Imagine that you are exploring this area. You find a 5 acre wooded lot in a "restricted" subdivision, on the bluff overlooking a beautiful lake. You build your dream house, which conforms to all building standards and requirements, and you pay your property taxes.
Soon after you move in, the developer leases a nearby lot to an anonymous buyer who sets up a portable building with a porta-john in the front yard to live in. Several of his friends also set up similar dwellings on "his lot".
Portable bldg as dwelling, smoking chimney
So you call the developer, and they say they are "not responsible". You call County code enforcement, and they say they "lack authority".
Months later, you find out this is a gang of meth dealers. Not a pretty picture, is it?
Current code enforcement and penalties for violations are inadequate. Current procedures apply only to "permitted structures", not portable buildings or old motor homes. Current rules allow indefinite use of a portable toilet instead of a septic system.
The developer sells (leases) lots to buyers (tenants) on a lease-to-own "land contract". This allows the tenant immediate use of residential land at minimal cost. There is no background check, the tenant's name is hidden by the contract, and there is little risk of eviction.
The developer has no financial incentive to enforce the stated "restrictions". They can sell to an unqualified buyer, collect the payments, wait for default, then re-sell the same lot over and over again.
This combination creates an ideal safe haven for drug dealers, fugitives, and other criminal activity.
Residential Standards Ignored
No person anywhere in this county should be living in a substandard shack or an old motorhome with a porta-john in the front yard, whether inside a subdivision or not.
Failure to enforce minimum residential health and safety standards has allowed the spread of unregulated, unsafe, untaxed dwellings. Failure to enforce building codes and to penalize violators has caused those rules to be ignored.
Why should homeowners and taxpayers have to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis? This is a county-wide problem which requires a county-wide solution.
In the example above, two adults and a child were living and sleeping in a small, combustible portable building, during the winter heating season, using a wood-burning stove with a chimney through the wall. The landlord claims he is "not responsible", and the County says it "lacks authority" to act.
If that unregulated, unsafe dwelling had burned down, and County firefighters had to pull the charred bodies from the remains, what would the excuse be then?
Trailer fire
According to the State Fire Marshal Office, which licenses all building inspectors: "Fire safety should be a priority in all dwellings. Fires move quicker in smaller spaces, leaving occupants with less time to escape. When a fire breaks out, a matter of seconds can be the difference between life and death."
Health and safety standards are being ignored, and lives are at risk. The property values of responsible homeowners are being degraded. The County image as a safe and attractive residential area has been damaged. Crime rates and enforcement costs have been increased. Property tax revenue is being lost.
(Note: For code sections listed see Code Reference page. For housing and RV standards see Support Docs page.)
The County has adopted the International Residential Code, and the related fire safety, plumbing and electrical codes. It has the authority to enforce these health, safety and quality standards on any structure used as a "residential dwelling", no matter where it is located or how it was built (see TCA 5-20-102).
State law prohibits the modification of any portable building ("ready removable") for use as a dwelling at any time (see TCA 68-126-311).
The County can also prohibit the occupancy of a "recreational vehicle" as a residential dwelling, which is not designed or approved for that purpose. An RV is "designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy" (see CFR Title 24, Sec 3282.15). It can also prohibit the residential use of a portable toilet, which is not intended for that purpose.
The County has the separate authority to regulate "all things whatsoever" related to health and safety under the authorization granted by TCA 5-1-118 and TCA 6-2-201, which states that the County has the power to "define, prohibit and regulate all acts, practices, conduct, uses of property and all other things whatsoever liable to be detrimental to the health, morals, comfort, safety, or welfare of the inhabitants".
The County commission can adopt whatever resolution it chooses in order to exercise this authority, and it has the moral responsibility to do so.
See the draft resolution and the proposed rule and procedure changes. Relevant citations from the Tennessee Code which even a non-lawyer can understand are included. Objections to the proposed rule changes are answered.
Either the elected representatives haven't read the law for themselves, or something else is preventing them from exercising their authority.
Every time the issue of residential health and safety standards has been mentioned, the first excuse trotted out is "subdivision restrictions", which the County does not enforce; followed by "zoning", which does not apply; and finally "lack of resources". None of these are valid excuses.
Why is it that whenever "county powers" are mentioned, this is limited to cleaning up trash piles? Aren't people living in firetrap portable buildings more important than trash piles?
Isn't routing out a meth dealer living in a motor home on a leased lot, or hiding out in a portable building in someone's back yard, more important? What about the schoolkids in those neighborhoods?
What about the homeowners who have to pick up the bill for these freeloaders who pay no property taxes and drive down the property values? What about the County "resources" that are being squandered by sloppy permitting and lax code enforcement procedures?
Have a look at the unregulated, unsafe, untaxed dwellings in the photos below, which are located in the example subdivision. Imagine these model homes and their model tenants living in your own neighborhood, along with the ripe odor of portable toilets.
Now imagine an entire "tiny house" village of such dwellings. What County rule or regulation would stop it?
Subdivision projects are approved based on the expectation that the specified housing standards will be maintained by the developer, and that the projected property tax revenue will be sufficient to pay for maintaining the roads and utilities; providing police, fire and ambulance services; etc.
Tenants living on leased lots in old motorhomes with porta-johns in the yard may be profitable for the developer, but they pay no property taxes. How does this support "regional planning" goals? Is this a "residential subdivision" or is it an unlicensed campground?
The developer who leases the lots in the example subdivision owns thousands of acres of undeveloped Putnam County property. What rule would stop him from continuing this practice?
In the example subdivision, there is a nice home on several acres worth $300,000. Across the street is an unrestricted 5 acre wooded lot with a long road frontage. The realtor says it is "ideal for subdividing".
Suppose that I decide to buy that land. I cut and sell all the trees. I use the money to lease 50 portable buildings and several porta-johns, then set them up. I advertise my "tiny house village" on the internet with a YouTube video. I offer the housing free of charge to anyone with an EBT card and a criminal record.
What County rule or regulation would stop me?
Suppose I decide to use old motorhomes or camping trailers or "tiny houses" for my project instead of portable buildings. What would stop me then?
What if I paint one of the buildings white and call it a "church"? Would my project then be exempt from regulation and property taxes?
Tiny house village, Portland OR
Tiny house village, Seattle WA
Here's a story about a similar "do-gooder" project in Seattle, with the predictable result:
"Allowing drugs at a tiny house village didn't work. So why is the city trying it again? Dealing with drug-addicted homeless people living on the streets is difficult, because traditional shelters won't take them. But the city's attempt to do it on the cheap at a 'tiny house village' was a bust. The city announced it will close the village of tents and shed-sized 'tiny houses'. Too many inhabitants camped there for more than a year. The camp became a magnet for drug dealers and other users. Police calls in the area spiked over 60 percent in the year after the camp moved in."
Some cities, including New York, have even started exporting thousands of these surplus "homeless persons" to clear out their overpriced, overcrowed shelters and transfer the cost to other communities:
"NYC has sent local homeless families to 373 cities across the country with a full year of rent in their pockets as part of Mayor Bill de Blasio's "Special One-Time Assistance Program." Usually, the receiving city knows nothing about it.... DHS defends the high costs, saying it actually saves the city on shelter funding, which amounts to about $41,000 annually per family..."
Here's another project in Nashville, sponsored by a tax-exempt church group abusing "religious privilege" as the legal excuse to bypass local regulations and neighborhood objections for their pet project:
"Open Table Nashville, a nonprofit group that advocates for low-income, affordable housing, is leading efforts to create the 'Village at Glencliff'... The 20 'micro homes' are planned for a small portion of Glencliff United Methodist Church's 6 acre property (see photo). Some Glencliff area residents had questions about safety, security, and quality of the planned micro homes...[and] feel like the project is being forced on them... Open Table director McIntyre said "It was our dream to have this and it's finally coming to fruition...Certainly not everybody is going to be as excited as we are."
Nearby homeowners filed a legal challenge to the project, but in April 2019 the Court of Appeals decided that it was "religiously motivated and constitutes the exercise of religion" and therefore exempt from the "substantial burden" of zoning compliance. The Open Table group, based at the Glencliff church, lists several real estate companies as financial sponsors.
One group's "dream" is now another's nightmare. Homeowners who followed the rules and paid their taxes all these years are now stuck with a high-density vagrant camp right in their backyards.
But the tiny house movement is not limited to vagrants, drug dealers and well-financed "non-profit" organizations.
YouTube features thousands of tiny house video tours promoting the rent-free, tax-free, rule-free lifestyle. One channel has over 2 million subscribers. They make "minimalist living" seem stylish and trendy, until you consider the health, safety and quality issues.
Watch some of these videos to see what is coming, from bad to worse:
Tiny house kits and plans can now be ordered online.
"The Allwood Getaway Cabin has 300 sq ft inside floor area plus a sleeping loft. By adding the utility hookups this cabin can be converted to a residence." See photos of the firetrap sleeping loft in this "tiny house", with two beds, a crawl-through entry, and a 4 ft maximum ceiling height: Allwood Getaway Cabin Kit.
Many equally unsafe "tiny house" models are built on trailer frames to provide mobility and to avoid code restrictions: "Towable tiny houses were designed under the Recreational Vehicle rules to get around the building codes, but even the RV rules never allowed permanent occupancy." -- Tree Hugger article
Then there are the up-market "camper vans" popular with trendy urbanites who think nothing of parking wherever they like and dumping their wastewater wherever it is convenient:
"New rules in San Francisco make it illegal for people to sleep in their cars overnight, but that isn't stopping thousands of people from living in RVs and vans... While showing ABC 7 how the toilet works, Novotny said 'You just take this to your nearest Starbucks or behind a tree and pour it out,'. San Francisco officials counted nearly 1,800 people living in their vehicles in 2019, a 45% jump from 2017."
UPDATE: Here's a first-hand story about how failed policies to control "van living" in Los Angeles are threatening the lives of taxpaying citizens:
"In response to the COVID pandemic, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and his council relaxed parking enforcement codes... Some considered such restrictions to be cruel to the 'vehicle-dwelling homeless'... Mayor Garcetti has simply ignored the human results of his failed policy. As a result, whole sections of the city, including formerly livable streets in my beloved Venice, have been turned into Skid Row by the Sea."
-- Quillette article, "L.A.'s Failed Homeless Policies Turned My Home Into a Prison" (Sep 2020)
UPDATE: Another report from Venice Beach, where vagrant criminals living in RVs have taken over the streets, doing whatever they please:
"'It's a world gone mad," said one Venice resident... "It's our own making, too. I'm a liberal, a Democrat, and we voted for these measures... There's no repercussions for these guys, and they know it"... The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department 'homeless outreach' team conducted a cleanup of the sidewalk surrounding the RVs, but the department won't force them to move... "This is not just a local homeless problem," said another. "This is a problem about out-of-state transients and drug dealers/users moving in..." Since 2020, homeless-related robberies were up by 260 percent and assaults with a deadly weapon were up by 118 percent."
Epoch Times article, "A World Gone Mad: The Venice Homeless Crisis" (Nov 2021)
UPDATE: Here's another story about stealth camper vans parked on city streets, being used as AirBnb rentals in New York. Why not collect cash rent instead, so no one can find out who the tenants are?
"Authorities in Manhattan seized seven 'illegally documented' camper vans that have served as Airbnb rentals for the last two years... The investigation began when a YouTuber posted a video of his experience of sleeping in one of the vans overnight in the East Village... Another boasted about 'glamping in a spacious camper van in NYC'... The one significant concern guests had was no bathroom accommodations were included in the stay. They were told by the 'host' to use facilities at local bars and restaurants."
What County rule would prevent any property from being converted into a "tiny house" village? Or an RV squatter camp? If the rule exists, then why wasn't it enforced when the gang of meth dealers and their multiple dwellings were reported to County authorities?
The proposed rule and procedure changes would allow the County to control the spread of unregulated, unsafe, untaxed dwellings, and the growing wave of drifters from outside the region.
(Note that a real "tiny house" is a site-built structure less than 400 sq ft which complies with the International Residential Code, unlike the unregulated structures mentioned above. See "What is a Tiny House?")
Model Homes Gallery
(Includes actual past and present examples from "restricted" County subdivisions)
