3 ms·
The idea is degrading. A generation of people for which the only feasible path to home ownership is living in a mobile/kit home in someone else’s backyard.
by ryeights 3y ago
The idea is degrading. A generation of people for which the only feasible path to home ownership is living in a mobile/kit home in someone else’s backyard.
- cheriot 3y agoPart of the political problem is people voting against any form of housing they don't want for themselves. What's degrading is people on the street because CA has such an extreme housing shortage.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoFirst off, a lot of people jumped on the tiny home bandwagon in recent years, some seem to like them. Second, an ADU in a decent neighborhood would probably be a lot quieter than the various condo/townhouse/apartment options. Thirdly, it's not like they have to live in the ADU forever - if they could buy/sell it they'd actually have some equity built up for moving up to something bigger.
- ryeights 3y agoTo elaborate: this would be a fine policy IFF it were accompanied by other legislation that meaningfully improved the affordability of non-ADU homes as well.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoSuch as? Isn't the ADU going to be more affordable than the non-ADU home by definition (unless the ADU is actually larger than the house that was there first)?
- sokoloff 3y agoIsn't that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?