by Buford Baby Boy Travis
Heard of those Tiny Homes? They’ve become a big trend recently, as more and more Americans begin to question our oversized lifestyles. The term generally refers to living quarters of less than 200 sq. feet that are typically well designed to maximize space. Many, but not all, are put on trailers and are made to be quite attractive. From rich folks who can drop $55,000 on a prebuilt micro-house, to homeless advocates who build them for $5,000 or less, they are challenging the American notion that in order to have a place to call home you need a mortgage and a full time job to pay your heating bill.
In May of this year, Westword--our local arts, culture and politics rag--printed an article about Denver Homeless Out Loud’s (DHOL’s) Tiny Home Working Group--See “Could tiny houses solve a big problem in Denver?” on westword.com--It was about 90% correct –pretty darn good for the press! All in all, Kyle, the writer, did a respectful piece, but there were a few problems which I wish to address here.
First off, the article focused way too much on me, and made me out to be a quasi-saint of sorts who saves the world and spent some time with his Grandma in Indiana. I thought the article would be on homeless people, and as anyone in DHOL can tell you, I’m no saint, just a big grumpy turd. And my grandma is from Illinois, thank you.
Secondly, fellow DHOL friend, Frank, was characterized slanderously. I won’t get into the details of how – but just know that Frank’s a lot better than he is depicted in that article.
Thirdly, the article stated that I, a currently housed person, would be the first recipient of a DHOL Tiny Home. What that leads the reader to assume is that DHOL is paying for a house that I will eventually live in, instead of building homes for people who need it. The truth is, my fiancé and I decided to build a Tiny Home right around the time DHOL was getting interested in building them. So we invited whoever wanted to, to come over and drink our coffee and beer, eat our pizza, play with power tools if they wanted, and have conversations about how we can get more tiny homes built for folks who have no home. And, to be clear, we never asked for a dime.
So why not build more? Because we have no land. At the time the article was written, our Tiny House barely fit on the property we were building on. We’re reaching out to neighbors, churches and community groups to try and acquire places to put them, but so far, no one has been able to commit to it. And the reason that no one has been able to commit, I think, is what the Westword article should have been about: housing policy and how it affects homelessness.
Part 1: The Untold Story
Here’s a little, far too simplified and condensed, overview of housing policy and its effects on homelessness in America:
1933 – Government estimates 1.5 million homeless individuals in America.
1934 – Government rolls out New Deal with well-funded housing programs.
1940 until 1980 – Housing program works (for the most part). Government says homeless population stayed at a consistent low of 100,000 people throughout these four decades (even as total population grew).
The Big Change - 1978 to 1983 – US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gets its low-income housing budget slashed from $83 Billion to $13 Billion.
Cause and Effect - 1980 to 1989 – Homelessness triples in size – up to 300,000 people counted by HUD in ‘89.
1990’s – Homelessness doubles again, up to 600,000 people counted. HUD budget still diminished.
Today – Over 3.5 Million Americans homeless for at least some time each year. Federal Low Income Housing Budget roughly half of what it was in 1978 - $45 Billion
Zoning Codes and other regulations– After White Flight began in the 1950’s, and many affluent people began building gigantic housing in the suburbs, building codes and HOA rules became stricter to regulate new construction. The ‘90’s and early 2000’s housing boom made regulations even stricter, forcing developers and home builders to build bigger and bigger. Denver now requires new construction to be at least 1000 sq. feet, bedrooms have to be 100 sq. feet, and living rooms have to be at least 150 sq. feet. (Neither I, nor the dog I share a bedroom with in our 1890’s house ever complain about our meager 72 sq. feet.)
New Urbanism and Urban Displacement - At some point, people figured out that living in a cul-de-sac in the suburbs, commuting an hour to work each way and shopping at Walmart was lame, boring, and not very “sustainable;” so began the new White Migration, called “New Urbanism,” where everybody wanted a “greener,” more walkable life in the city center. This form of “sustainability,” of course, didn’t include poor people. Because of this “new urbanism,” most of the old inner city neighborhoods that people moved to because they were quirky and interesting, became less and less so as poor people were pushed out of them by greener-minded “entrepreneurs.” These “new urbanites” also pushed for tighter regulations of their communities, and particularly public spaces, helping usher in the new age of criminalizing homelessness by making it illegal to do basic acts of survival, like lying down.
The result: Today, if you live in Denver, you probably can’t afford housing. Any rent burden that is greater than 30% of your income is considered unaffordable by HUD. In Denver, if you work full time at minimum wage, you make $1280 a month before taxes, but a one bedroom averages $1040/per month. So why not build your own house like people have done for millennia? Because it’s ridiculously expensive to build “up to code,” and it’s illegal to build reasonably sized structures. So what do you do? There aren’t enough shelter options or housing vouchers, so you might just wind up being one of the roughly 4,000 people stuck outside on any given night. But if you try to cover yourself to stay warm with anything other than your clothes, you run the risk of the cops running you off or arresting you for violating the camping ban.
Part 2: A Tiny Solution
Anyone who’s studied homelessness on a systemic level knows that creating more housing options for unhoused people is the most effective way to actually end homelessness. It’s also cheaper than keeping people in a desperate cycle of emergency shelter stays, emergency room visits and jail stints that are caused by a hard life subsisting on the streets. But the federal housing budget is diminished and local government won’t allocate enough funding for housing.
So what if people took the housing crisis into their own hands? A few days before Christmas, 2000, a group of unhoused people in Portland, Oregon did just that. They first created a tent city underneath a bridge near the court house, and were going to stay there until the city gave them a better alternative. Immediately this caused a controversy with passionate supporters and critics alike raising their voices. A heated standoff ensued between the city and the “campground” that was protected under the First Amendment. Thankfully, many of the residents of the campground were also well-spoken advocates. Eventually, the city offered the group of unhoused people a piece of property just north of downtown where they were given the right to build their own housing. Fairly soon, people donated materials and labor, and residents began designing and constructing their own homes.
Today, 60 units--each custom designed and built to the specific needs of the residents--make up Dignity Village. They share common facilities (including kitchen and bathrooms) and maintain a garden together. Residents make up the council that regulates the property, and each person offers 10 hours a week to make the place better. At Dignity Village, each dwelling has its own door and privacy, and populations that are generally underserved are welcome – including couples without children, transgendered folks, and people with pets. And to top it off, they are able to offer dignity to a lot of people while staying within a smaller budget than any other housing program in Portland. Many express a sense of ownership over the space, and there is a waiting list for each house, because people prefer this model over the overcrowded shelters in town which don’t cater to the specific populations of people that make up Portland’s homeless community.
Dignity Village is such a beautiful model, and the houses are so attractive, it’s started a revolution around the country. From Austin, to Madison, Eugene, Fresno and Olympia, more and more cities are attempting different models of tiny home communities, each with the emphasis on creating a more dignified alternative to overcrowded shelter options and brutal weather on the streets. Why shouldn’t this happen in Denver too?
DHOL would like to help make “Little Denver” (or “Dignified Denver”) a reality. We recently acquired a new building site for tiny home construction and we’re excited to get started on another house. Sure, there’s still the problem of not having any land to put them on when they’re built, and we’re expecting a few complications from the city, but where there’s a will, there has to be a way. Everyone deserves a home, period.
In May of this year, Westword--our local arts, culture and politics rag--printed an article about Denver Homeless Out Loud’s (DHOL’s) Tiny Home Working Group--See “Could tiny houses solve a big problem in Denver?” on westword.com--It was about 90% correct –pretty darn good for the press! All in all, Kyle, the writer, did a respectful piece, but there were a few problems which I wish to address here.
First off, the article focused way too much on me, and made me out to be a quasi-saint of sorts who saves the world and spent some time with his Grandma in Indiana. I thought the article would be on homeless people, and as anyone in DHOL can tell you, I’m no saint, just a big grumpy turd. And my grandma is from Illinois, thank you.
Secondly, fellow DHOL friend, Frank, was characterized slanderously. I won’t get into the details of how – but just know that Frank’s a lot better than he is depicted in that article.
Thirdly, the article stated that I, a currently housed person, would be the first recipient of a DHOL Tiny Home. What that leads the reader to assume is that DHOL is paying for a house that I will eventually live in, instead of building homes for people who need it. The truth is, my fiancé and I decided to build a Tiny Home right around the time DHOL was getting interested in building them. So we invited whoever wanted to, to come over and drink our coffee and beer, eat our pizza, play with power tools if they wanted, and have conversations about how we can get more tiny homes built for folks who have no home. And, to be clear, we never asked for a dime.
So why not build more? Because we have no land. At the time the article was written, our Tiny House barely fit on the property we were building on. We’re reaching out to neighbors, churches and community groups to try and acquire places to put them, but so far, no one has been able to commit to it. And the reason that no one has been able to commit, I think, is what the Westword article should have been about: housing policy and how it affects homelessness.
Part 1: The Untold Story
Here’s a little, far too simplified and condensed, overview of housing policy and its effects on homelessness in America:
1933 – Government estimates 1.5 million homeless individuals in America.
1934 – Government rolls out New Deal with well-funded housing programs.
1940 until 1980 – Housing program works (for the most part). Government says homeless population stayed at a consistent low of 100,000 people throughout these four decades (even as total population grew).
The Big Change - 1978 to 1983 – US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gets its low-income housing budget slashed from $83 Billion to $13 Billion.
Cause and Effect - 1980 to 1989 – Homelessness triples in size – up to 300,000 people counted by HUD in ‘89.
1990’s – Homelessness doubles again, up to 600,000 people counted. HUD budget still diminished.
Today – Over 3.5 Million Americans homeless for at least some time each year. Federal Low Income Housing Budget roughly half of what it was in 1978 - $45 Billion
Zoning Codes and other regulations– After White Flight began in the 1950’s, and many affluent people began building gigantic housing in the suburbs, building codes and HOA rules became stricter to regulate new construction. The ‘90’s and early 2000’s housing boom made regulations even stricter, forcing developers and home builders to build bigger and bigger. Denver now requires new construction to be at least 1000 sq. feet, bedrooms have to be 100 sq. feet, and living rooms have to be at least 150 sq. feet. (Neither I, nor the dog I share a bedroom with in our 1890’s house ever complain about our meager 72 sq. feet.)
New Urbanism and Urban Displacement - At some point, people figured out that living in a cul-de-sac in the suburbs, commuting an hour to work each way and shopping at Walmart was lame, boring, and not very “sustainable;” so began the new White Migration, called “New Urbanism,” where everybody wanted a “greener,” more walkable life in the city center. This form of “sustainability,” of course, didn’t include poor people. Because of this “new urbanism,” most of the old inner city neighborhoods that people moved to because they were quirky and interesting, became less and less so as poor people were pushed out of them by greener-minded “entrepreneurs.” These “new urbanites” also pushed for tighter regulations of their communities, and particularly public spaces, helping usher in the new age of criminalizing homelessness by making it illegal to do basic acts of survival, like lying down.
The result: Today, if you live in Denver, you probably can’t afford housing. Any rent burden that is greater than 30% of your income is considered unaffordable by HUD. In Denver, if you work full time at minimum wage, you make $1280 a month before taxes, but a one bedroom averages $1040/per month. So why not build your own house like people have done for millennia? Because it’s ridiculously expensive to build “up to code,” and it’s illegal to build reasonably sized structures. So what do you do? There aren’t enough shelter options or housing vouchers, so you might just wind up being one of the roughly 4,000 people stuck outside on any given night. But if you try to cover yourself to stay warm with anything other than your clothes, you run the risk of the cops running you off or arresting you for violating the camping ban.
Part 2: A Tiny Solution
Anyone who’s studied homelessness on a systemic level knows that creating more housing options for unhoused people is the most effective way to actually end homelessness. It’s also cheaper than keeping people in a desperate cycle of emergency shelter stays, emergency room visits and jail stints that are caused by a hard life subsisting on the streets. But the federal housing budget is diminished and local government won’t allocate enough funding for housing.
So what if people took the housing crisis into their own hands? A few days before Christmas, 2000, a group of unhoused people in Portland, Oregon did just that. They first created a tent city underneath a bridge near the court house, and were going to stay there until the city gave them a better alternative. Immediately this caused a controversy with passionate supporters and critics alike raising their voices. A heated standoff ensued between the city and the “campground” that was protected under the First Amendment. Thankfully, many of the residents of the campground were also well-spoken advocates. Eventually, the city offered the group of unhoused people a piece of property just north of downtown where they were given the right to build their own housing. Fairly soon, people donated materials and labor, and residents began designing and constructing their own homes.
Today, 60 units--each custom designed and built to the specific needs of the residents--make up Dignity Village. They share common facilities (including kitchen and bathrooms) and maintain a garden together. Residents make up the council that regulates the property, and each person offers 10 hours a week to make the place better. At Dignity Village, each dwelling has its own door and privacy, and populations that are generally underserved are welcome – including couples without children, transgendered folks, and people with pets. And to top it off, they are able to offer dignity to a lot of people while staying within a smaller budget than any other housing program in Portland. Many express a sense of ownership over the space, and there is a waiting list for each house, because people prefer this model over the overcrowded shelters in town which don’t cater to the specific populations of people that make up Portland’s homeless community.
Dignity Village is such a beautiful model, and the houses are so attractive, it’s started a revolution around the country. From Austin, to Madison, Eugene, Fresno and Olympia, more and more cities are attempting different models of tiny home communities, each with the emphasis on creating a more dignified alternative to overcrowded shelter options and brutal weather on the streets. Why shouldn’t this happen in Denver too?
DHOL would like to help make “Little Denver” (or “Dignified Denver”) a reality. We recently acquired a new building site for tiny home construction and we’re excited to get started on another house. Sure, there’s still the problem of not having any land to put them on when they’re built, and we’re expecting a few complications from the city, but where there’s a will, there has to be a way. Everyone deserves a home, period.
RSS Feed
