http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BBwNwGc?ocid=sf is a link to a story from USATODAY.COM entitled “Indiana mon admits horrific killing of her 2 kids, cops say”. One commenter to the story said anyone who lives in a trailer should have their tubes tied. Here was my reply.
No one should have more than 2 kids. If you are poor then you should have only one. And for the rest of the world, if you live in extreme poverty on $1/day or less then you shouldn't have any. Enforce it with mandatory tube tying. 25,000 children die every day from disease, hunger and malnutrition. 3000 die every day in India just from drinking bad water. Half of Americans are living from pay check to pay check. If we ended exclusionary zoning then the one third of Americans who aren't home owners could quit getting screwed renting. In a mobile home park you are renting the lot. So you're still renting.
I paid $3,720 in lot rent for the last year that I lived in Little Valley Estates mobile home park near Detroit. I lived there for 18 years because Farmington Hills, MI said your home had to be at least 24 feet wide and conform to existing housing. The lot rent went up over 5% per year. I paid over $55,000 in lot rent for the 18 years that I lived there. Prior to that I rented an apartment for 16.5 years. Apartment rents are higher than lot rents. After I lost my job in 2008 I just retired and moved my singlewide out of the mobile home park and onto a residential lot about 55 miles NE of Cincinnati where they still respect your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My property taxes were $662 for the first year. So compared to paying lot rent I'm saving over $3000/yr. So 34.5 years times $3000/yr = $103,500 is a conservative estimate of what exclusionary zoning has cost me.
As long as a home is not a threat to anyone's health or safety then it should not be prohibited. We'd all have more economic security and self-determination. Small movable homes cost less, are energy efficient and make it easier to move to that next job or to a nicer climate in retirement. Between 2000 and 2010 Detroit had 240,000 of its residents leave the city. They left but the houses didn't. They are tearing down those houses. Detroit has over 10,000 acres of empty lots. The small house movement could do wonders for Detroit, Cleveland, Dayton, Gary etc because isn't some property tax money better than no property tax money? Sure it is.
Netflix has a series called "Texas Flip N Move". In one episode they build a 'tiny house' on a trailer and construct a home out of an old shipping container. Some people think freedom means the freedom to take away someone else's freedom. That is not my idea of freedom. Just let people decide for themselves what kind of a home they want and can afford. We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Shelter is a necessity of life. People should be able to spend their money as they see fit and not as someone else sees fit. Finally you need to judge people one at a time based on their behavior and not on their home, car, skin color or other non-behavioral factors. I would never tell you that you couldn't live in an area just based on the size of your home. So you can see how exclusionary zoning violates the golden rule as well as our constitution. Every politician takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution but not a one will support ending exclusionary zoning.
Detroit is turning off people's water and tearing down houses and it still has exclusionary zoning. That's how much the financial slavery of exclusionary zoning has become institutionalized. We have to compete with the whole world now. Corporations can build anywhere and sell everywhere. That ship has sailed. Ending exclusionary zoning would reduce the cost of just plain living. The only reason I was able to retire after losing my job back in Oct of 2008 was because I didn't flush a lot of money down the 30 year mortgage toilet. I paid off my singlewide in 22 months. If I had borrowed just $100,000 at 5% and paid it back over 30 years then I would've had to pay back $193,000. Plus I would've had to carry property insurance because who could take that loss and the lender would've required it. Plus I would've had to pay property taxes on that more expensive home.
My lifetime income all from wages is $699,000. We did not have a union where I worked. In fact our subsidiary was sold to an 'at will' company. That means there is no guarantee of continued employment and employment is simply 'at the will' of both parties. You can leave any time and the company can let you go anytime. I was at the fist company for 20.5 years and with the 'at will' company for 18 months before they let me go. So that's why I think we need to end exclusionary zoning. We shouldn't begrudge people a little happiness in life along with some financial security.
I think anyone who receives any assistance should have their tubes tied as a prerequisite. But if we ended exclusionary zoning then fewer people would need assistance. Living in a small, movable home shows financial responsibility and that one is maximizing one's resources. By the way, I had my tubes tied when I was 23. I have no children and have never been married. But let's not demonize small, movable homes. Let's celebrate them and stop criminalizing living in one on a residential lot and paying property taxes like everyone else. America is stronger when her citizens are financially secure. Ending exclusionary zoning is about social justice and financial justice. There is something wrong with the woman in this article. So blame her and not the home she was living in. Thanks.