Nah, I get it, it's just that as someone who previously rented in Dover, this feels like grabbing a 5 gallon bucket of water, emptying out 2/3 of it and then trying to dowse a big bonfire with it. It's already a steep enough challenge to solve the problem with just the 5 gallons of water, but you didn't have to make it harder by purposely dumping out most of the water beforehand.

no they couldn't. The zoning would never support that. and the "Affordable" part is BS. They are renting these to their own employees, so it's more like the "sold my soul to the factory store" type of situation where your boss is also your landlord, etc.

Like I said, it's about average for its size. And like you said, it is ridiculous that that's the average.

but again, this would be cheaper if they skipped the tiny house aspect and just made a complex of apartments of the same size and amenities.

The alternative would be rowhouses (or even just duplexes), which could easily be better at both noise and smell insulation than these things.

[deleted]

Not to mention the reduced likelihood of pests getting through the walls

Open those windows and guarantee you’ll smell your neighbors burnt pizza airing out or hear them laying pipe on a Friday night.

> Some people might prefer this style of housing. Whether it has downsides in efficiency or not.

That's true, and if that's really their preference then more power to them.

> Also worth noting that due to zoning, large multi-family housing structures aren’t permitted to be constructed in certain areas.

That's more my problem here. If rules like that influenced this project then the rules should be fixed, because people who do want the higher efficiency / cheaper option should get to choose that.

But then we live in a state where most places have 5 acre lot size minimums but no frontage minimums, which lead to ridiculous strip lots that make no sense unless specifically to frustrate future development at the cost of every other consideration.

That's not living in the middle of nowhere but it is pretty normal. That's about 1/6th of an acre per house.

I grew up with a 1/4 acre yard. It's not Sherwood forest but it is hardly living on top of each other...

If only helping them was actually as profitable.

Asset management firms care about maintain a certain level of guaranteed revenue over a sustained period of time..

You don’t get that by selling homes, but you sure as hell do by renting them!

The entire system is breaking down into a new form of feudalism. Need to change the system so housing doesn’t get totally nuked by asset management firms.

Financial feasibility is a real challenge to building affordable housing (or any housing that isn't market rate or "luxury"). They would love to support homeownership if it were possible, but it's not - the math doesn't work.

Edit: I get the downvotes, Reddit hates developers and landlords, but it is clear that y'all don't understand financially feasibility. Developers can't take a loss on project or they would go out of business.

These are not intended to be long term housing for families or home owners. They are also not meant to be to be owned as the homeowners could turn around and rent out the tiny home for more than the mortgage and therefore generating profit and not keeping them affordable. This would have a compound effect if they were to be controlled by multiple real estate firms looking to continually drive up the cost of rent rather than one firm dictating the same price for all. At the same time, an HOA would have to be established to dictate the rules and regulations of the community and was not the design for this project! If this was about making the most money quickly and not keeping housing affordable in Dover, they would be for sale rather than rent. As stated in my original post, future plans to allow tiny home ownership in neighboring towns has been discussed for people who may want to be able to invest long term into this type of housing!

Yeah I did. You didn’t specify the land/lease agreement parameters in the post I responded to, so narrowing the argument to only include scenarios where the land is owned by an individual feels slightly disingenuous.

Recent or not, its happening now and that removes support from the argument that trailer parks are a source of affordable house (you can toss your asterisk here and say YMMV and the like)

[deleted]

[deleted]

I lived in a space this size with a spouse and cats for several years. It's entirely manageable. I was even paying more than this in rent and it was a far older shittier home. These would have been a fantastic option.

The rent of these tiny homes are based on the average yearly income of a Dover citizen while adjusted for the unusually high rent cost of living on the seacoast! We will be lower than the cost of an average place to rent in Dover and therefore helping people save money towards a future home. As for the space, there are many individuals both young and old who have expressed the minimal space as more of a benefit for their life than being able to have more space. For students or young adults, most do not have the need for extra space and would rather pay less for that commodity. As for seniors, many of them want to downsize from their single family home and find an affordable 1 level place to stay as they begin their retirement! These tiny homes weren’t designed for long term ownership as many people begin families and want to have money saved up to buy a home!

It seems because they need to meet the fair market housing price. It ls for taxes and shit

Except these are apartments, you don't own them either. If you could own them it would actually make sense, but you can't so there's no actual, logical reason to do it instead of an apartment building. You would pay less for the same amount of space, the same level of "ownership" and the same amenities. You could house more people with basically any other option than 44 individual houses, and it wouldn't be some towering monstrosity either...which again: should barely be a footnote in the plans for something like this

Fair question. I'll reply at the end, but here is the pertinent language in the bill:

I. The homeownership innovations fund shall be used by the authority to make grants and loans to eligible applicants for the purpose of fostering innovations in the development and financing of entry-level homes for owner occupancy.

II. The authority shall consider a wide range of alternatives and solutions to affordable entry-level homeownership, including such approaches as 3D printing of homes, low cost and highly sustainable sources of energy and energy efficiency, and other concepts that will provide New Hampshire homeowners with the most advanced and most affordable alternatives available.

The impetus is to incentivize applicants that create or seek to create innovations that result in affordable housing. It's a pittance, but a start. The money would go to NHHFA, who has an exemplary reputation for using resources responsibly.

Thanks Sarah. I'll be there as will John R. and a few others. The main sponsor told me that there is some concern that this will compete with the Innis bill. I disagree - both are needed. She also said that Ben F. helped write it. My hopes are someone from your office will be on hand to support.

Also note HB 177 which expands 79-E to include parcels of land in a community where there is "public benefit". This is a game changer for affordable housing for communities of the willing. In other words, if attainable/affordable housing is deemed by a community a public benefit, they could create a 79-E zone and maintain level taxes for up to 9 years (I'd have to explain but will L8R) on any one property in that zone despite new taxable growth - a huge incentive for a developer. Likewise a town, as part of the 79-E contract, could make as a condition to accepting such an incentive that the property remain affordable in perpetuity by covenant. To wit:

"II.(a) "Qualifying [structure] property" means a building or parcel of land located in a district officially designated in a municipality's master plan, or by zoning ordinance, as a downtown, town center, central business district, or village center, or, where no such designation has been made, in a geographic area which, as a result of its compact development patterns and uses, is identified by the governing body as the downtown, town center, [or] village center, or area of a municipality where revitalization and development would be a public benefit for purposes of this chapter."

> You really think your neighbors' homes has no influence on your home value?

I just don't think that effect justifies giving everyone who lives nearby veto power over property usage.

> I have to ask, are you a home owner?

I am.

> Your statement seems really out of touch with the realities of home appraisals and realestate evaluation.

In some places people are really worried about those effects, and the result tends to be suburban HOAs.

The last couple houses I bought were in areas where the effect is drastically smaller. The last place I lived was a dense urban area where demand was so much higher than supply that even stuff like being next to a major airport had minimal effect on property values. Right now one of my 20 closest neighbors is a pig farm and someone got laughed out of town meeting for suggesting the town adopt a noise ordinance in response to their neighbor firing a literal cannon.