Forcing People Into Big Homes And Big Mortgages
Daryl James and Erica Smith Ewing write about the perniciousness of zoning regulations that force people into homes larger than they need or want -- homes which require them to "supersize their mortgages, just so they have a place to sleep at night":
People like things big in the United States. Food portions, cars and televisions have grown larger in recent decades, as has spending. But Cindy Tucker wants to reverse the trend in one key area.Her nonprofit organization, Tiny House Hand Up, has applied for permission to build Southern-style cottages as small as 540 square feet on undeveloped land in Calhoun, Georgia. The homes would be energy-efficient, affordable and attractive for people looking to unplug from rampant consumerism. The homes also would be well-constructed, posing no public health or safety risks to neighbors.
Winners would include the environment, first-time homebuyers, and struggling families in Calhoun - where the poverty rate is more than double the national average, and homeownership falls below the national average. Unfortunately, doing more with less is illegal in Calhoun.
Relying on a 2001 ordinance that prohibits the construction of any home smaller than 1,150 square feet, Calhoun rejected the proposed development on Oct. 11, 2021. City code provides no explanation for the rule, but comments made during public hearings for Tiny House Hand Up suggest an underlying problem with elitism.
Opponents talked about keeping low-income families away from their community about 70 miles northwest of Atlanta. Some critics mentioned the potential for litter or crime, which they said would come with the "riffraff." Other critics mentioned the potential for reduced real estate values.
Despite the doomsday predictions, Tiny House Hand Up has received enthusiastic support from the community at large. Yet the City Council sided with the fearmongers. Rather than accept the interference with its charitable mission, Tiny House Hand Up filed a civil rights lawsuit against Calhoun on Oct. 27, 2021, with representation from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice.
Among other issues, the case highlights a growing problem with overregulation and abusive zoning rules in jurisdictions across the United States. Municipalities have legitimate reasons to limit what people do on their property, but only when the restrictions bear a substantial relationship to public health and safety or the general welfare.
...Families have different ideas about how and where they want to live, and governments must not interfere without having compelling reasons. Using zoning laws to enforce cookie cutter notions of "correct" lifestyle choices is not only wrong, but also unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions agree that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law - which precludes arbitrary constraints based on the personal preferences of elected officials and their cronies. People who value size can live in houses as big as they want. They can have three-car garages, swimming pools, spiral staircases and balconies.
Cindy Tucker won't try to stop them. She just wants permission for Tiny House Hand Up to offer an alternative. Her argument is simple: One size does not fit all.
Maybe you could use reverse psychology- point out how much bigger the big houses will seem if they are next to small houses!
Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray at November 9, 2021 1:37 AM
Somebody's full of it. I pass through areas like this all over the South.
Not only does the ordinance NOT burden the public, who can build/buy a mile away in an area with no public transportation to speak of, it ignores the enormous trailer park issue small towns have: it is difficult to exclude them in a way that produces a neat park, as seen in Florida coastal towns, as opposed to some ratty thing dragged in from a scrapyard. Well, of course that poor person can't afford a better trailer, he just got outta jail, is down on his luck, etc.
No. You do NOT get to live where you want, without conditions. Period. The size restriction is to keep the tent people away, nothing more.
Radwaste at November 9, 2021 4:53 AM
Like Rad I think these laws are operating as intended and bringing legitimate benefits to their community. Daryl James and Erica Smith Ewing can lobby local people if they want to change their local zoning laws. Plenty of developers do that every day. Trying to enact change like this, trying to force their will with outside force, is inappropriate.
Ben at November 9, 2021 5:15 AM
Popular except where it would be, sounds like classic not in my back yard situation.
Zoning laws can go too far, but there are reasons for them. Communities have to provide services based on per person, but collect taxes based on home value, lots of cheap housing means lots of services needed with little to pay for it.
Does Cindy Trucker live next door? Perhaps if she did it would convince people more.
Joe J at November 9, 2021 5:15 AM
This is a valid concern. San Francisco ran into that problem a few years back when someone applied to build tiny apartments in one of the established neighborhoods. The sewage, water, parking, and roadways were built with the occupancy calculated on average apartment size of the time, not the tiny ones proposed. The volume of people filling these tiny apartments would have unduly burdened the existing infrastructure.
Houses are already getting smaller. The Bay Area is full of zero-lot-line housing developments in which houses and lot sizes have shrunk, spacing between houses has narrowed (too narrow for normal lawn mowers), driveways are shared, and lawns are virtually non-existent. Outdoor play, dog-walking, and other outdoor activities must occur in communal spaces, if at all.
I looked at one development being built near my old townhouse - full of three house pods, each with two-car garages and shared driveway space - and wondered what happens when one neighbor has a child with his or her own car. What happens when one neighbor decides to use the garage for storage, and leave the car in the driveway?
These tiny houses are built with one group's ideal in mind and not built for the way people actually live. It's like those urban square designs being proposed - a block with dense housing, a small retail area, a communal park in the middle, and a link to public transit. The underlying assumption is that the proles living there will not need anything but what the urban planners have provided for them. It's Habitrail living for humans.
Tiny houses should be allowed in areas that can accommodate the tighter population density. It's a valid alternative for housing that should be taken advantage of. Potentially, these could even provide an alternative to Raddy's unsightly trailer parks. However, establishing tiny house developments is a little more involved than the tiny house advocates are willing to admit. Like all evangelists, they have found The Solution and wonder why we poor, benighted souls cannot grasp that our salvation is at hand.
Conan the Grammarian at November 9, 2021 5:44 AM
I have mixed feelings about the tiny house movement.
On the one hand yes, it is more affordable and better for the environment.
On the other hand... all these articles extolling their virtues really DO feel like they're trying to push us back into being serfs in hovels... and be happy about it.
NicoleK at November 9, 2021 5:54 AM
Every house your build needs a certain amount of plumbing wiring, materials and labor. The price per square foot on a tiny house built with good materials can be astronomical because there is no economy of scale(unlike an apartment building) The prefab industry is different. They can build affordable housing that is only a bit smaller than average because mostly the construction can be done in a factory on the assembly line.
There is no real market among the poor for tiny homes, just as there is no real market for cars that carry at most two people and a couple of lunch boxes. They simply aren’t useful enough in general to be in big demand and the resale value is poor.
They are an affectation, not practical housing.
Isab at November 9, 2021 6:32 AM
"On the one hand yes, it is more affordable and better for the environment." ~NicoleK
On a cost per square foot they aren't. It actually makes more sense to move into an apartment than to buy a tiny house. This is the dollar store version of houses. More expensive per volume just to get the per unit cost down. If you are a responsible person this is a bad deal.
Another example they complain about in the article is a front lawn vegetable garden. I personally don't like grass and would replace all the ornamentals with edibles. But most wouldn't. If that is important to you find a community of like minded people and join them. Or persuade your neighbors of your superior position. Don't just force your views on the majority.
Ben at November 9, 2021 9:29 AM
PS - maybe a look at the Calhoun area in Realtor dot com is in order. That 1150sqft isn't so huge outside of Californiastan.
It remains that the condo block is the mot efficient way to provide services. This can be seen all over Europe, which is still marked by that B-17 renewal program of the 1940s, as housing had to be put up in a hurry and then maintained, often because there isn't anywhere else to build.
Radwaste at November 9, 2021 9:38 AM
It remains that the condo block is the mot efficient way to provide services. This can be seen all over Europe, which is still marked by that B-17 renewal program of the 1940s, as housing had to be put up in a hurry and then maintained, often because there isn't anywhere else to build.
Radwaste at November 9, 2021 9:38 AM
The average income and the high cost of over regulated building rules means that most Europeans can’t afford freestanding homes.
Lived in Germany in the 80’s. A good number of the bigger houses were actually three floor apartment buildings. Owners lived on one floor and rented out the other two.
Isab at November 9, 2021 10:03 AM
A big part of it is space, though. Around here there just isn't enough land available for development, and the population is growing. Villages are being asked to densify.
NicoleK at November 9, 2021 12:08 PM
For people with tenuous economic and employment situations, buying real estate is probably a big mistake. It limits their ability to uproot and follow gainful employment and anchors them to a geographic spot that may or may not be a good place to find work in any given year.
It also makes them subservient to the local government in a way a renter will never be. In a far amount of the nation, real estate markets are not so bubbly; the time it may take to sell a home can be counted in years rather than days.
Mobility is truly a valuable attribute. Particularly when you are younger, still working, and have a skillset that can easily transport.
ruralcounsel at November 9, 2021 12:38 PM
The article references undeveloped land in Georgia. There is no shortage of acreage there.
"The homes would be energy-efficient, affordable and attractive for people looking to unplug from rampant consumerism." ~thecentersquare
I.e. these are a nice product. Not even one aimed at young people or first time home buyers.
As for the rest of the oped, they are long on generic terms and short on details.
"Opponents talked about ..." who are these 'opponents'?
"Some critics mentioned ..." how many?
"Tiny House Hand Up has received enthusiastic support from the community at large" Really? Then why can't they replace the current councilmen and get they law changed? Perhaps that support isn't real.
Ben at November 9, 2021 12:56 PM
"I.e. these are a nice product." ~Ben
niche, damn fumble fingers.
Ben at November 9, 2021 1:44 PM
"and get they law changed?" ~Ben
The law not they law.
And perhaps other typos. At this rate I'll have to join the who dat nation.
Ben at November 9, 2021 1:46 PM
Leave a comment