Tiny houses, home prices and zoning

[intellectsucks]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a28773/tiny-houses-property-value/

Quick overview: homeowners in some areas are concerned that building new “tiny houses” (they give an example of 500 sq ft homes) will drive down home prices in the area.  They compare them to mobile homes from a planning standpoint and say that they should only be allowed in specifically zoned areas.
Interested to hear the communities thoughts on this.

[ixtap]

So, the average house in 1950 is now a tiny home?

Sustainable living is bad for our future?

[intellectsucks]

Yeah the 1200 sq ft number does seem pretty high to be considered a “tiny house”.  I thought I was using the definition from the article but after re-reading it seems I might have misread it.  I edited to remove that number.
Neither the article, nor I are making any judgement call on “sustainable living” through tiny houses, just opening up a discussion around some potentially unforeseen consequences of the smaller house movement.

[frenchsquared]

I feel those in 5,000 square foot homes can simply get over it. There is nothing wrong with a tiny home or a manufactured home.
I think the tiny home concept it kinda nuts. Its nothing new. We have had trailers that small for years. Many people have lived in fifth wheels and travel trailers. The only difference is the quality. Someone took a travel trailer and put the best materials in it and made a lot of money by removing the idea of living in a trailer. Its still the same.

I live in a $36,000 1800 sq ft, home. I have 8 acres, a pond and my closest neighbor is over 1 mile away.  When I drive through Colorado Spring, Denver, Dallas or some other big growing city I look around in disbelief. How and Why?

Why spend $500,000 on a house that is literally 8 feet from the neighbor?
How does this make someone happy?

I would hate it...  Well if you live in one of those homes good for you. As long as your happy the Im fine with it.
Show others the same respect and leave them alone. If they want a small house let them be. They are not hurting you. They are not effecting you.
They might effect the over inflated value of your home... but thats pretty much your fault for buying something like that. You don't have to and its no ones fault that people are finding more affordable ways to live.

They tiny homes do need to meet the requirements for plumping and electricity in there area. Calling them a trailer, but leaving them in the same spots for years ins't fair. It is causing sewer issues in some areas.

[VoteCthulu]

It's too bad that zoning laws are being abused by the rich to keep the housing markets distorted for their own financial gains. I would love to move into a tiny home, and I hate being forced into townhouse associations and trailer park fees that are the only options today.

[ixtap]

Zoning in general is a joke. The laws are antiquated. Houston I believe is the only city in America without zoning laws and it looks literally like any other city. I firmly believe that being able to do what you want with your property should be as basic of a right as freedom of speech (within reason and to code of course).

Tiny homes are not going to drive prices down for larger ones. Just because something exists doesn't mean everyone would want it. In fact it would probably drive overall housing up since it gives people more options. There’s a lot of demand for smaller and affordable housing in cities, so it’s ridiculous to assume that these houses wouldn’t be fairly expensive as it is since most people see a savings of $XX,XXX and are happy with whatever it is. And if someone buys and pays off their tiny or small home, they're more likely to upgrade and can do so with the equity they've built which creates a larger demand for larger houses. Bottom line is some cities need to embrace the idea and do some actual tests instead of holding on to their holy zoning laws.

In my experience, people will often vote to exclude those who have less income than themselves from their neighborhoods. We have a local community with an acre or two set aside for "affordable housing." There was recently a well funded proposal to build tiny homes for homeless veterans that got turned down because they didn't want those kind of people in their neighborhood.

[alexpkeaton]

Why spend $500,000 on a house that is literally 8 feet from the neighbor?
How does this make someone happy?

8 feet? Try 0 feet! :) (And $685k for ~375 square feet.)

[mm1970]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a28773/tiny-houses-property-value/

Quick overview: homeowners in some areas are concerned that building new “tiny houses” (they give an example of 500 sq ft homes) will drive down home prices in the area.  They compare them to mobile homes from a planning standpoint and say that they should only be allowed in specifically zoned areas.
Interested to hear the communities thoughts on this.

Ha just move to California where the government passed an ADU law, meaning anybody can add an accessory dwelling on their lot for "more housing".

No need to have parking requirements.  Whee!!

[Institutionalized]

Ha, I knew this was going to be about the Keyo community in Charlotte without even clicking.  This guy's building in completely the wrong place, unfortunately.  He's surrounded by retired busybodies with nothing but time on their hands, and they use that time to pester our city council endlessly.  I have to imagine the city council will ultimately let him build, though.  They're 500 sq ft with a permanent foundation.  They can only go after him if the foundation isn't permanent.

I think they're way overpriced for the area, but I know he's had a lot of interest.  He's asking almost $200/sq ft, which is what people get close to downtown, not off I-485 in NW Charlotte.

[undercover]

I have to imagine the city council will ultimately let him build, though.  They're 500 sq ft with a permanent foundation.  They can only go after him if the foundation isn't permanent.

Yeah, I really don't see them having trouble with building, especially that far away from the city. These aren't even "true" tiny homes. They're just small houses with high end finishes. They're not going to attract riff-raff or severely impact home values. The neighbors just sound like old farts with nothing better to do than complain to the city about non-issues.

[intellectsucks]

To those who are arguing that the residents shouldn’t be fighting the planned development, are you arguing that the residents should have no say in the types of development that happen in their community or are you saying that they’re unreasonable because of the type of development they’re opposing?  Would you still be saying the residents should let it go if they were building a Section 8 housing development?  Or a methadone clinic?  Or a waste disposal plant?
I’m not asking the above to accuse; I’m genuinely interested to see where you draw the line and why.  I’m also genuinely interested to see what responsibilities, if any, developers and governments should have towards the community when they are building things that are likely to have a negative impact on property values in the area.
Just to make clear, I think that any effect on property values in the area that result from the development discussed in the article are likely to be negligible, but I’m certainly sympathetic to concerns about how nearby developments will affect your home’s value.  I think any discussion of effective zoning and planning need to include those concerns.

[FenderBender]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a28773/tiny-houses-property-value/

Quick overview: homeowners in some areas are concerned that building new “tiny houses” (they give an example of 500 sq ft homes) will drive down home prices in the area.  They compare them to mobile homes from a planning standpoint and say that they should only be allowed in specifically zoned areas.
Interested to hear the communities thoughts on this.

Ha just move to California where the government passed an ADU law, meaning anybody can add an accessory dwelling on their lot for "more housing".

No need to have parking requirements.  Whee!!

The state law is the rule until local gov'ts (county/city) establish their own rules/laws/standards.  CA is heavy on local regulations.  When I was there, before I built a house, I had to present plans in front of a local board, they met once a month.  While at the board meeting, I saw owners of a gas station return each month for 5 months just to get approval to "reduce" signage.  The board had control over the height and color of your house and much more.  It is heavily regulated - they protect rich knit picky types.  They don't want perceived poor people renting out the shed or moving a shed/house into someone's backyard.  If you know CA, you know that where people most want to put tiny homes, they ultimately won't be able.  Local gov'ts might allow them, but if they do, they'll discourage it by setting a strict standard to electric, plumbing, sewer, easement, height, size, color, you name it, it there will be a rule. 

It is nice thinking about adding tiny homes to backyards, but when neighborhoods are planned, the sewer is planned for the number of homes in the original plan, the storm sewers too and if when adding tiny homes, concrete is added to the space, that means more runoff into sewers which means during heavy rains, neighborhoods flood, because the neighborhood now exceeds original specs. 

A neighborhood in England 30 years ago was built with just 1 concrete pad for a car, the front yards were small, but as more and more people bought cars, people concreted over their yard for the additional cars, as a result, storm drains couldn't handle the runoff, major flooding thereafter. 

Parking can be made an issue by the locals.

[mm1970]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a28773/tiny-houses-property-value/

Quick overview: homeowners in some areas are concerned that building new “tiny houses” (they give an example of 500 sq ft homes) will drive down home prices in the area.  They compare them to mobile homes from a planning standpoint and say that they should only be allowed in specifically zoned areas.
Interested to hear the communities thoughts on this.

Ha just move to California where the government passed an ADU law, meaning anybody can add an accessory dwelling on their lot for "more housing".

No need to have parking requirements.  Whee!!

The state law is the rule until local gov'ts (county/city) establish their own rules/laws/standards.  CA is heavy on local regulations.  When I was there, before I built a house, I had to present plans in front of a local board, they met once a month.  While at the board meeting, I saw owners of a gas station return each month for 5 months just to get approval to "reduce" signage.  The board had control over the height and color of your house and much more.  It is heavily regulated - they protect rich knit picky types.  They don't want perceived poor people renting out the shed or moving a shed/house into someone's backyard.  If you know CA, you know that where people most want to put tiny homes, they ultimately won't be able.  Local gov'ts might allow them, but if they do, they'll discourage it by setting a strict standard to electric, plumbing, sewer, easement, height, size, color, you name it, it there will be a rule. 

It is nice thinking about adding tiny homes to backyards, but when neighborhoods are planned, the sewer is planned for the number of homes in the original plan, the storm sewers too and if when adding tiny homes, concrete is added to the space, that means more runoff into sewers which means during heavy rains, neighborhoods flood, because the neighborhood now exceeds original specs. 

A neighborhood in England 30 years ago was built with just 1 concrete pad for a car, the front yards were small, but as more and more people bought cars, people concreted over their yard for the additional cars, as a result, storm drains couldn't handle the runoff, major flooding thereafter. 

Parking can be made an issue by the locals.

The CA state law has limited the changes that local governments can make.  Especially related to parking, if the house is within 1/2 mile of public transit.

They can make laws related to size of the unit.  These are "accessory" units, so generally sewer, etc do not apply.  Fun times.

I assume that PUDs are exempt because they are already "multi-family housing" with their own set of rules.

[jpdx]

Here in Portland, ADUs are encouraged by the local government, and absolutely do not bring down home values. Permit fees are waived and there are rules to ensure that an ADU fits within the esthetic of the main home -- for example, the style of siding must match. The ones I have seen are cute, and sometimes difficult to distinguish from a detached garage unless you know what to look for (separate electrical meters). These are not ugly trailers.

ADUs fit-in well in dense, vibrant neighborhoods and provide an affordable housing option for people who want to live a minimalist lifestyle.

[MilesTeg]

To those who are arguing that the residents shouldn’t be fighting the planned development, are you arguing that the residents should have no say in the types of development that happen in their community or are you saying that they’re unreasonable because of the type of development they’re opposing?  Would you still be saying the residents should let it go if they were building a Section 8 housing development?  Or a methadone clinic?  Or a waste disposal plant?
I’m not asking the above to accuse; I’m genuinely interested to see where you draw the line and why.  I’m also genuinely interested to see what responsibilities, if any, developers and governments should have towards the community when they are building things that are likely to have a negative impact on property values in the area.
Just to make clear, I think that any effect on property values in the area that result from the development discussed in the article are likely to be negligible, but I’m certainly sympathetic to concerns about how nearby developments will affect your home’s value.  I think any discussion of effective zoning and planning need to include those concerns.

If you would like a say about what I do on my property, we can discuss how you will contribute (financially) to the purchase and upkeep of that property. I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable accommodation. Don't want me to build a smaller house than average? Fine, you can pay the difference in construction and upkeep price. =)

[VoteCthulu]

To those who are arguing that the residents shouldn’t be fighting the planned development, are you arguing that the residents should have no say in the types of development that happen in their community or are you saying that they’re unreasonable because of the type of development they’re opposing?  Would you still be saying the residents should let it go if they were building a Section 8 housing development?  Or a methadone clinic?  Or a waste disposal plant?

The residents should have their say by electing city and state officials who pass laws that apply equally to everyone and serve a legitimate  public interest (safety, watershed, non-polluting, etc.). They should not be applied capriciously to deny a section 8 apartment while allowing an oyherwise identical luxury apartment, or to ban small houses just because some people don't like how they look.

This should apply to any regular property, although I think private communities with up-front covenants, associations, etc. are ok for those that want them. It just shouldn't be the unspoken default that you can't know before buying the property like it is now.

[mm1970]

Here in Portland, ADUs are encouraged by the local government, and absolutely do not bring down home values. Permit fees are waived and there are rules to ensure that an ADU fits within the esthetic of the main home -- for example, the style of siding must match. The ones I have seen are cute, and sometimes difficult to distinguish from a detached garage unless you know what to look for (separate electrical meters). These are not ugly trailers.

ADUs fit-in well in dense, vibrant neighborhoods and provide an affordable housing option for people who want to live a minimalist lifestyle.

Yeah, and I'm sure it's going to be AWESOME when the small-lot, small-home neighborhoods (with houses built in the 1920s-1940s) all go from 10% ADUs to 100% ADUs, essentially doubling the population, # of cars, and traffic.

ADUs have there place - but within reasonable limits.  Many of our older neighborhoods ALREADY have no parking.  You add an ADU, you are adding 1-2 cars, without requiring off-street parking.  Yay.  Awesome.

CA state law now essentially allows EVERYONE to have an ADU.  With no additional parking.  Doubling the density and traffic.  I already fear for my children's lives because people drive too damn fast and run stop signs at the school corner.

[jpdx]

mm1970, you bring up a good point that there needs to be limits to the number of ADUs in a given area, as to not place too much stress on the infrastructure.

Do you really think a neighborhood will ever get to 100% ADUs, or anywhere close to that? Most lots simply don't have the space or proper layout for them, and most homeowners don't have the desire or capital to build one anyway.

Regarding parking, it's a valid point. However, I think if you look at the kinds of people that are attracted to the tiny house movement, many of them don't own a car, let alone two cars. The neighborhoods where ADUs make the most sense tend to be walkable, bikeable, and well served by transit.

[MilesTeg]

This should apply to any regular property, although I think private communities with up-front covenants, associations, etc. are ok for those that want them. It just shouldn't be the unspoken default that you can't know before buying the property like it is now.

No, formal HOAs should be banned, other than for the maintenance of truly common property (e.g. parks, pools, and similar). IF they were truly optional, I would have no problem with them, but in reality they are not optional for many. By truly optional I mean having reasonable equitable choices (quality, price, location, etc.) of communities with and without them in any given municipality. The choice of HOA or living outside the city or ancient neighborhoods or old and therefore extremely expensive neighborhoods (or a multitude of other "choices") is not really a choice.

If you are crazy enough to think it's a good idea to give some group of (usually busy body and/or incompetent) folks the ability to take your home from you because you didn't cut your grass quite right or because they screwed up their accounting, (for at best a hope of making a bit more money when you sell) that's your business. But when it's forced on ME, I take issue.

[mm1970]

mm1970, you bring up a good point that there needs to be limits to the number of ADUs in a given area, as to not place too much stress on the infrastructure.

Do you really think a neighborhood will ever get to 100% ADUs, or anywhere close to that? Most lots simply don't have the space or proper layout for them, and most homeowners don't have the desire or capital to build one anyway.

Regarding parking, it's a valid point. However, I think if you look at the kinds of people that are attracted to the tiny house movement, many of them don't own a car, let alone two cars. The neighborhoods where ADUs make the most sense tend to be walkable, bikeable, and well served by transit.

In a town like SB, where rent on a room in a house is now over $1000, people will do a lot of things to afford a roof (including paying someone to pitch a tent in their yard.  Not kidding.)

It doesn't really matter if there is lot space or not - feel free to add a second story or convert your garage.  If converting your garage means that you get instant $1500-2000 a month rental income in retirement, why move?

Even 50% ADUs in my neighborhood would be disastrous.  We already have a lot of in-fill, there are already plenty of ADUs in my hood (most illegal).  The guy next door rents out a room in his house and converted his garage, which puts 3 cars in a house with only 1 parking spot.  Next to him is a large family that converted their garage AND built a separate unit on top.  That's fine, but can you imagine if the guy behind me (we share a driveway) decided to convert his garage?  He's certainly  not going to let them park back there.  And what if we simply added a second unit on our second story?  We don't have a garage (only 2 off-street spaces).  We could add a second unit above, that would of course come with 2 cars.

[Capt j-rod]

We have all forgotten that we have a very different financial perspective than the rest of the world. Mustachians realize that a house is a piss poor investment that barely keeps up with inflation. Consumer sukkas all think that their house is an "investment" and their largest and best move in life. Need money? Screw a money tap into the side and let it flow like a maple tree! Charge cards maxed? HELOC! New roof? HELOC! Now introduce a whole new way that makes a mc mansion look like a giant ass hat! It shakes the very foundation that they live on. What if no one wants the 2500sq ft house when we sell it to buy the 3500 sq ft one? What if values are over inflated (again) and my giant box of designer shit isn't worth what I paid much less the interest? I think the people who fear the tiny house movement the most is the banks that lock you into a life of debt. I've noticed that big money really doesn't like people that have no debt. People love to bitch about rental property, but my homes are the nicest ones in the neighborhood. Ironically I pay cash for them and do all the work myself. Tiny houses are a great idea, but most of the people who are looking at them will not be willing to maintain them or the surroundings. Look inside of most cars and you will see what these will look like quickly. Ownership of anything is not an entitlement. I support the movement, but I respect zoning as well. As with anything a compromise that benefits everyone can be reached.

[calimom]

TBH, I'm more concerned about the lack of zoning in some municipalities that allows property owners to tear down, say, a 1200  SF historically significant and proportionally correct house and throw up a faceless and tacky 3500 SF monstrosity that is out of scale for the existing neighborhood. Well designed smaller house? Not a problem.

[Stache-O-Lantern]

To those who are arguing that the residents shouldn’t be fighting the planned development, are you arguing that the residents should have no  but I’m certainly sympathetic to concerns about how nearby developments will affect your home’s value.  I think any discussion of effective zoning and planning need to include those concerns.

This is a slippery slope.  I know of an infill development that proposed building market-rate single-family detached homes priced in the $400's, around 1500 sq ft.  Neighborhood next door of existing homes in the $600's didn't like it and sued the City's approval of the project.  Then a court fight for a couple years.  They got built, but it ain't easy.  If you try and build homes in the $600's next to million-dollar homes, you may end up with the same problem.

[jpdx]

Three pics of ADUs. Done right, these can be really pretty and add to the vibrancy of the neighborhood:

http://cascadiahomes.com/files/2011/08/cottageblurred.jpg

http://tinyhouseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/walt-quade-ADU.jpg

http://downsizemyspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/portland-ADU-1.jpg

[FenderBender]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a28773/tiny-houses-property-value/

Quick overview: homeowners in some areas are concerned that building new “tiny houses” (they give an example of 500 sq ft homes) will drive down home prices in the area.  They compare them to mobile homes from a planning standpoint and say that they should only be allowed in specifically zoned areas.
Interested to hear the communities thoughts on this.

Ha just move to California where the government passed an ADU law, meaning anybody can add an accessory dwelling on their lot for "more housing".

No need to have parking requirements.  Whee!!

The state law is the rule until local gov'ts (county/city) establish their own rules/laws/standards.  CA is heavy on local regulations.  When I was there, before I built a house, I had to present plans in front of a local board, they met once a month.  While at the board meeting, I saw owners of a gas station return each month for 5 months just to get approval to "reduce" signage.  The board had control over the height and color of your house and much more.  It is heavily regulated - they protect rich knit picky types.  They don't want perceived poor people renting out the shed or moving a shed/house into someone's backyard.  If you know CA, you know that where people most want to put tiny homes, they ultimately won't be able.  Local gov'ts might allow them, but if they do, they'll discourage it by setting a strict standard to electric, plumbing, sewer, easement, height, size, color, you name it, it there will be a rule. 

It is nice thinking about adding tiny homes to backyards, but when neighborhoods are planned, the sewer is planned for the number of homes in the original plan, the storm sewers too and if when adding tiny homes, concrete is added to the space, that means more runoff into sewers which means during heavy rains, neighborhoods flood, because the neighborhood now exceeds original specs. 

A neighborhood in England 30 years ago was built with just 1 concrete pad for a car, the front yards were small, but as more and more people bought cars, people concreted over their yard for the additional cars, as a result, storm drains couldn't handle the runoff, major flooding thereafter. 

Parking can be made an issue by the locals.

The CA state law has limited the changes that local governments can make.  Especially related to parking, if the house is within 1/2 mile of public transit.

They can make laws related to size of the unit.  These are "accessory" units, so generally sewer, etc do not apply.  Fun times.

I assume that PUDs are exempt because they are already "multi-family housing" with their own set of rules.

alameda county, california doesn't appear to be fun times - some of the regulation listed below.  they are defining these as actual buildings with foundations that meet building codes so tiny house on wheels won't cut it.  i didn't dig very deep, because i know local gov'ts in california especially where it is already crowded and where people most want to live will do all they can to discourage 2 homes on the same lot.  i also read that the county has to issue a permit, but in neighborhoods with HOAs, a dispute is between the homeowner and the HOA so basically, the judge will rule in accordance with HOA rules which will likely be updated with the support of the community to prohibit these structures. 


17.52.290 ‐ Accessory buildings—Types of structures prohibited.
In any R district, cargo containers, truck trailers, vans, commercial vehicles and similar moved‐on containers shall not be 
permitted as temporary or permanent structures of any type. This section shall not prohibit a moved‐on mobilehome as 
specified under Section 17.04.010 or a temporary use as provided by Section 17.52.470.

1. ONE STORY ONLY (17.52.260).
2. 15-FEET MAXIMUM IN HEIGHT (17.52.260).
3. BACK HALF OF THE LOT OR 75-FEET BACK FROM THE STREET
LOT LINE (17.52.270).
4. NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF AN
ABUTTING KEY LOT, OR THE STREET SIDE YARD OF AN
ABUTTING BACK-TO-BACK LOT (17.52.280).
5. 6-FEET FROM OTHER STRUCTURES (17.52.260).
6. 30% MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF REQUIRED (20’) REAR YARD
(17.52.320).
7. SUBORDINATE TO MAIN BUILDINGS (17.04.010).
8. ACCESSORY USE MEANS A USE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE,
SUBORDINATE, INCIDENTAL AND CUSTOMARY OR
NECESSARILY RELATED TO A LAWFULLY EXISTING PRINCIPAL
USE (17.04.010).
9. CHECK WITH BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FOR OTHER
REQUIREMENTS, e.g., DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE,
PERMIT EXEMPTIONS.