Tiny Homes Could Be A Big Help To Society
If you’re like me, you recently ran across an article discussing “tiny homes.” I was immediately intrigued. I’ve read a little about these super-efficient homes which can be less than 250 square feet. Those with the resources are turning to these homes as a means of reducing the environmental impact of homeownership. It’s a radically minimalist lifestyle but one that makes financial and environmental sense at the cost of skeptical looks from society.
However, that wasn’t what this “tiny homes” article was about. The article I ran across was focused on the unhoused.
As a means of providing safe, secure, and sanitary shelter to the unhoused, many cities around the U.S., like Seattle and St. Louis, are turning to tiny home communities. These plots are collections of small, simply built houses, where the unhoused can find shelter and support as individual cases and situations are managed through the established social services network.
Most of the houses are in the 250-400 square foot range depending on whether they are built for individual or family residence. There is electricity, and depending on municipal budget constraints, kitchen facilities and plumbing are either in the individual unit or in a communal area. Some communities even provide meals. These aren’t shantytowns. This isn’t Hooverville. These are legitimate homes, simply on a smaller scale.
A new community in St. Louis will cost around $600,000 and consist of 50 homes, 40 single, 8 double, and 2 that are ADA compliant. For those of you doing the math, that’s an estimated $12,000 per home. For comparison, last January Illinois received $115 million from the Department of Housing and Urban development alone.
By providing a stable, private, and secure shelter to the unhoused population, the chances to pull individuals and families out of hardship increases exponentially. Knowing that there is a place to sleep, shower, and protect yourself from the elements puts you in a better position to combat adversity and take advantage of social services that are already in place.
Here’s the interesting part: the article I was reading was opposed to tiny home communities. You’ve probably heard these objections to similar programs before.
One criticism is essentially “If we put all the poor and homeless together, that’s a breeding ground for drugs and crime.”
That’s a pretty subjective, not to mention heartless complaint. (And there’s evidence to the contrary.) Let’s assume it’s correct, though. In this St Louis community, residents need a referral and will be prescreened by the Homeless Missourians Information System. Residents are invested in their own community and the entire system is based on support.
The big complaint of the article was that if we make these homes so nice, people won’t leave. We will have essentially given away free houses. First, that’s a classist argument used to deny all manner of social programs. “If we help the downtrodden, they will become addicted to our assistance.” By that logic, we should never help anyone for fear that they will come to expect compassion from their fellow human beings.
That argument also misses the intentional temporary nature of these homes. These aren’t “forever homes.” They’re more akin to crutches for a broken leg. Their purpose is to support the individual until they build back their strength and are ready for the next step. “Next step” in this case being participating in society without worrying about where you’ll sleep tonight.
Tiny homes won’t address the causes of poverty or the terrifying level of unhoused in this country, but they can help members of our society fight those forces and more quickly get back on their feet.
