North Las Vegas authorities demolished a community of tiny homes that sheltered the homeless because the 50-square-foot structures didn’t meet the minimum home size required by law or conform to other strict housing regulations. The situation showcases how government often thwarts private solutions to homelessness and poverty.
The tiny homes were built on private property owned by the nonprofit New Leaf Building Community. New Leaf’s structures are small and basic, featuring four walls, one window, and a front door that locks. But despite their small size and lack of amenities, they could be life-changing for people previously living on the streets.
“Now I sleep on the damn sidewalk because of this!” a man who had been living in a New Leaf home told KTNV Las Vegas.
This is from Elizabeth Nolan Brown, “Tiny Homes for Las Vegas Homeless Demolished Over Code Violations,” Reason, August 23, 2022.
More background:
The New Leaf homes were built on private land by volunteers. The idea was to provide homeless people with “a place to call home,” said New Leaf leader Joseph Lankowski. “They had a tiny home where they could lock the door, so then they could actually go out and get services without having to worry about getting your things stolen or anything like that.”
Lankowski raised funds to buy the land after other options failed. In November 2020, the government destroyed 28 tiny homes New Leaf built on public land that had for years housed a homeless encampment. New Leaf then tried building tiny homes on trailers that could be parked in public parking spaces, but police started towing these. “And because their whole argument was property, you know, ‘This is our property. It’s not your property.’ And we said, ‘Okay. We’ll buy our own property,'” he told KNTV.
Read the whole maddening thing.
READER COMMENTS
John hare
Aug 24 2022 at 10:37am
This is maddening. I have occasionally suggested this sort of thing if it were legal. Could build larger and safer than the ones in the article for under $10,000.00 per unit with new materials and professional labor. Could easily half that by using volunteer and surplus materials.
I was thinking 100 sq ft with some electric and water. It could
provide a path for people to work out their own issues and some of them will.
Tom Gussman
Aug 24 2022 at 11:55am
Yet another example of bureaucratic interference witha simple private solution to a complex social problem.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 24 2022 at 1:13pm
Maddening indeed. And it’s just one application of a principle that I’ve seen put into motion time and time again. Some reformer looks at some good or service that’s currently used by the poor or destitute. They decide, based on their own preferences, that this good or service just isn’t “good enough.” And they pass legislation which does nothing to actually increase the opportunities available to the poor or destitute – they just take away the few remaining options such people had. Mike Munger has described very well the problem with the way these reformers think. They see something that strikes them as awful, like living in a tiny 50 square foot hut, and think to themselves “People shouldn’t have to live like this.” And then, in a giant non sequitur, they move straight to “People shouldn’t be allowed to live like this.” The thinking seems to go “Your life is hard, when this lousy situation is the only option available to you, so to make your life better, we are going to take away the one option you had, which is better somehow.”
Johnson85
Aug 25 2022 at 12:53pm
Your description is valid in a lot of instances, but I suspect what is happening here is that other property owners are complaining. Nobody wants a homeless encampment near their house, and having the homeless encampment consist of tiny sheds rather than tents doesn’t make it better. In fact, it maybe makes it worse because it establishes it’s relatively permanent, and not going to be cleared out like a tent city might be.
As abhorrent as this is, I’m not sure how many people I know that would act differently if it were their house that was suddenly 10% (or 20% or more?) less valuable because of the homeless encampment.
David Henderson
Aug 25 2022 at 3:32pm
You write:
I’m not sure whether this is from you or Munger. Either way, it’s well said.
I said something similar in an article defending “sweat shops” in Fortune in 1996. I wrote:
By the way, the U.S. Secretary of Labor at the time, Robert Reich, wrote a letter to Fortune responding to me and I rejoined. Both are here.
Jose Pablo
Aug 25 2022 at 5:41pm
Come on David!, the Secretary of Labor says that the government has (had in 1996) a program (“international”, not less!!) to take young children out of sweatshops and put them in schools.
Have you ever heard of a government program that does not achieve its intended goals? … you can (or could have) rest assured, the 1996 Secretary of Labor says.
Monte
Aug 24 2022 at 4:15pm
Yet another free market solution razed by an overbearing, intrusive government. This is like doing your employees a favor by not giving them a raise in order to prevent them from being pushed into a higher tax bracket. Gee, thanks!
Jose Pablo
Aug 24 2022 at 8:26pm
It is more akin to minimum wage, isn’t it?
Apparently, no home is better than a home smaller than what the regulation set up as a minimum.
We, the People, will let you unemployed or homeless to protect you from exploitation or discomfort.
(You don’t need to thank us. It’s nothing really. We feel better now)
Mark Barbieri
Aug 24 2022 at 6:17pm
What drives a decision like this? Who wins? Does someone benefit by these people losing their homes?
David Henderson
Aug 25 2022 at 3:32pm
Johnson85 in his comment above suggests a winner. I have no idea whether he’s right.
Tom Means
Aug 26 2022 at 6:29pm
The Government solution for providing housing to low income people is to provide them with a brand new high quality house. Somehow this solution doesn’t apply to cars, clothing, or food. We allow markets for low priced used cars, we allow stores to sell used clothing, and we allow non-profits to set up soup kitchens. For whatever reasons, local government bureaucrats want to have developers provide new housing that is subsidized and price-controlled. Some city officials have begun to realize you can build more lower quality homes, like a tent city, and house more people , than just providing one mansion for some lucky lottery winner to receive. While some may say, they don’t want to see poor people living in such squalor, why don’t they feel the same way when they see people driving old used cars, wearing old raggedy used clothing, and eating in a soup kitchen.
David Henderson
Aug 27 2022 at 2:55pm
Well said, Tom.
Comments are closed.