Loretto Earth Network News Divest/Reinvest/Commit Spring 2016
Vol. 24, No. 1
DO WE REALLY NEED ALL THIS SPACE? By Marcus Hyde, CoMember-in-Process
I
live in a tiny home that my partner, Kristen, and I built together. It is 168 square feet and includes the usual appliances plus a loft for sleeping. Much of the wood used to build the house was cut down in the northern part of Colorado. Infested with pine beetles, this wood needed to be removed from the forest. After milling the wood and treating it with oils, traces of the beetles can be seen in the blue, purple and red swirls left in the wood. Most of the other building materials were found in alleyways and dumpsters or at secondhand shops. When people walk into our home they often remark how unique and different it is. Then come the questions: how does the plumbing work and do we really generate enough power from the solar panels. We built our place with the hopes of creating a housing option for ourselves that reflected our values. We wanted a home that was simple, modest, but full of natural beauty, energy efficient, and cheap enough to own and take care of, so we could be free to invest our energies in our community. For the most part, we feel our home reflects those values, but from a legal and social standpoint, living in a tiny home is not that simple. Over the past 10 years, tiny homes, meaning homes that are under 200 square feet in size, have become ever more popular. Those interested in sustainable building practices ought to be concerned, as experts agree that the best way to build greener is not to have enormous buildings with solar panels, but to build smaller
structures because less energy is spent in construction, long-term maintenance, heating and cooling. A look at history would highlight the frivolity of these rules, as many homes built before the 1980’s were in fact less than today’s legal minimum size.
Home Sweet Home The path towards bigger homes (or “McMansions”) ought to concern us from an economic standpoint. We can see a direct correlation between the number of affordable housing units in a community, the general population size, and the number of people living out on the streets and in emergency shelters. Modern legislation and building codes have virtually outlawed smaller homes, causing fewer reasonably–priced or affordable homes to be built on the free market. While the demolition and sale of public and truly affordable housing ought to be central to any conversation around
homelessness, homeless policy for the last 35 years has primarily focused on the development of individuals (through case management and counseling) rather than addressing the systemic underlying causes of mass homelessness, i.e. the lack of housing people can actually afford. Consequently homelessness continues to be a growing phenomenon, having reached unprecedented numbers. Today, an estimated 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness at some point. Many are children. Tiny Homes, to me, are first and foremost an affordable housing option that works. But unfortunately, I also feel that for many in the Tiny Home Movement, the dream of living in a small space without a mortgage is simply the epitome of a very individualistic vision of a greener utopia free of other people’s problems. Some refer to Tiny Homes as the Whole Foods of housing: smaller sizes, prettier packaging and much more expensive. In some cases this is accurate as a number of companies build and sell these glorified mobile homes, for nearly $100,000 (and of course that doesn’t include any land to put the house on). I suppose this fits into the general ethos of capitalism — being better than the next person. The truth is that Tiny Homes can be in line with what poor people have always done: live simply, with less, and for less. In October 2015, a plot of vacant land is ready for sale by the Denver Housing Authority. A group of Continued on page 2