The UN Declaration of Human rights includes decent housing as\na human right, but our system prefers to look upon it as a business opportunity\n(just as they do with health, food, transportation, defense and everything else.)\nIt is more concerned about creating\nwealth for investors (money magazines refer to it appreciatively as a\nwealth-building tool) and increasing property\nvalues, than creating inexpensive homes for people to live in. As a\nresult the real estate industry, with its developers, realtors, building\ncontractors, mortgage brokers, banks, property lawyers, investors and landlords,\nis the dominant generator of wealth in this country and swallows up 80% of all\nbank loans. The government actually encourages property speculation (and higher\nprices) by allowing mortgage interest to be used as a tax deduction (and allowing\ntaxes on profits made from real estate to be deferred by buying more real\nestate.) In this way it spends more money on subsidizing wealthy homeowners, than\nit does on assisting the poor!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We are encouraged to think that rising house prices are a natural\nphenomena, resulting from an expanding\npopulation, immigration and other market forces, but they are largely\nthe result of market manipulation. The biggest\nfactor in determining the price is how much money is available to buy them; if\nthere is a lot of money in circulation (and low interest rates) prices go up,\nif there isn\u2019t they come down. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Modern house are as efficient and rational a way of housing\npeople, as an SUV is as a means of transport. They are too big, too expensive, too\nenergy inefficient and often too far from amenities and where we work. They are\nquite alike, in that both are consumer items, designed to meet the needs of\nmarketers, in a system that is based on selling people more than they actually\nneed. This is why houses they keep getting bigger, even as families get smaller\n(70 years ago the average house was 1200 sq ft for 4.2 people, now it is 2100\nsq ft for 3.8 people.) With profit as the reason for their existence (houses are\nthe most expensive thing most people will ever buy), the industry concentrates\non what is most profitable, so we see almost identical houses all across the\ncountry and there is almost no real innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
High housing costs aren\u2019t just one of the primary ways that\nwealth is transferred from the people to the wealthy, they are also a\ncritically important tool of social control. If you want somewhere secure to\nlive and raise your family (which most of us do), your options are to either\nbuy or rent somewhere, both of which demand that you regularly come up with a significant\namount of money every month. An awful lot of people are too busy trying to come\nup with their monthly payments to question this system, because if they don\u2019t\nconform, cooperate and work, they may soon be sleeping in their cars. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem with housing, is that it is an all or nothing\nsituation; you can either live in a house or apartment, or a car or cardboard\nbox, there is nothing in between. It\u2019s as if our only transport options are to\nbuy a Lexus, lease a Camry or walk. In other areas of the economy you pay for\nwhat you can afford, but with housing we are simply compelled to pay what the\nsystem demands, because the alternative is homelessness. In some places this\nmeans poor people paying over half their income, just to keep a roof over their\nheads, which makes life into a constant struggle and just a kinder gentler form\nof serfdom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Everyone deserves to have an affordable place of their own to\nlive in and if we are ever to liberate ourselves from the quasi-slavery of the\nmonthly payment system, we have to find a half way, intermediate step for\nhousing. Fortunately there is one, in the form of the tiny house, which is to\nconventional housing as a bicycle is to a car. It gives people a way to live\nmore cheaply and resource efficiently. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A tiny house is a very small (usually one room) building for\none (or two very friendly) people. It provides a secure and comfortable place\nto live without forcing you to sacrifice your whole life to working to pay the\nrent. We have become accustomed to houses with multiple rooms for different\nfunctions, but a single room house can function perfectly well. For most of human\nhistory the majority of people have lived in small houses or huts and only the\nlord in his manor house had multiple rooms. I once lived in a marina, where people\nare living on less convenient and comfortable small boats (and still paying\nexorbitant monthly dock fees) because they provided the only affordable option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tiny houses are the most logical and ecological way forward\nfor human habitation in many situations, as they provide a way for people to\nhouse themselves safely and comfortably with less cost and less environmental\nimpact. They can play a significant role in helping the young, poor, or anyone\nwho wants real independence, to reclaim their independence and forge a\nsustainable future. When Henry Thoreau set out to experiment with self reliance\nand independent living, he began by building a tiny house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course there are compromises to be made in living in a\ntiny house, as their small size requires some adjustment to your living habits.\nHowever their disadvantages are minor and any slight loss of comfort is more\nthan compensated by not having to perpetually shell out rent every month. They\nprovide a balance between comfort, freedom and selling your soul to the system\nand should be an option available to everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The main obstacle to inexpensive tiny houses being\neverywhere are building departments and their restrictive zoning and building\ncodes. They set arbitrarily high (expensive) standards of how people must live,\nwith minimum square footage rules that mandate a minimum size for dwellings. Building\ndepartments certainly have a legitimate concern with sanitation, fire safety\nand health, in urban areas, because they affect the larger community, but the\nsize of room you choose (and can afford) to live in is a personal choice and no\nbusiness of anyone else. It is touching that government wants to make sure you\nhave basic living standards, but when they force you out of your home because\nyou can\u2019t afford to comply with their rules, it\u2019s hard not to come to the\nconclusion that their real concern is the financial health and safety of the\nreal estate industry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is time for the government to stop actively keeping\npeople homeless, by prohibiting tiny houses. It needs to get out of the way and\nlet people house themselves (an idea that should appeal to self-reliant fiscal\nconservatives as much as to lefties.) We should be allowed to create our own\nsmall (tiny) houses for ourselves without interference from the state in the\nform of building codes (and fear that our clandestine houses are going to be\ndiscovered and red tagged.) Cities should be actively working to devise ways to\nmake them work safely and economically. Building departments should help people\nto work out how to build their own homes, with simple, pre-approved, off the\nshelf plans that anyone can use. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tiny houses can be simple and inexpensive to build (I built a\nsolar heated one in Oakland for $1800, which is little more than a months room rental\nthere) and well within the capabilities of anyone with a fully functioning brain\nand body (not to mention it is both satisfying and empowering.) People who\ncan\u2019t build for themselves, could be loaned the money to pay a carpenter and\npay it back in rent savings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It should be legal for any house to have at least one tiny\nhouse in its yard, no strings attached. There should also be tiny house\ncommunities, built on vacant lots. They could be modeled after a hybrid trailer\npark\/community garden, with communal toilets and bathing facilities (you could\nget a lot of tiny houses on an acre of land.) If each house had a small plot of\nland for growing food, the inhabitants could increase their independence and\nimprove their health at the same time. There could even be communities with a\nfocus of common interest, such as for artists, craftspeople, swingers, writers,\nsurfers, golfers or musicians. This would allow for interesting social scenes\nto develop without the need for transport, which would reduce carbon emissions\n(and time wasted driving.) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"