Have you heard about the “Tiny House” movement?  Many probably haven’t, though some may have lived in tiny houses growing up (that was “accidental” unlike this movement).  This movement however is a conscious attempt to provide affordable housing in cities where housing is all but unaffordable except for the well-off.  As you might expect, some big cities, like Washington, DC, have a large demand for housing—especially given the ever-expanding job opportunities for government bureaucrats and lobbyists.  But as demand has increased, prices for housing have also increased—simple law of economics.  This means that some income groups have a harder time getting housing in the city or, if they can, it is inferior housing.

The free market to the rescue.  Entrepreneurs have hit on the idea of building very small, but modern, houses on small lots.  Whereas a nice house in DC might sell for $500,000 to over $1 million, a “tiny house” would sell for maybe $50,000.  Such houses contain roughly 120 to 200 or so square feet, including one living room, melded with a kitchen, a bedroom possibly as part of the living room, and a separate bathroom.   They have all the modern necessities such as indoor plumbing, water, electricity, etc.  By all accounts, their owner s are quite happy with them.  And, of course, being located in the city, they are convenient to mass transit, or walking, and to urban amenities.  From what I can tell, most of these houses are owned by younger people, but not all of them.

Once again, it bears repeating, this phenomenon has resulted from the amazing responses of free markets to problems posed by urban living.  And we didn’t need government to impose some policy from the top down to artificially force cheaper housing.  It happened “miraculously” as the demand grew for a solution and as a problem was recognized by the entrepreneur.  Everyone is happy, right?

Unfortunately, no.  The only unhappy people are, as usual, government officials, who have not yet brought their archaic zoning laws into the twenty-first century.  Now you might argue—and I am sympathetic—that we should have no zoning whatsoever.  That’s great, except almost all large cities do, and that won’t change any time soon.  At any rate some of these cities are complaining about the tiny houses, that they don’t conform to zoning regulations.  They aren’t set back from the street far enough, or they don’t have this or that requirement.  These are silly regulations, issued long ago, likely for the purpose of keeping neighborhoods homogenous—in terms of income, architecture, etc.  But they are still on the books.

It is time for governments to stop stifling the housing industry in its entrepreneurial response to housing prices.  This is even an issue for Christians who care about the poorer among us, because it is the lower income groups harmed by these laws.  What we need is the freedom to respond creatively to problems like this, as humans were created to do, and get the state out of the way.  You might argue that some land use regulations are useful, though I see the market as being able to handle almost all of the issues  that might arise.  But regardless, to squash the tiny house movement seems callous and harmful, without any real benefit to consumers in general, only to those who already own expensive property who might someday sell it for a handsome price.  That desire however is not morally compelling.  Affordable housing without government intervention is, to my mind, morally compelling.