Einstein famously said “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
When I see Dayton trying to fix the failure of our community to fulfill the basic expectations of what a city should provide, i.e.: good schools, safe neighborhoods, well maintained infrastructure as well as simple things like basketball nets on courts that aren’t doubling as weed gardens- by building new houses where old ones fell- I just do a forehead smack.
If people wanted to live there, they could have had a home for next to nothing- and fixed it up themselves. If they wanted to build a new home- why would they do it in a block where half the houses are already vacant. Vibrant communities attract vibrant growth. It must be why South Park is one of the few places where property taxes rose- from 20% to 50% in the latest valuation.
So, what can we do to be different? To offer something that can’t be found elsewhere? One of the answers is “Tiny Houses”- something that’s currently illegal in Dayton- and most of the country. If you don’t understand why they aren’t legal, what they are, or what the attraction is- watch this 10 minute video from “Reason TV” (thanks to Teri Lussier [1]for the tip)
Do zoning and building codes really protect our property values- or keep us safe? Or are they just another way for government to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong? Is the reason for big houses- because the construction, home building, banking and insurance industries don’t want you to build your own house for cash?
What happens when people live in $10,000 houses that use so little energy?
Putting people in a tiny house has been proven to be a much better solution to homelessness.
It also frees up huge amounts of disposable income, when housing is no longer 25% of your living expenses- what do you spend your money on? Travel, dining out, entertainment?
Why must the “American dream” be so connected to the idea of McMansions and suburban sprawl?
Maybe what we should do is allow areas where more than 40% of the structures are vacant to become “zoning free” enterprise zones, where building codes are reduced to common sense stuff- and the stupidity goes away (why must a room have a closet to be a bedroom? Or why can’t a bathroom connect to a kitchen?).
Dayton could be a leader in the Tiny House movement. The only question is why not?
Great idea. Unfortunately leadership in Dayton is nonexistent or is in the stone ages;new ideas are too much. I had home ownership for 8 years until it was decided our community had to go. Mine had wheels about the same size that could of been easily moved to such open areas. We were judged because of it.My home was small, kept neat, and I minded my business but had to go because there was only room for upscale housing at the cost of several homes lost and many made “homeless” as a result. All municipalities here in Montgomery county need to think outside the box and treat people as human instead of a number that one can decide to move on a whim. Current thinking in Dayton may create empty areas and a ghost town,however new leadership will support happy people in “small homes” contributing to the economy and sense of community.
David, Another spot-on article! I will forward it to my libertarian-oriented, fiscal conservative friends. Somehow we on the right need to win you over to our side. You are obviously a creative thinker who deserves a much wider audience for your thoughts about solutions to Dayton and Montgomery County’s problems. Hang in there and don’t let the bastards grin you down!
Another alternative-housing option is cohousing, and I was active in a group that tried to get a project started here around 15 years ago. We never got off the ground because we could not draw in the minimum crucial numbers of participants–which would have been only a dozen or so households.
So will tiny houses appeal to more than a few people? I doubt it. I couldn’t do it myself, I have too much stuff and my wife has more. Then again, unlike cohousing, it’s not a choice that depends on the participation of others.
I find the video disappointing in that it only tangentially addresses the issue of space. Yes, Houston or other western cities can take advantage of their open spaces and also of their relatively later establishment as cities–if you compare the layouts of cities east of the great plains with those to the west, the western ones are much easier to get around and they have better-defined community spaces. Look at how Dayton’s basic transportation is clogged up by an inconvenient cemetary to the south and a huge military complex to the northeast. Look at how we inconvenience the public by blocking off thoroughfares for fastivals because no one has figured out how to site them in convenient locations that aren’t crossed by state routes. That’s where urban planners have failed worst.
So given the number of vacant lots in Dayton, yes, it makes some sense that the zoning provisions be re-written. However, I don’t think we want to allow homes-on-wheels; we live in tornado alley. Put them on a proper foundation please.
David, thanks for discussing this issue, which has interested me for several years. Actually, the City of Dayton is a rarity…they DO NOT have minimum square footage requirements for new houses in the dense older neighborhoods. They allow the state building code to prevail on this matter. That code requires that no outside wall be shorter than 17 feet. So, a house can be as small as 289 square feet (17′ x 17′). 800 square feet is about the smallest legal size you’ll find anywhere else, and you have to search around to find a place that even permits that. Most places the minimum is 1000 or 1200 square feet. Besides the City of Dayton, there are still a lot of small older towns out in our rural counties that defer to the state code (289 square foot minimum -17′ x17′). I have been thinking of buying some of the tiny lots in Dayton, many as narrow as 23 feet. I could build some very affordable cute cottages for urban singles to live in. I think in some locations there would be very strong demand for these.