Not fiberglass, but why not wooden trailers?

[John in Santa Cruz]

Another issue is parking... you put 4 'tiny homes' on a lot, now you need parking for 6-8 cars... Same as if you put a quad-plex on a lot zoned for single family occupancy.

Anyways, most of the 'tiny homes' I've seen are barely habitable. the foot print is so small there's a casita sized bathroom and kitchen, minimal or no insulation, ladders up to sleeping lofts that are barely large enough to sit up in.

[k0wtz]

the concept I keep hearing around here is a place to harbor the homeless people I can just see the mess outside and with the mistreatment of the houses how long they will hold up!

lots and lots of ramifications with these things!

bob

[Jon in AZ]

The whole point of the tiny house movement is to challenge conventional notions of "habitable." From 1945-2015, the average new single family home grew from about 1200 sf to 2500 sf. I doubt you'll find there was a corresponding increase in "happiness." I taught an exchange student from Hong Kong whose family of four lived in a 300 sf apartment. How much is really necessary to be sheltered and content?

The "less is more" approach is what brought many of us to small molded trailers rather than large conventional RV's.

Insulation is the biggest reason in my mind to choose a tiny house over an RV for full-time micro-living in one place. They can be insulated to cold climate standards, though perhaps not all are.

I know my wife and I would not be happy in that small a space, but we have an 850 sf cottage on a small lot that will be "just right" for our retirement. For others a tiny house might be preferable to a small apartment if they had a pet or wanted some outdoor space for a garden.

I agree that tiny houses should not be placed willy-nilly, and most zoning ordinances prevent that. Land needs to be zoned for a trailer park or perhaps an RV park, depending on how you want to classify these category-bending units. The zoning change process allows surrounding property owners to have their say.

I have become more curious about the tiny house development near me. When I have some extra time, I may drive through and see if there is someone I can talk to. I'll certainly post if I do.

[Raz]

And then there's......



http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/201...housing-crisis

[Donna D.]

Portland, Oregon has a very restrictive Urban Growth Boundry. Essentially, we're trying to protect farmland. Portland has an expected growth of a million new residents by 2030. In order to accomodate more people, Portland's building code, in 2007, has allowed ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units). Sometimes called 'Granny Flats' or 'Mother-in-Law She Sheds.' They can't exceed 800 square feet. And yes, there are other requirements and not all residential areas allow these tiny homes.

In east county, there is a planned development of 'cottages,' that fit this description that was built in 2009. Cottages of 572 sq. ft to 1,200 sq. ft. When one of the cottages goes up for sale, it's sold in just a few hours. Sound familiar?

I'm all for the tiny house movement and planning is essential. It's the ones built on frames, moving down the highways that I worry about. They're not travel trailers and often built without any building codes. Scary, sharing the roads with the rest of us. But planned communities such as Salish Ponds in Fairview, Oregon.... heck yes.

[Raspy]

It seems that so many people who are opposed to tiny houses use the excuse that their property values will go down. This is such a common refrain. Every time someone wants to do anything different there is the threat of lower property values as though that in itself was some kind of moral high ground or had any relevance or was even remotely true. And it attempts to take away the right of other people to do what they want on their own property.
I get nervous when people judge the quality of their own lives by the price of their home, and are willing to restrict others from having quality lives based on supposed property values. It becomes a mantra played over and over to stop any change.

These days homes are viewed as trophies or status symbols in too many cases. I'm working on one now that is about 12,000 sq ft with a huge basement. It has a separate building that is his personal office and guest bedroom. All of this for two people.

The point is that too often, homes are viewed as status symbols, or investments and not as places we want to live, be inspired, raise families, etc. Just statements to the neighbors. And in that setting, tiny homes don't fit.

I had a home in Hawaii for a few years and could not believe my good fortune and being so lucky as to have a home in that incredible place! I was constantly pinching myself to make sure it was real. But alas, the neighborhood was like so many others. People weren't so much thrilled to be there as interested in their perception of property values based on other neighbors actions. The value was too often the property value, not the quality of life. Then a terrible thing started happening. Some dogs were getting poisoned. The community leaders in the area were quick to denounce the problem and declare it had to stop! But not for the obvious reason that loved companions were dying, no, it had to stop because, as they put it, it could affect property values.

When I built our new home in Nevada I made sure we had plenty of property, but for seven years we lived in a house of 450 sq ft while building the "big" house. The only problem was when we had too many guests. It was easy to heat, easy to clean, cheap to maintain, completely comfortable and freed us up to do a lot of other things. It added to the quality of life by being fun and not tying us down.

[Borrego Dave]

Have to agree with a lot of your post Raspy, I've seen much of the same. Although a 12,000' garage or barn for one person is totally understandable to me .

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Rumline

That sounds silly. I would be upset too. But I find it incredible that most counties here in Colorado do not allow tiny homes on any sized lot even in rural or unincorporated areas.

Since people in this country are generally free to do whatever they want unless there is already a law against it, I assume that means those locale's have already experienced the tiny home craze, or have a NIMBY mindset, and have written laws to disallow them. If so, it sounds like "most counties" in Colorado have already faced this issue and dealt with it.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Raspy

It seems that so many people who are opposed to tiny houses use the excuse that their property values will go down. ...

This might be a gross over simplification, but the only people who benefit from high property values are the tax collector, every year when those property taxes come due, and the home owner and real estate agent when said property is sold. If you plan to own your property until the day you die, then a lower property value keeps your property taxes lower and keeps more of your hard-earned money in your bank account until then. After you're gone, the value of your property is someone else's blessing or problem.

[Jim Bennett]

I look at a house as an investment, whether it is one of my revenue properties, or the one I live in. The more value I can get from it, the closer I am to retiring, the more I can do in retirement, and the more I can help my kids and grandkids. Plus, I like the challenge of building up something bigger and better, and to get a cash reward for doing so ain't so bad.

That said I just sold my house of 23+ years last summer, the one we raised our kids in through their school years. I had built it up to be a 5 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath home for just the two of us, much to big for two empty nesters. We saw a very nice increase in capital over those years. I am now in a house (right next door to the one before) I will renovate big time for resale to add to the retirement fund, as like many, I have no pension plan being self employed. We plan to move into a much smaller house for retirement after that, not a tiny home, but one better suited to our needs. Oh, but the garage needs to be HUGE.

I am behind this tiny house movement all the way. I think it is a great idea. Affordablity for the young or anyone who cannot afford more, saving of resources and space to live, which all gives them the pride of ownership, is a great thing.

As mentioned before, I do like the idea of a community with like minded people doing the same thing. I don't think they should be a stand alone home in a community of larger homes, as it could affect property values which many spent a lot of time, money and effort to build up. I could see them as an accessory building on one of these properties though, for revenue, a mother in law, or an older kid.

This tiny house movement is only growing, we have to figure out how best to incorporate it into our towns, cities and communities, rather than waste the effort in fighting it.

[Alex Adams]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

This might be a gross over simplification, but the only people who benefit from high property values are the tax collector, every year when those property taxes come due, and the home owner and real estate agent when said property is sold. If you plan to own your property until the day you die, then a lower property value keeps your property taxes lower and keeps more of your hard-earned money in your bank account until then. After you're gone, the value of your property is someone else's blessing or problem.

That doesn't work where I live. The city already knows the budget for the next year and have a pretty good idea of how much money is needed. They adjust the tax rate to get what they will need for the budget or they have a reassessment and adjust the property values periodically. Either way, they get what they need.

[Alex Adams]

Jim, not to rain on your parade, did you take what you bought the house for, the money you put in for improvements, adjusted them for inflation to the year you sold and compared that to what you got for the house? That would give you an idea of how much your investment paid off. for example, a house bought for $50,000 in 1969 would need to sell for a little over $337,500 to break even with inflation. I have had friends who thought they made a bunch of money on their homes until they did the calculation and realized they had only preserved their capital. By the way, that same $50,000 getting 4% return (low historically) compounded monthly would have yielded almost $354,000 in the same time period.

[k0wtz]

don't think because you buy a house and live in it for a long time you escape taxes. You don't!

the state of mo. demanded all counties do a new evaluation on realestate ours went up 600% due to our school being greedy. as they go up most do a roll back because they are not supposed to enrich themselves on these things.

when this is done and I have seen it several times in the 42 years we have lived here they always come out ahead!

bob

[gordon2]

Kramer had this tiny-house concept figured out a few years ago...

(The video clip if interested: Seinfeld - Kramer tucking Japanese guests in drawers to sleep - Dailymotion Video )

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by Alex Adams

Jim, not to rain on your parade, did you take what you bought the house for, the money you put in for improvements, adjusted them for inflation to the year you sold and compared that to what you got for the house? That would give you an idea of how much your investment paid off. for example, a house bought for $50,000 in 1969 would need to sell for a little over $337,500 to break even with inflation. I have had friends who thought they made a bunch of money on their homes until they did the calculation and realized they had only preserved their capital. By the way, that same $50,000 getting 4% return (low historically) compounded monthly would have yielded almost $354,000 in the same time period.

I definitely took all factors into account in my calculating. I paid $185k in 1994, which would be $283k if adjusted for inflation. I did put a lot into it too and built it up over that time, but received a substantial gain when I sold it. Calgary has seen a big boom in real estate values over the last 25 years.

Even factoring in taxes I am well ahead.

Granted, at 4% rate of return, that principal would have been worth $456k now, but that is still substantially lower than my return, and a HUGE factor not mentioned, is I still needed a place to live, and that costs a lot. To rent the house I sold last year would be at least $3,000/month.

I'm sticking with real estate can be a great investment.

[Alex Adams]

I'm glad it worked out for you. I've had people I know go into it and not do their research. Like any investment, you have to know what you're getting it for and what you're goals are.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Alex Adams

Jim, not to rain on your parade, did you take what you bought the house for, the money you put in for improvements, adjusted them for inflation to the year you sold and compared that to what you got for the house? That would give you an idea of how much your investment paid off. for example, a house bought for $50,000 in 1969 would need to sell for a little over $337,500 to break even with inflation. I have had friends who thought they made a bunch of money on their homes until they did the calculation and realized they had only preserved their capital. By the way, that same $50,000 getting 4% return (low historically) compounded monthly would have yielded almost $354,000 in the same time period.

As Jim mentioned, your example is essentially assuming that the house is a static investment like a stock or bond and not being used during this time period - neither as a primary residence for the owner (saving them mortgage or rent payments living somewhere else) or generating income as a rental property to offset those taxes (then have to pay income taxes on that!).

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Alex Adams

That doesn't work where I live. The city already knows the budget for the next year and have a pretty good idea of how much money is needed. They adjust the tax rate to get what they will need for the budget or they have a reassessment and adjust the property values periodically. Either way, they get what they need.

I witnessed this same taxation scheme desolate a small town near us in a relatively short period of town. The Mayor and Town Council decided they needed $X every year to run the town. One business closed, they just upped the taxes for all the remaining businesses. That drove a few more business to relocate outside the city limits. So the M/TC once again increased taxes for everyone remaining. And so on and so on. Over time, the businesses all left, and the town couldn't afford to retain any local law enforcement, so they had to contract with the county sheriff's office with little money to pay that contract, and they struggle month to month just to pay the power bill for their street lights. With no jobs left in the town, it became a bedroom community. But there is still one small business, the Mayor's little convenience store. I guess he's the one paying enough taxes to keep the street lights on at night, sometimes....

[Raspy]

War,

Our town spans the county line. On one side of that invisible line the business license is $200. per year and on the other side it's $50. for five years.

Your example demonstrates once again that people will not stand up and vote out Town Councils, County Commissioners or Mayors. They would rather complain or be forced out than take ownership of their community.

I ran for commissioner on the basic premise that the commissioners work for the residents and are only there to do the work of the community and only for as long as the residents choose to have them do it. Nobody should ever be intimidated by the status of a politician. That notion keeps the responsibility for our future precisely where it actually lies, in the hands of the residents.

[John in Santa Cruz]

apparently my house has tripled in value over the past 20 years. we've really not done much to it other than a new roof a couple years ago and basic maintenance.