1) It's tiny
2) There's no water
3) It's not buildable given current zoning
4) Utilities are miles away / cost to attain utilities is prohibitive
Even in my area, where we still have lots of open acreage, the cost of bare land has jumped considerably in part due to zoning - yes we have land, but local authorities aren't going to let you start carving up farm land for subdivisions. There's a middle ground here and I'm glad that's the case rather than it being 100% preserve or 100% build.
2) Is only a barrier in rural areas, otherwise hauling in water into a tank is still a lot better than being homeless / having all your wealth extracted by a landlord.
3) is merely an artificial restriction created by the government. We shouldn't be restricting property owners from building a residence.
4) If you're already ok with living far from anything you can already find a few counties in the US with virtually unrestricted building codes and zoning, so this is a non issue.
I have found some land that only suffers from (1) and (2) and (4), that is close to a city, and has no building codes in a western state. It's been a long haul getting there because there are so few places in the US that allows it, and this is the only county in the country next to jobs I've been able to find it. Believe me, I understand, and truly lament how much we hate for people to freely build their homes here. We'll probably move there within the next 5 years, but it would have been a hell of a lot easier if everywhere was like that so I didn't have to slowly acquire jobs and contacts closer and closer to the one area like this. And now that I've _finally_ acquired the contacts in this area, and a job reasonably close, and my partner has obtained all the credentials to work in the area, they are talking about closing off the option of self certification of meeting code here! So we will be back to square one. This is how people get locked out of every owning a home, because frankly my family can scarcely afford to even rent a badly run down home in a bad part of town where we live currently.
You watch property prices rise and rise, the number of places allow bypassing codes dwindle. And then some asshole comes around saying "Well the codes and zoning are there to keep you safe!" What about all the years lost working to buy that "safe" house? It's better to risk a 1/20 death in a horrible house fire than it is the certainty I'll lose 1/10th of my life completely if I slave away to buy a slightly safer house. And these people also don't seem to realize I have an incentive to not kill myself or anyone else, code or no code.
[1] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/55-Panoram...
the problem is that in our desirable cities, where people want to live (as evidenced by high prices per sq ft) we have more or less stopped the natural progression of single family houses into low-rise buildings, low-rise into mid-rise, and mid into high-rise.
I know some guy in Manhattan is going to tell me "but it cost 0.5M for a 1000 sq ft plot here, and only 0.4M for a condo" Which may be correct, but for the many of us living in lower density cities that still have tons of jobs like Kansas City, Dallas, or Omaha there's still a huge delta between the value of a small plot of land + 10k to build yurt/cabin and the price of a condo. That reflects the economic efficiency of the owner built small structure vs the condo in these areas.
Living out in the sticks has the same economic problem as you either have to be rich, retired, or score a very rare lucrative job to come out ahead. The economic cost is as high or higher than the new high-rise condo, it's just hidden behind opportunity cost.
I really challenge you to find the percent of population living in an area where raw land enough for a small structure is more expensive than a condo. It's a very small percent.
Building codes, or zoning requirements? Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc. While the requirement for indoor plumbing adds a small amount of cost to a dwelling, the zoning requirements (min, max square footage, setbacks, parking requirements, etc) are a substantially larger impact I think.
I'm pretty far on the personal liberty scale, but I don't think it's reasonable to allow outhouses or permanent portajohns in a high population density area.
>Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc.
Yes these things are all should be tossed out. If I'm a 60 pound midget I don't need the same means of egress as you; if I haul in water I may not need plumbing at all and maybe I only clean out the cat litter box with the water that is plumbed in . Maybe I don't cook inside the house; that reduces the risk of fire by half so maybe my risk of fire looks as good or better than my up to code neighbor who has a standard up to code house but cooks with grease all day, falls asleep with a cigarette in their mouth, and leaves their lighters out for their toddler to play with. These are all neat requirements "in the name of safety" that could of course save lives, but at the expense of massive loss of life for people working years (lost life) and possible homelessness to avoid the insane requirements. If my option is to absolutely slave away for 7 years to buy a house to code, or build my own shack in one year, then the opportunity cost is about 1/12th of a life lost to build the house. Is there a 1/12 chance somebody is gonna die in my tin shack? Remember I'm still criminally negligible if they do, there isn't some gotcha that you get to do something that kills someone else because the code doesn't mention it.
Outhouses and portajohns are what appear when the alternative is public urination/defecation. If the poor are zoned and coded out of a home, they're going to be urinating and deficating in your park rather than in an outhouse, sound better? Visit San Francisco to see the excellent results! By the way, the city has installed long term portajohns in a number of high density cities. I've seen them in Minneapolis and Seattle, as well as absolutely permanent ones in a certain city in Ohio.
It has been proposed that since land doesn't respond to supply and demand, but housing does, that property taxes should apply only to land and be increased to remove most of its value. Keyword: Georgism.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/15/what-happens-w...
This is happening right now, here in North Carolina. The worst part? Who do you think makes up the largest part of trailer park residents here? Yep. That's right. Separated or retired military veterans, retail workers and domestic servants. They don't need to watch Masterpiece Theater to experience the wealth inequality and exploitation of the Gilded Age: they're living it every day (although our popular culture won't allow them to question it).
Oh, and one more thing: although some elitist s.o.b.'s may disagree, trailer park people are no more unlikable that McMansion neighborhood residents. In fact, I usually find the former a lot more pleasant to deal with.
Definitely don't get a mortgage to buy a home in a trailer park. Its the worst abuses of both the mortgage and rental markets. No matter what your at the mercy of the landlord raising prices (and selling to someone who raises prices to drive everyone off), while frequently ending up underwater in the trailer itself. For people who are this low on the income ladder the ability to _move_ the trailer is mostly non-existent since it generally starts at a few thousand $$, and goes from there. So, people lose the trailers, and their investment when they can't pay the rent. Then there is the problem that even the worst built house is better quality than what you find from any of the mobile home builders which have to basically use plastic/vinyl/particleboard glued together to keep weight down with the occasional staple to hold things together while the glue is drying. Most of the homes cannot be moved after a couple years because they would fall apart when presented with road speed winds and vibration. So, often not only to they lose the home, they end up owning the trailer park mgmt for removing the trailer.
So, its bad. When people put mobile homes on land they own, they tend to build houses around them over time by adding covered decks, screen rooms, additions, new roofs, etc. Basically turning them into prefab cores of frequently reasonably nice houses/cabins after they rip out the crummy plastic bathrooms and put in actual porcelain toilets, real stoves, fridges, tile, countertops, etc. None of that really happens in your average mobile home community because people maintain the fiction that they can move the trailer even when its rotting in place.
Bottom line, I would live in a car/truck before I considered living in a trailer in a trailer park. People with children are probably better just finding another family to share a rental with and packing bunk beds in.