Thoughts on Tiny House in backyard for extra income
Using a tiny house as an extra bedroom- no bathroom no kitchen- Good idea or bad idea?
It's the size of a shed, or average bedroom. I'm renting these out as an affordable housing solution. I've designed ones that are on a trailer and ones that can be put up on site in an afternoon.
I've got an ad up on craigslist to find people who might need an extra bedroom in their backyard.
Its a trend that cities are allowing more accessory units in 'single family' residential areas. The reasoning is social justice of course but in reality its simply population pressure and either density needs to start going up or the city in question either keeps sprawling or keeps getting more expensive to live in.
Zoning issues aside, so if the 'tiniest' of these structures (or glorified camping trailers) have no kitchen and bath, how are they rentable either as a detached residence or as an STR? I can see the value in 'pop up' extra space for an office or family room or bedroom, latter case as long as the user doesn't mind running inside to the main house to use the facilities, meanig it would work best with year round mild climate. In a rental case I'm guessing most people would not be interested in those circumstances, and those who would consider the option certainly wouldn't pay a premium for it.
So I guess the question is, when accounting for water, sewer, and electrical hookups, THEN what time to install and what is the ROI? What is the smallest footprint that includes a functional bathroom with shower and a functional kitchenette?
In most places these are considered storage/work sheds and are being illegally used as sleeping rooms. Building code is different for the two. Keep in mind just because people do something doesn't make it legal. It may never be an issue, but if there was a fire or some other litigation, the violation of building code could be used against the owner. Best answer is call your local building/zoning office before doing this. If you are afraid to call them, you already know the answer.
Do you ask for permission or forgiveness? What type of person are you?
My suggestion to people is to just build it, have your disability story ready (tenant is disabled or homeowner is disabled- and caretaker lives in the tiny house), and just go on about your business. You can go for years (or ever) and pay off the tiny house and make some money before getting a knock on the door from the city. And if that happens, 4th amendment applies, and you can still get a retroactive permit, if you want, invoking the Fair Housing Act for disability. And, a 1% disability still counts. It's like being 1% pregnant. And, medical records are PRIVATE. No ding-bat bureaucrat at the "building department" is entitled to a copy under another federal law- HIPAA. You only have to have those records, as evidence, in case you have to flash them to the judge (if it ever gets that far....so far none of my clients have- the city just backs off completely when invoking this law, because they don't feel like getting investigated for HOUSING DISCRIMINATION by the feds, much less fight the DOJ and lose in court, if they want to go there- go read the cases- the city loses EVERY TIME....invoking federal law....it's like garlic to a vampire...the code people hiss, but go away, searching for easier prey).
It's so funny how subservient you all have become to "code" when "code" is not "law." We, as American's, have fallen so far from understanding who we ARE, and instead now take orders from bureaucrats. It was NEVER supposed to be that way. The "out" that I'm giving you is a federal law (superior to any local code under a thing called the constitution- have you ever read it? It's so funny, because few people actually have- it's only 11 pages for Christ's sake...but worse, few people understand the history behind it, or the legal precedents/miracles it created). FEDERAL LAW IS SUPERIOR TO ANY STUPID CITY CODE!!!! Please re-read that sentence if you don't understand.
If you want to apply federal law, you have to ASK, or INVOKE (like sending a letter- I prefer certified) because a code idiot/official will say "I can't give you legal advice." They will tell you NOTHING about federal law exemptions, while happily running you in circles with "code." However, if you do not ASK you do not GET, so play in their sandbox you all will continue to play. If you don't ask for federal protection, then the retard behind the desk will assume you are a government employee, because you didn't say otherwise, so you get CODE, and they will keep the conversation in CODE, because you don't know any better, and neither do they!!!! However, if you ask for "reasonable accommodation" under federal law, you will turn the tables, and now the conversation is "how can the city accommodate me? And further, how can the city do that now that the unit is occupied?" (hint: do you want permission or forgiveness, because you can't have both....well you can...if you ASK). Now that you've REQUESTED, they now have to ACT according to federal law, and CHANGE their "code" if necessary to accommodate the situation- don't believe me? Go read the court cases- I think I mentioned the Boca Raton case....it's excellent.
What's reasonable? Well, that's really up to you, isn't it? Or a court...but it should never get that far, because the city has already given up, usually. So, if you (your tenant living in the tiny house) don't have a dog that bites neighbors, or mental disorder that has you getting into fist fights with your neighbors (either would invoke the "direct threat" exception to the Fair Housing Act), you can basically do WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT, as long as it's "reasonable" to the DISABILITY involved. Seen a "no pets allowed...except service animals" sign lately? Same legal concept ("reasonable accommodation" because to do otherwise would be essentially denying some people the right to shop for groceries). You are just applying the principle to housing.
Why do you think building departments and housing generally are such an expensive PITA?
What we have today is a near perversion of the Common law, and it has been slipped into Equity law. For those who have studied law, this should evoke some nodding heads. One has to ask "Cui Bono" and run down the rabbit hole as to "why?" However, it's a big problem, and the longer that people remain ignorant, and not push-back, more and more rights will be taken away. All of you guys are STUCK in obedience to "authority" (a good movie, by the way, if you can stomach the 45 minutes of exposure by Dr. Milgram, as he demonstrates how average people could kill their neighbor, simply because they are told to...think about it...it happened not that long ago). The Stanford Prison Experiment elicited a similar telling.
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),“A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,).
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” ---Thomas Jefferson “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.” -Lord Acton (ever heard "absolutely power corrupts absolutely?" Same guy)
― Lord Acton
In reply to:
Joe Splitrock (Moderator) - Rental Property Investor from Sioux Falls, SD
replied 6 months ago
In most places these are considered storage/work sheds and are being illegally used as sleeping rooms. Building code is different for the two. Keep in mind just because people do something doesn't make it legal. It may never be an issue, but if there was a fire or some other litigation, the violation of building code could be used against the owner. Best answer is call your local building/zoning office before doing this. If you are afraid to call them, you already know the answer."
That's not necessarily the case. City code is inferior to State law. State law is inferior to federal law under the Supremacy clause of the constitution. If State reps (Congress) vote to make a federal law, then NO State or city is exempt from it. What makes the Fair Housing Act (see MLK history) special, is that the feds are there to defend it. That means with a simple phone call to HUD to complain, the city code department itself gets investigated for interfering with a person having a roof over their head. It's that simple. Once a person is living in the tiny house or "shed" then it becomes their castle, and the city pressuring you to evict the "illegal tenant" becomes a matter of public interest to the feds, if that person living in the shed is your caretaker (takes out the trash because you have a bad back with doctor's note to prove it), or you are over the age of 60 ("apparently disabled" according to courts).
I don't want to argue with people. I have several clients living in these now. Without the disability, then the city can call your unit a "illegal rental."
I'm really surprised everybody doesn't do this. You can discount the rent to someone in need, because of the disability, but that disability (I don't care if it's anxiety disorder- it counts) is what protects that tenancy from being a "illegal rental" under city code, because city code is no longer the prevailing jurisdiction, federal law is. It amazes me how people haven't gotten their heads around the concept. I guess because most people are sheep. They ask for permission...always.
Originally posted by @DAn L.:In reply to:
Joe Splitrock (Moderator) - Rental Property Investor from Sioux Falls, SD
replied 6 months ago
In most places these are considered storage/work sheds and are being illegally used as sleeping rooms. Building code is different for the two. Keep in mind just because people do something doesn't make it legal. It may never be an issue, but if there was a fire or some other litigation, the violation of building code could be used against the owner. Best answer is call your local building/zoning office before doing this. If you are afraid to call them, you already know the answer."
That's not necessarily the case. City code is inferior to State law. State law is inferior to federal law under the Supremacy clause of the constitution. If State reps (Congress) vote to make a federal law, then NO State or city is exempt from it. What makes the Fair Housing Act (see MLK history) special, is that the feds are there to defend it. That means with a simple phone call to HUD to complain, the city code department itself gets investigated for interfering with a person having a roof over their head. It's that simple. Once a person is living in the tiny house or "shed" then it becomes their castle, and the city pressuring you to evict the "illegal tenant" becomes a matter of public interest to the feds, if that person living in the shed is your caretaker (takes out the trash because you have a bad back with doctor's note to prove it), or you are over the age of 60 ("apparently disabled" according to courts).
I don't want to argue with people. I have several clients living in these now. Without the disability, then the city can call your unit a "illegal rental."
I'm really surprised everybody doesn't do this. You can discount the rent to someone in need, because of the disability, but that disability (I don't care if it's anxiety disorder- it counts) is what protects that tenancy from being a "illegal rental" under city code, because city code is no longer the prevailing jurisdiction, federal law is. It amazes me how people haven't gotten their heads around the concept. I guess because most people are sheep. They ask for permission...always.
Most people follow the law and try to avoid liability. You are putting people with disabilities in illegal structures in California? That is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Your theory about Federal law protecting illegal housing is nonsense. Especially in states like California known to ignore federal law (marijuana and immigration are two examples) and they will side in favor or the tenant when something goes wrong. Wait until your tenants are hurt in an earthquake or fire. They can sue you or worse you could be criminally prosecuted for negligent homicide. There is case precedence for this happening.
Talk to your attorney. You think you are outsmarting the system, but you are using false logic. Just because you are "doing it now" doesn't make it legal. It just means you haven't gotten caught or nobody considers it worth their time to stop you right now. Maybe nobody wants to force you to evict a disabled person, but they will be happy to help that person sue you when something goes wrong.