Fitzgerald: A big idea: tiny homes

The most interesting idea to emerge from the mayor’s race so far is Michael Tubbs’ proposal to use “tiny homes” to help solve Stockton’s deplorable homeless problem.

Tubbs, a council member, drafted codes that permit tiny homes — 440 square feet or less — to be built near the shelters and dining hall. The Council has yet to vote on his proposal.

To be clear, Tubbs does not propose building tiny homes at taxpayer expense; only to permit them, should anyone want to build them, as nonprofits elsewhere have done.

Tubbs’ modest step is a good one. Yet we are left for the time being with a policy skeleton. It would be interesting to see how the bare bones could be fleshed out.

So I called up to Seattle. Seattle has numerous tiny house communities for its homeless. One is in the Othello neighborhood: a lot filled with tiny homes and tents.

The 18 tiny homes in Othello Village were built by the homeless and volunteers. Access is restricted to keep residents and property safe. The village is self-governed.

A nonprofit oversees. Churches support. Drugs and alcohol are forbidden. Newcomers start in tents to see if they can follow the rules. Those who can’t are kicked out.

Residents must pull four-hour security shifts to police the village. And do other chores. There are bathrooms and showers, and a common area where people socialize.

What do the homeless think of it?

“I think it’s great,” said Dustin, there with his family of five. “We got a lot of families here with kids and stuff, and we kind of watch over each other's families.”

Othello Village is not a permanent solution. Case workers help people untangle their issues. On an average of 90 days, the homeless are steered into permanent housing.

Thanks to the village, “I can get into low-income housing that’s reflective of my take-home pay,” said a second man, Lyle. “Then I can start paying child support. That’s my goal.”

I’m sure it’s not all sweetness and light. Yet if Tubbs’ code revision is the first step toward a similar village, then we’re looking at a smart and compassionate solution.

Only a partial solution, for sure. But more serious and effective than the publicity stunts pulled by the mayor.

And why stop there? Why shouldn't anyone have the right to live in a tiny house?

Currently, state and city building and zoning codes prohibit tiny homes (including so-called “micro homes” of 150 sqare feet or less, unless they’re on wheels like a house trailer).

Those regulations are obsolete as eight-track cassettes. Rules for McMansion culture.

Tiny homes are sensible. If you’ve ever walked through an Ikea, you see many live-work spaces scaled to 350 square feet or so. Ikea may have been thinking apartments, but that’s a tiny home.

Such homes needn’t sacrifice style: top architects have created showpiece tiny house designs.

Owners consume far less energy. They reduce their footprint on our world-class farmland. Being affordable — even cheaper if you DIY one from a kit — the homes allow homeowners to escape the debtor’s prison of a 30-year mortgage.

Community Development Director David Kwong conceded there may be a place in Stockton for tiny homes.

“I think they could be supportive of sustainability goals and density goals, but they do have to be in the right location,” Kwong said.

Meaning, I guess, that some neighborhoods might reject tiny homes as an intrusion of Pixie Woods. Survey of neighborhood sentiment can be part of groundwork for appropriate code and zoning revisions.

I’m with the Republicans on this one — including young Abe Lincoln, whose log cabin might have qualified as a tiny home. If I want to live in a tiny home, no red tape should stop me.

— Contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/fitzgeraldblog and on Twitter@Stocktonopolis.