Saturday, February 24, 2007
A Solution for Housing Shortages
In 1996, I travelled to New Mexico with a group of hippies, and spent the winter there. Near where I stayed, there was an area of sagebrush and pine trees that had been divided into quarter and half-acre lots in some land scheme back in the 1930's. Apparently, people were sold these lots with their great view of the mountains, and later found out they were in the middle of nowhere. Other lots were said to have been given away as prizes at a world's fair. In one area we looked at, the map showed hundreds of lots, with streets and other rights of way carefully drawn up. In reality, it was a square mile of open land, with not one house, street, or other improvement evident. Apparently, most of these areas were like this until recently. Closer to Taos, however, there are several of these square miles that are now home to hundreds of people who might not otherwise have their own homes. Because no one wanted them, the lots often went up for sale at the county tax auctions. I went to one of these, and saw many lots sell for anywhere from $50.00 to $400.00. Some were bought by investors, but most were bought by people looking for a place to build their own home. Others were bought by residents who wanted to buy lots next to where they lived, to make their property larger. On the lots, there were now many houses. It didn't look like a suburban subdivision, but then, these people could never afford to build in a subdivision, even if they wanted to. Some houses started as old buses or vans, with more rooms added as the owners could afford them. Some were made from stacks of recycled tires. One man was building a castle, with a tower composed of wine bottles cemented together. Another had build an underground house that was constantly falling in and needing repair.
I'm sure that in most of the U.S., a building inspector or town zoning or planning official would have been horrified, and probably would have ordered all of these homes to be demolished. Neighbors would be horrified, and fear that these shacks would lower their own property values. Preservationists might object to the quarter-acre lots, which would allow houses to be built so close that it would disturb the natural look of the area. But for the people living there, I think it was a wonderful thing. They were able to have their own homes, which might not have been possible in other areas. One house I lived in while I was there was said to have cost $600 to build, and I'm sure others could have been built for less. Instead of needing a hundred thousand dollars and a full set of plans to begin construction, they could buy a lot, park their van there, and build on to it when they wanted to and could afford to. Rather than living on the streets, in homeless shelters, or even subsidised, low-rent housing, they could have something to call their own.
I think that sometimes, our desire to see everyone living in a nice house makes it more difficult for those who aren't rich enough or stable enough to have one. I am reminded of Habitat for Humanity's slogan, "No more shacks." That's great, if it means that everyone who now lives in a shack can have a nicer home. It's a tragedy if it means everyone who might have lived in a shack must be homeless, because shacks are no longer allowed. We often see problems of housing shortages in America. Many are homeless in our cities. When a hurricane strikes, many who had houses lose them. Many others live from paycheck to paycheck, and will probably pay rent their whole lives, never owning their own homes. This seems surprising to me in one of the richest countries on earth, where there is still plenty of open lasnd compered to most of the world.
While it is fine for people to choose to rent, because they might not stay long enough in an area to make it practical to buy or build a home, or because they prefer to live in a fancier home than they could build right now, I think we should try to remove many of the obstacles that make home ownership so expensive in much of our country. Minimum lot sizes are a popular way to keep an area looking slightly open, but they consume much more land per house, and make a building lot much harder for a poor person to afford. Building codes are supposed to ensure that we all have nice houses, but they are often manipulated to force people to have more expensive homes than they want. For example, I've heard of codes that would require Amish farmers who don't use electricity to still have a certain number of electrical outlets per room. Other codes try to encourage the use of certain building materials, to raise prices for important local industries. One of the older examples of this was the English law, encouraged by the brickmakers, that forbade the building of homes from unfired clay. Before that, anyone could build a wattle-and-daub house that might not be fancy, but would provide shelter. After that, you had to purchase your building materials from the brickmakers. A more modern example, which might be very helpful in disaster relief in areas like those hit by hurricane Katrina, is houses built of corrugated plastic. They may not be fancy, but in other parts of the world, they can be brought in quickly to provide inexpensive emergency shelter. Not here; they don't meet building codes.
In most areas of the world, there are traditional building methods that allow people to build their own houses. In the arctic, there are igloos; in the American southwest, there is adobe; In India, there are huts plastered with cow dung; here in eastern America, there are log cabins. Other areas build with stones, bamboo, thatch, felt, etc. I would propose that these building methods should not be prohibited, because they allow people to provide their own shelter, and have control of their lives, for a far lower price than many more "modern" techniques. While some people might feel strange living near neighbors who built such buildings, or fear that it would lower their property values, I would ask, so you really think you should have the right to prevent your neighbors from building their own homes, when it may force them into homelessness or into paying excessive rent?
I think that much of our housing shortages would be relieved if there were places throughout the country liek the one I saw in New Mexico, where lots were small enough that anyone could afford one, and where people were free to build what they needed and could afford, rather than what building codes and zoning officials thought should be built.
I'm sure that in most of the U.S., a building inspector or town zoning or planning official would have been horrified, and probably would have ordered all of these homes to be demolished. Neighbors would be horrified, and fear that these shacks would lower their own property values. Preservationists might object to the quarter-acre lots, which would allow houses to be built so close that it would disturb the natural look of the area. But for the people living there, I think it was a wonderful thing. They were able to have their own homes, which might not have been possible in other areas. One house I lived in while I was there was said to have cost $600 to build, and I'm sure others could have been built for less. Instead of needing a hundred thousand dollars and a full set of plans to begin construction, they could buy a lot, park their van there, and build on to it when they wanted to and could afford to. Rather than living on the streets, in homeless shelters, or even subsidised, low-rent housing, they could have something to call their own.
I think that sometimes, our desire to see everyone living in a nice house makes it more difficult for those who aren't rich enough or stable enough to have one. I am reminded of Habitat for Humanity's slogan, "No more shacks." That's great, if it means that everyone who now lives in a shack can have a nicer home. It's a tragedy if it means everyone who might have lived in a shack must be homeless, because shacks are no longer allowed. We often see problems of housing shortages in America. Many are homeless in our cities. When a hurricane strikes, many who had houses lose them. Many others live from paycheck to paycheck, and will probably pay rent their whole lives, never owning their own homes. This seems surprising to me in one of the richest countries on earth, where there is still plenty of open lasnd compered to most of the world.
While it is fine for people to choose to rent, because they might not stay long enough in an area to make it practical to buy or build a home, or because they prefer to live in a fancier home than they could build right now, I think we should try to remove many of the obstacles that make home ownership so expensive in much of our country. Minimum lot sizes are a popular way to keep an area looking slightly open, but they consume much more land per house, and make a building lot much harder for a poor person to afford. Building codes are supposed to ensure that we all have nice houses, but they are often manipulated to force people to have more expensive homes than they want. For example, I've heard of codes that would require Amish farmers who don't use electricity to still have a certain number of electrical outlets per room. Other codes try to encourage the use of certain building materials, to raise prices for important local industries. One of the older examples of this was the English law, encouraged by the brickmakers, that forbade the building of homes from unfired clay. Before that, anyone could build a wattle-and-daub house that might not be fancy, but would provide shelter. After that, you had to purchase your building materials from the brickmakers. A more modern example, which might be very helpful in disaster relief in areas like those hit by hurricane Katrina, is houses built of corrugated plastic. They may not be fancy, but in other parts of the world, they can be brought in quickly to provide inexpensive emergency shelter. Not here; they don't meet building codes.
In most areas of the world, there are traditional building methods that allow people to build their own houses. In the arctic, there are igloos; in the American southwest, there is adobe; In India, there are huts plastered with cow dung; here in eastern America, there are log cabins. Other areas build with stones, bamboo, thatch, felt, etc. I would propose that these building methods should not be prohibited, because they allow people to provide their own shelter, and have control of their lives, for a far lower price than many more "modern" techniques. While some people might feel strange living near neighbors who built such buildings, or fear that it would lower their property values, I would ask, so you really think you should have the right to prevent your neighbors from building their own homes, when it may force them into homelessness or into paying excessive rent?
I think that much of our housing shortages would be relieved if there were places throughout the country liek the one I saw in New Mexico, where lots were small enough that anyone could afford one, and where people were free to build what they needed and could afford, rather than what building codes and zoning officials thought should be built.
Labels: housing
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]