That being said, they should make sure there is safe affordable housing for all.

As has been noted previously, we have a ridiculous number of empty houses and an obscene number of homeless people. How can both of these be true at once?

money>people.

Why the sudden need for a new law?

The disaster of FEMA housing may have had an effect too. I'm sure the esthetics plays into it also. Nobody wants to see poverty.

Seen a modern diesel pusher? I like mine and I like living in it and it is anything but poverty. This hits more than the poor. Building standards yes. Kicking people out of their homes no.

Unless they're concerned you might be missing out on the tax scheme. Maybe it allows you too much independence. No doubt it can be used for discrimination.

enforceable.

Good call by HUD

I should have the choice to live in a tiny house if I want. I shouldn't have to be beholden to landlords and banks.


I guess you're only pro-choice selectively.

The same reason you can't buy a new car that doesn't have air bags and a seatbelt

These are safety issues...it has nothing to do with whether you used the proper sized lumber to build a header over your doorway.

It's about how are you heating the structure, is it safe and vented and where are you putting the sewage.

I'm all for the regulation. Regulate them. Then build many to address homelessness and skyrocketing rents.

Are you against choice?

Most people are unaware of the codes and restrictions regulated by their County. There are actually International Codes that are adopted by local governments. For instance:http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/index.htm. There are also National Codes and so on.

Tiny Home bill currently in committee in Minnesota legislature.

"Temp family health care dwellings"
Intent is to be used on the property of a main house for the purpose of caring for an elderly or disabled adult needing the care of a family member that lives in the main house.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF2497&session=ls89&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2016

There is a lot a interest for this bill to pass.

Minnesota Housing Agency for a couple of years. Had not heard about this. Now I am going to start writing them on this bill.

This is exactly what I need. 74 years old moving from one family home to another but with no place of my own.

Fucking hate my government
Always another law

I may be a libertarian

Surely safety issues can be addressed and maybe not in tornado alley or earthquake zone.

Structures getting home loans also need to be HUD approved so maybe you'd have to pay cash up front.

Granted, it's in RV parks, but this proposed rule doesn't distinguish, that I can see.

Here's an example where I live. A person bought a nice chunk of land across the road and intended to live in a tiny, old camper with no electricity, no sewage disposal, no water and a thrown together woodstove arrangement for heat while building a small house over time. The town wouldn't allow it because it violates the zoning ordinance. Even if the camper was Hud approved, they wouldn't allow it.

in all fairness, no electric, no sewage and no water presents a health hazard to not only the person living there, but to all people who might visit.

From what I see, this law doesn't distinguish between your own land or an RV park.

They didn't seem to understand he relationship between shitting in a hole and the water table.

I was very relieved when they put the brakes on the plans across the road.

They will last a long, long time.

With no maintenance, they'll fall apart in short order.

What happens to the owner if this passes and they use an RV as their primary residence? What's the punishment? At one time, due to circumstances I won't go into, I lived in a 31 foot travel trailer. Before that, a 21 foot travel trailer. Were it not for that, I'd have had no place to go.

Is the regulation aimed at square footage (400 sq. ft. max. counting covered porch as living space) or strictly at "park models", some of which are exceptionally nice.

Just my nickels worth (which is about all I have), the government should just butt their heads out, but, they're always looking for a way to take money from people, some of which are barely squeaking by.

are the cops going to knock on your tiny house door with a tiny warrant and haul you off to jail for not living in a HUD approved dwelling??????????????? and if so, what are the supposed to tell people? Go buy a house?????????????? What if you can't afford it!

Basically, all this is saying, is that homes and RV's that do not meet the HUD standard for primary dwellings cannot be marketed as suitable for being a primary dwelling. That's it.

However, some localities may have zoning laws require that units used as a primary dwelling meet the HUD standard. My locality has such a zoning classification, for example, so we have areas that are "RV parks" where such units are permitted, and there are many used as a primary dwelling.

Are they most commonly on public or private land?

My dad called it a camper.

I fixed it up and made us a nice little home. I love the house we live in now, but I look back on the simpler days with fondness at times. It wasn't simple trying to findspace to hang clothes and there wasn't a lot of privacy in the bathroom bu it was easy to keep clean.

However, after a quick reflection, I occurred to me that ALEC wouldn't propose anything this dumb. Now, if the small house or mobile home came with solar panels, then ALEC might become involved.

Full disclosure: I live in a mobile home.

There is a negative stereotype about 'trailer parks', but there are a number of advantages to 'mobile home parks' and 'manufactured homes'. We got chewed up and spit out by the collapse of the housing market. When we retired, we found repo in a nice park. The management has a set of reasonable rules and enforces them, which means you have to keep your unit up. We have a large fenced yard for our dogs and all of our neighbors have dogs as well. Since we're over 65 we qualify for Kentucky's 'homestead exemption' for property tax, which exempts up from the first $25K of assessed valuation and our unit - even though it is a 3 BR, 2 bath, LR, DR, Kitchen double wide - assesses at just under $25,000 so no property tax.

The management keeps up utility service. That is, they take responsibility for sewer, water, gas, electric right up to the service entrance to the house, so if there is a problem, they fix it. My daughter, who recently bought a 'site built' home, just got hit with a $10K plumbing bill when she had to have her entire front yard dug up to find out where the break/stoppage in her sewer line was. We just have to call management and they fix it .

We are very happy here. There is no way we could have afforded a place that would allow us our 5 dogs anywhere else.

It's time to stop children, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down!

Battle lines being drawn, nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
Young people speaking their minds, getting so must resistance from behind.

For some reason I keep thinking of this Buffalo Springfield song these days. Guess it feels like the man is trying to take everything from us. All the violence at rally's makes me think of the 60's.

It's important for everyone to click on the link and leave your comments for HUD. I did. If you don't like this new reg (or even if you do like it) please weigh in!

...is a tiny house? AFAIK it's ~200 SF.

When I bought my current house, it had a garage in the basement, so you could park your car and be in the house.

I'm not a fan of having an automobile share living (and breathing) space with humans.

So I turned it into an apartment over the years and just finished it.

Small kitchen, kitchen table area, bathroom, one twin size bed and a couch. No oven/range.

250 square feet.

For one person, I could see that happening. For a couple, I don't know.

My daughter, home from .mil over TG stayed there with her BF for a week.

Of course they used the rest of the (huge) basement for storage/laundry and had dinner upstairs with us.

The previous house we lived in for 12 years (me/wife/3 children/1 dog) was 750 SF main floor, 750 SF basement and 250 SF second floor.

We moved from there to our current home when the kids were 10, 10 and 12.

Anything under 200~250 SF per person and you're talking serious cabin fever.

By the time we moved, THAT place felt like a tiny house.

... illegal. Might as well outlaw air.

and want to make sure we can't downsize as far as we want. This is protecting an industry and has nothing to do with protecting people.

I have to admit I'm a little amused by the families who try to pile into something little larger than a garden shed, but the tiny house looks perfect for somebody like me, retired and not in the best of health. Then again, it wouldn't have space for my art, so if I downsize, it will likely be to the original tiny house, a single wide trailer. Been there before and liked it a lot, a place for everything and a breeze to clean and maintain.

HUD is out to lunch on this one. I wonder if anyone there has ever seen the square footage in the average working person's flat in either NYC or Boston, those are often very tiny.

being concerned about humans and safety, etc.

especially in case of fire. I haven't seen any of these places with a way to bail from the loft in an emergency and that really needs to be addressed. Many of them look jerrybuilt, with things that will break down quickly and become dangerous to the inhabitants. Also, in the more mobile ones, a lot of materials use is highly questionable, adding a lot of weight where alternative materials would make it lighter and more maneuverable.

on TV look pretty good, but I bet there's a bunch of dangerous junk out there. The one I watched the other day was about 400 sq. ft., maybe 500, husband/wife, 2 kids and one on the way. I just don't see how they can live in a situation like that, especially as the two older kids get into their teens.

and people managed to have six kids in them. Then again, they also went nuts in the winter (cabin fever) and alcoholism and suicide rates were pretty high. The rebuilt colonial houses at Plimoth Plantation were that small, also, especially considering cattle and sheep occupied the first floor at night, leaving the family up in the loft. The mud and wattle chimneys caught fire a lot, too.

I do think there's a happy medium between being squashed into a cabin and being isolated from each other in the oversized suburban bungalow. We just have never found it.

Now, we see the reverse emerging. There is a happy medium, but humans always seem to have a propensity to keep up with or exceed the Joneses. Maybe they will try to keep up with or exceed the Joneses in downsizing. Who were the Joneses anyway?

Many RV manufacturers refuse to warrant units that are used for full time living. I think most do, for most models. Most units are simply not constructed well enough for full time use, especially in four seasons, so their warranties are voided when owners live in them as primary residences. That's part of my retirement dilemma-- my partner and I are approaching retirement so we looked into living in an RV for a few years. We haven't ruled it out entirely yet, but we have been very disappointed in the build quality of most RVs and trailers we've looked at unless they are top of the line and way too expensive for our budget. Most manufacturers build for occasional use only, and assume that owners will only be using the appliances and plumbing, opening doors and drawers, etc a handful of days annually. Of course, park models are meant to be lived in more-or-less permanently, but they are not built to travel much.

RVs have long been exempted from HUD's manufactured housing programs because the programs were intended to complement other financing options for housing built in place (i.e. permanent housing built on foundations.)

The current law was written at a time when no RVs were 40 ft+ in length (a definition in the existing law.) Without a rule modification manufacturers would required to meet the manufactured housing code standards for these recreational vehicles. That would increase the cost and probably the weight.

HUD does not finance manufactured housing of less than 320 SF which would exclude many tiny houses. Those with the square footage though would have to meet the minimum 8 foot width and minimum 40 ft length plus all of the manufactured house standards, again increasing the cost and weight.

So nothing in the proposed revised rule makes it illegal to live full time in a large RV or a tiny house. It just makes it clear that they are not considered permanent housing eligible for HUD inspection or financing.

Full text here:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=frnotice2916.pdf

THIS

all brand new they seem pretty cool
get a slum lord to cut some corner and put up some shanty towns....way less cool

I spend most of my summer there. Two "rooms," one big living area and a small storage room separated by an interior wall. Water is outside. Someday I'll get around to putting in a composting toilet and indoor plumbing. Solar power for lights, butane stove, gas grill for outdoor cooking. We have a four-bedroom home...I prefer hanging out in the yurt in the woods (and I don't have to wear clothes!).

I could never be a nudist due to mosquitoes and Irish skin.

We use a citrus-based repellent. It's great stuff...can't think of the brand name. REI sells it, and you can find it any good camping supply store. We never wear clothes at the yurt, and skeeters haven't been a problem.

Brilliant fucking logic.

rules if the manufacturers choose that labeling.

This rule has NOTHING to do with whether a person or persons are allowed to live in the vehicle/tiny home.

What it allows is that manufacturers can build not-to-housing code for these items if they label them as not intended for permanent housing.

For the consumer's benefit, the rule would also force manufacturers to clearly label and advertise the standard met in construction - i.e. it would not allow the manufacturer to market a unit as a permanent living solution if the manufactured housing standard has not been met.

I for one am not worried about my expenses. I need a home - their HUD housing is full with waiting lists and many of us would like to live in a real structure instead of under a bridge.

I have a bedroom I am living in right now - no bigger than the little house I hope to obtain - but still a roof over my head. Many do not even have that.

If they want to address a problem maybe HUD should address the need for affordable housing. They are failing at this. At one time HUD had a SRO - single room occupancy - program that was meant to allow families to remodel a shed or garage for an older parent - this is still needed but now they are going to limit our ability to have space limited homes.

Does anyone know what HUD is now spending its money on?

Comfy, safe, room for me and the dog. Cleaned each morning briefly and more carefully once a week while waiting for laundry at the laundry mat. Could cook, read in bed, watch stars. Mobile bliss. Sorry to read that HUD is sticking their nose into the time house movement.

They are not talking about very small homes that otherwise meet standards. They are talking about what are essentially trailers, but instead of having traditional "camper" looks, they look like little cabins on the outside. But they still have the "vehicular" structure and can be easily hauled from one spot to another. These "cabins" are popular around the little artificial fishing ponds that pass for water recreation around here.

every time I see that site it floors me, the utter pretentiousness

Illegal? No. Will HUD sponsor or finance them? No.

how about AFFORDABLE SMALL HOUSES like they used to build

In Tupelo

The article makes the huge assumption that the regulaions will eventually be extended to the tiny house model. That is NOT being proposed at this time.

The author is obviously using the tiny house movement to generate hits as it's popular on TV these days. No one would read his article if it was limited to trailer parks and RVs.

HUD does not make laws. They make regulations which follow the laws which Congress makes and they have to answer to Congress for any regulations they make. HUD can neither make something legal nor illegal.

I just went and read the entirety of the new regulation, plus the (much longer) background and supplementary information. (Took about 1/2 hour.)

My take is that this is effectively a labeling rule, only. It modifies - but only slightly - the definitions of manufactured home vs. recreational vehicle (to keep up with the times and to have criteria from which to bound the rule-making). Then, it would require a label or placard to be applied to a recreational vehicle notifying the perspective buyer that the unit is, in fact, a recreational vehicle that does not comply with all the safety rules normally applicable to manufactured homes.

The purpose of this is to be sure that a perspective RV buyer doesn't think she's getting all of the safety measures of a manufactured home since RV's nowadays are getting so elaborate that people may actually think they're getting a manufactured home with all of its incumbent safety features.

In fact, the proposed subsection 3282.15, para. 4(c) even says the labeling will be temporary. Its purpose is to notify the buyer. After the sale, the buyer may remove the label.

Further, it appears that only the manufacturer is required to apply this placard. It doesn't seem to require this labeling during subsequent private party re-selling.

I don't see this as some new, deal-breaking overreach by the government. It's an evolution of housing safety requirements.

living year round in an RV. They've already purchased it and are taking weekend trips as practice. They are also making little touches here and there inside to make it more homey.

They'd flip if they found that their dream was destroyed.