Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why one should over the other either way. The subsidized person has the money (through subsidies) and the unsubsidized person can afford it so it is fine with either person. If the unsubsidized person is not as easy to have steady income vs. the subsidized person, it makes sense why the unsubsidized is taken. If the owner works with subsidized renters exclusively, it would make sense why they are taken over the unsubsidized as well. The only win for the unsubsiized is if the rentier does not work with subsidized renters at all or are maxed out.
It's a complicated issue because either way you force people onto the streets either way.
??? ??? Where did you get the idea that "the unsubsidized person can afford it" ??? ???
The vast majority of low-income renters live in unsubsidized housing...yet they have no more income than subsidized low-income renters. Since demand for housing subsidies far exceeds supply, the majority of those seeking subsidies don't receive them, or rot on waiting lists for years and years.
??? How does "anything cheap" turn ghetto? Does cheap housing turn people into 'hood rats? Does pricier housing turn ghetto people into better people? How does that work?
Have you ever spent time in a city? Pricier housing drives lower class people out of a neighborhood, allowing urban areas (which are more vital economic hubs to state-wide economies) to grow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
??? Whatever happened to consumer choice? If Coke is the majority choice, that isn't stopping shoppers from purchasing Pepsi. Is housing somehow different that the majority can take choice away from the minority?
Yes, the housing market is completely different than buying coke or pepsi. Why on earth would you think otherwise? Also, when have we ever had complete freedom of choice as a consumer? We have always lessened choice to protect the consumer. That is why you can choose to buy coke or pepsi, but you cannot choose to buy battery acid bottled as a drink. If you honestly want complete freedom of choice, you should be OK with battery acid being sold as a soda as a good alternative to coke and pepsi, right? Or have you not really thought your position through?
Why are you ignoring ever point everyone makes and blindly parroting your typical "I can't be successful unless I can buy a tiny home BS"?
If you spent as much time looking for a better paying job as you do complaining about zoning laws, you would be able to afford a $300,000 home today.
Another thing to consider is that so far in this thread it has been assumed we are talking large metro area, where land and everything else is always more expensive. This need not be the case. If one has a portable income and doesn't mind not having a Starbucks, McDs, and other such things that come with city life, things change real fast. Prices are profoundly reduced, there are no ghettos, and restrictions/regulations on building are much reduced.
A few years back, I bought two building lots (one has larger acreage nearby) in two different regions that I'm interested in eventually moving to (the plan is to build a 300 - 400 sq ft home on one of them and sell the other once I decide which to go to). Both are in very small towns (hamlets) in the nothern plains states. Neither lot cost me over $1000. I'm free to build my small home in either community. Crime rates are nearly non-existent. Both are in areas, that for me, are perfect--seclusion, peace, no noise, no hustle/bustle, no rush hour traffic (or much of any for that matter), no more than a general store, bank, and a cafe or two within driving distance, aging population in both. Nearest larger town is over an hour away. Nearest city is many hours away. Of course, that's the way I planned it when searching out property.
If you are interested in small houses, a tranquil life, not spending a lot of money, and not having a mountain of building restrictions, such a location might be an option for you. Of course, it takes a certain personality type to be happy in a place like that. You need to be okay with semi-isolation and be able to entertain yourself. But at the same time, you are a much freer person.
Another thing to consider is that so far in this thread it has been assumed we are talking large metro area, where land and everything else is always more expensive. This need not be the case. If one has a portable income and doesn't mind not having a Starbucks, McDs, and other such things that come with city life, things change real fast. Prices are profoundly reduced, there are no ghettos, and restrictions/regulations on building are much reduced.
A few years back, I bought two building lots (one has larger acreage nearby) in two different regions that I'm interested in eventually moving to (the plan is to build a 300 - 400 sq ft home on one of them and sell the other once I decide which to go to). Both are in very small towns (hamlets) in the nothern plains states. Neither lot cost me over $1000. I'm free to build my small home in either community. Crime rates are nearly non-existent. Both are in areas, that for me, are perfect--seclusion, peace, no noise, no hustle/bustle, no rush hour traffic (or much of any for that matter), no more than a general store, bank, and a cafe or two within driving distance, aging population in both. Nearest larger town is over an hour away. Nearest city is many hours away. Of course, that's the way I planned it when searching out property.
If you are interested in small houses, a tranquil life, not spending a lot of money, and not having a mountain of building restrictions, such a location might be an option for you. Of course, it takes a certain personality type to be happy in a place like that. You need to be okay with semi-isolation and be able to entertain yourself. But at the same time, you are a much freer person.
Never assume there are no zoning law in rural areas.
We have had people by land in our township.....only to find out they can not build.
If there was enough footage the site improvements will cost more than the tiny house.
I am not sure a tiny house would meet other codes.....I know the code is a percentage of living space to bedrooms.
I like the second and last one, though all of them I could see in Portland. A number of small units have been built in the backyard of older, bigger houses in Portland. I do like seeing those going in.
If I wanted to build a development like this on private land, with private funding, I would still get messed with. What if I own the property, but the zoning won't let me engage in consensual transactions of renting these tiny houses because of living space requirements and such?
This is why these homes are often built on wheels, to get around the ridiculous rules that apply if you set it on a foundation.
Dude, in what way "won't they me engage in consensual transactions of renting these tiny houses"? Trailers and trailer parks(or mobile home courts if you pefer the term) have been around for decades. There is zoning in place in specific areas that caters to "tiny houses". Why do you pretend that this concept is something new, and that "the man" makes it impossible? Others have done so with little difficulty.
Never assume there are no zoning law in rural areas.
We have had people by land in our township.....only to find out they can not build.
If there was enough footage the site improvements will cost more than the tiny house.
I am not sure a tiny house would meet other codes.....I know the code is a percentage of living space to bedrooms.
Yes, there are finicky small towns as well. I didn't want any surprises so checked all that out before buying. In one case, a good portion of the existing homes are around 800 sq ft or less. I'll fit right in.
Yes, the bare building code has a minimum "habitable" room size requirement and some other specifics. Tiny home designers usually get around this by including lofts (ladder accessed) rather than bedrooms and combining kitchen, dining, and living to a "grand room." Non habitable rooms/space (bathrooms, closets, etc) are not as restricted, so it's possible to have "wet baths" as many yachts have and very compact spaces otherwise. I don't go quite that small (we're talking 100 - 200 sq ft), but for some people, that's enough. Too small for me, though.
Another area I checked in detail is the UP of Michigan. For the most part, the counties are not prejudiced against small homes because there are so many small cabins built/being built in the area for seasonal living. That's another possible area for the small-space enabled person--specifically Keweenaw, Houghton, and Baraga, and Ontonagon counties. Be careful, though, and check the specific townships and cities because some have their own thing going on.
Last edited by ChrisC; 06-16-2014 at 08:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But at the same time, you are a much freer person.
