Back

Alternative Housing Plans are Too Conservative
Published Saturday, August 9, 1997

The Nevada County Board of Supervisors is attempting to resolve some alternative housing issues.  Mostly, that means “unpermitted” homes.  Their plan proposes reducing or waiving fees and providing financial assistance to low-income applicants.  Therefore, it’s ultimately a fee-recovery plan, like provided amnesty to illegal aliens to induce them to become solid tax paying citizens.
 
So the county will turn a blind eye (for a limited time) to get some property owners into the tax system.  An article on the front page of The Union on August 4th states, “Critics of the plan, however, argue that owners of unpermitted homes should pay their fair share, just like every one else..”  Under this plan, they eventually will.  It’s a good idea, as far as it goes.
 
Another part of the plan would allow qualified recreational vehicles to be used as granny units.  This makes great sense and legalizes what some people do anyway.  I don’t think there should be serious objection if I want to house my 80-year-old mother in a little RV at the back of my house.  Further, we might as well get with the program, because current and future technology will bring us more “granny” housing variants:  mini-homes on wheels, styrofoam dome housing, etc.
 
I’m sure the county will even work out how squeeze money out of the RV arrangement.  Still, a pretty good idea, as far as it goes.
 
No doubt some people will be critical of these “liberal” policies, somehow reasoning that an RV parked behind a house on Willow Valley Road will lower their property values in Alta Sierra.  That makes no sense.  And wouldn’t it be funny if those who want strict regulation of housing are also those who go on forever about “getting the government off our backs.”
 
Anyway, the plan isn’t liberal; in fact, it doesn’t go far enough.
 
It seems to exclude those who like to live in lean-tos, tents, or camper shells.  What’s wrong with that?  As I recall, Ananda started as a settlement of teepees.  In our outlying districts, I suspect a number of people are just fine with their very alternate housing, water sources and pit privies.
 
Further, I know of one family who grew up in North San Juan with housing that would have distressed the Planning Department no end.  Somehow, parents and children turned out to be good, decent people.
 
As far as I know, the plan excludes certifying homes with composting toilets, even though they are well thought of in other countries.  One couple I know installed conventional toilets simply to get a Certificate of Habitability (I think that’s what it’s called).  Immediately after, they tore it out and put in the composting toilet.
 
Current alternative housing plans will do nothing to encourage innovation.  What if classical Japanese construction or architectural wonders don’t conform to some narrow regulations?  I imagine Thomas Jefferson would have a tough time building Monticello in Nevada County today.  Aside from the mitigation fees (a whole different issue), his ideas would be too innovative.  I can hear the building inspector telling him, “Tom, you designed this house yourself, and we don’t trust that.  And that dumbwaiter!  We’ve never seen one, so it must not be up to code!”
 
Granted, one of the toughest jobs the Nevada County Board of Supervisors has is implementing the public’s will about land use.  To this day, there’s no grand consensus on the best ways to grow (or not grow).
 
We need real agreement on the general density of residential development.  We need to review what structures are safe and appropriate.  Further, what fees should be extracted from us, either through our taxes, or through the mitigation fees the developer passes on to us in the sale price of a home?
 
Expect to see our housing policies developed by means of a series of slim majorities.  On any given day, Supervisors Dardick, Van Zant, and Antonson will vote for a liberal alternate housing ordinance.  The next day, Grattan, Knecht, and Antonson will vote for liberal developer aid.  Although neither vote will drive the county to ruin, extremists of both sides will swear it’s so.
 
The ultimate question we must ask government is, “How much are you going to be in my face over how I shelter myself?”  In a free society, let people live as they wish.
 
Barry Schoenborn is a technical writer, and a ten-year resident of Nevada County. You can write to him at barry@wvswrite.com. The opinions of columnists are not necessarily those of The Union.
 

Back