It is illegal to inhabit a tiny home in most populated areas of the U. S. The housing industry and the banks sustaining it spent much of the 1970s and 1980s pushing for larger houses to produce more profit per structure, and housing authorities all cross the country adopted this bias in the form of minimum-size standards. The stated purpose of these codes is to preserve the high quality of living enjoyed in our urban and suburban areas by defining how small a house can be. They govern the size of every habitable room and details therein. By aiming to eliminate all but the most extravagant housing, size standards have effectively eliminated housing for everyone but the most affluent Americans.
Again, the intention of these limits is to keep unsightly little houses from popping up and lowering property values in America’s communities and, moreover, to ensure that the housing industry is adequately sustained. The actual results of the limits are a greater number of unsightly large houses, inordinate construction waste, higher emissions, sprawl and deforestation, and, for those who cannot afford these larger houses, homelessness.
One of the leading causes of homelessness in this country is, in fact, our shortage of low-income housing. After mental illness and substance abuse, minimum-size standards have probably kept more people on the street than any other contributing factor. Countless attempts to design and build efficient
Another Sausalito Houseboat (above)
forms of shelter by and for the homeless have been thwarted by these codes. By demanding all or nothing from our homes, current restrictions ensure that the have-nots have nothing at all. The U. N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights (of which the United States is a signatory) holds shelter to be a fundamental human right. Yet, in the U. S.. this right is guaranteed only to those with enough money to afford the opulence.
The stated premise of these well-intentioned codes is as profoundly flawed as their results. Little houses have not been shown to lower the values of neighboring large residences. In fact, the opposite holds true. When standardsized housing of standard materials and design goes up next to smaller, less expensive dwellings, for which some of the budget saved on square footage has been invested in quality materials and design, the value of the smaller places invariably plummets while that of the derelict mansions is raised.
Protecting "the health, safety and welfare not only of those persons utilizing a house but the general public as well” is the stated purpose of minimum-size standards. But, by prohibiting the construction of small homes, these codes clearly circumvent their own alleged goal. It would seem far more effective to outlaw the kind of toxic real estate that such codes currently mandate. An even more reasonable and less draconian system would allow individuals to determine the size of their own homes — large or small.
Some of us prefer to devote our time to our children, artistic endeavors, spiritual pursuits or relaxing. Others would rather spend their time generating disposable income. Some enjoy living simply, while others like taking risks. Every American should be free to choose a simple or an extravagant lifestyle and a house, to accommodate it.
