riffler24 t1_j7ngk18 wrote

Yeah, it fails the sniff test all around.

Also like...what's the point of a tiny house that you don't own, isn't the whole point that it allows you to own property without having to put a ton of money down on an overly large house that you can't afford?


riffler24 t1_j7nfp3o wrote

I don't feel it's really any more predatory than normal renting (which is to say, still REALLY predatory), it's just obnoxiously inefficient. You could fit probably 3x the apartments if you made a complex, and even if you are vehemently against that, you could probably fit more people by making them duplexes. Tiny houses are the least efficient way to do rental properties, it just comes across like a PR stunt or something


riffler24 t1_j7mza06 wrote

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.


riffler24 t1_j7myh0j wrote

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


riffler24 t1_j7mvlj1 wrote

Well speaking as a young individual (I hope I can still say that), what I want most of all is to own something I can afford, not rent. $1200 for a ~500 Sqft apartment is about average for the area, but it's still not a good deal. The novelty of your apartment being its own independent building would quickly wear off and you'd have to come to the conclusion that you're essentially overpaying to rent someone's in-law suite, or that you could probably have saved money if these were built as a single building instead of 44 individual ones.

The whole point of a tiny house is to own something compact and low-footprint to save money while still owning your own home, renting kinda takes that away.


riffler24 t1_j7luo49 wrote

I have to wonder the point if it's still rental based. You're basically just making a large number of studio apartments, except less efficient because they all need their own systems and hookups.

I guess the point is to be entirely separate, but that's not really going to solve the housing problem. In the footprint they fit 44 individual tiny homes, you could probably have fit well over 100 apartment units and probably for cheaper too.


riffler24 t1_iwr0sin wrote

I would imagine the process for selecting independent members for redistricting would have to work similarly to jury selection where they look for people who might have ties to the case and keep picking until both prosecution and defense (or in this case, interested political parties) are reasonably satisfied with the choices

Obviously this isn't perfect either, but is probably as close as we're likely to get