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.
However they became millionaires, whether through hard work, sacrificing, luck or inheritances, more power to them. It is their business how they use their money. However, I do have a big problem with the Hollywood/entertainment millionaires/billionaires (the Michael Moore's, Madonna's, George Clooney's/the list goes on) who live superficial, hypocritical lives yet preach to others about what they should be doing (limousine liberals). George Clooney is coming into a billion dollar deal with his tequila company. Perhaps he should take that money and use it to help the refugees who are camping out in his town of Lake Como, Italy, waiting to go north.
So you want it to be possible to have people buy tiny houses on tiny plots of land which will cost less than buying a giant sized house. Make more people home owners instead of renters. And you think that the government is in bed with the landlords and makes it more difficult to do that so they the landlords have a steady supply of renters.
Does that sum up your argument?
The plot of land the home sits on is what the particular county or city is concerned with. There is usually a minimum lot size so it does not get too overcrowded, parking and such. You can subdivide a lot if it does not go under the minimum size.
But zoning is a local issue, not something in washington. If a town wants to change lot sizes in many places they could do that I am sure. I don't recall the Democrats in Washington ever wanting to change local zoning laws to allow tiny houses to be built. But tell me if I am wrong.
You can buy a condo which is basically a tiny house attached to other tiny houses. No real land. I owned a studio condo once. There are also trailer parks where you purchase the land the trailer sits on and then just pay a small monthly fee to the association. There are options out there now and if there was demand for more of it things would change. I know there is a town in Florida that changed zoning for tiny homes. If you were to get together with like minded people and found a town willing to change zoning for your idea it could be done.
I do agree that more homeowners would be a good thing and narrow the income gap from rich and poor.
That's sorta but not really my argument. Government isn't in bed with landlords as much as it is in bed with homeowners, who are the prevailing voter majority in most municipalities. Zoning is primarily about the policy struggle between "homeowners" and "developers and landlords" collectively. Where a town is fully developed - there is no vacant land to be developed - developers usually are not a factor.
Homeowners have vested financial and lifestyle interests in limiting the number of proximate neighbors of economic means lower than their own; zoning is perfectly suited to this purpose. Landlords are not monolithic, and can be 'expansionist' or not. Most landlords have at most a few rental properties and are not seeking to expand their rental holdings - while some landlords seek to expand their rental portfolios.
How minimum lot size prevents "too much" overcrowding escapes me; I live in an overcrowded small house with (total) 11 people and two cars. The lot could easily fit 4 or 6 tiny houses; many people here do not have cars.
I've never seen a trailer park where you could buy the land - the only trailer park model I've seen requires you to rent the land - pay lot rent - so that trailer owners could NEVER own their land and are always subject to displacement when the landowner sells to a developer eager to build a new subdivision.
The same way that I do now as that is precisely what is being done. Like we live in the shadow of the evil criminal organization that we call government.
Rent serfs distribute their wealth to their landlords monthly. My landlord said he "needed" to raise the rent because the property taxes went up.
so the government raised his property tax, which pays for the libraries, police, fire, schools, garbage, etc
the government and its mandated inflation also raised the costs of repairs for the renters who constantly break things because its not theirs and they don't care
and what do you expect your landlord to do..eat the cost??? not pay his/hers taxes??? would it will be wonderful if he didn't pay his taxes, lost the house, and you get kicked out, because of a new owner?
Rent serfs distribute their wealth to their landlords monthly. My landlord said he "needed" to raise the rent because the property taxes went up.
Oh, horrors. A business person wanting to make a profit. Wait, I thought YOU paid the property taxes. Now I'm confused.
FYI: Tenants don't distribute their wealth. They pay for a service. It's how businesses work.
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.
