demand. Smaller homes can have their place, but let’s not pretend they’re a magic lever for affordability.
John Dowd
Gig Harbor