The propaganda surrounding “tiny homes” has reached new deplorable heights, with the co-founders and owners of Wagonhaus Co Pty Ltd and Compass Hut penning the following drivel in The Mercury:
The tiny house movement was born from the 2008 financial crisis in the US. They quickly became a safe and financially viable solution for shelter; the foundation of any society and one of the fundamental elements in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs…
Locally, as the housing crisis has shown us, we are not immune. Tasmania also has high rates of personal debt and health concerns.
Tiny homes require less financial strain. Over the long run, less personal debt means more disposable income to spend in our local economy. With lower housing costs, families can afford better health, for example, going to the dentist, buying a gym membership or children attending a local sports club. More disposable income allows people to participate more fully in their community.
Social sustainability and tiny homes are rapidly proving to be a force for good.
Tiny homes de-clutter and de-stress their occupants; financially, emotionally, and physically. Social isolation, loss of community and a diminution in our sense of belonging and safety exacerbates the epidemic of anxiety and other mental health maladies…
We read countless stories of financially strained individuals and families who have found salvation in a tiny home… Solutions in our built environment that improve social wellbeing and foster a community connectedness help decrease rates of crime, violence and suicide…
Environmental sustainability is being threatened by climate change, inefficient urban sprawl and a built environment that undermines our health. Tiny homes challenge all these concerns.
Tiny home parks already operate all around Australia, except they carry the not-so-sexy name of “caravan parks”. These are used to house some of the poorest and most marginalised in society, and represent one step above homelessness.
The authors must think that by slapping the trendy name of “tiny homes” onto what are effectively caravans, and waxing lyrical about “sustainability”, they can make caravan living desirable. Readers should not be so gullible.
Sure, tiny homes do save their owners in rental costs, which is why poor people live in caravan parks – they cannot afford anything better. And sure, tiny homes are more environmentally sustainable – but so is being homeless. If one cannot afford to consume, then their environmental impact is necessarily reduced.
The other claim that tiny homes “de-clutter and de-stress their occupants; financially, emotionally, and physically” is pure spin. Do the authors honestly believe that caravan park dwellers would not rather live in a normal sized home if they could afford it?
The solution to Australia’s housing woes does not involve herding people into caravans. It requires addressing the underlying drivers, including: tax distortions; excessive immigration; restrictive planning; and lack of social housing.
Marketing tiny homes as a solution lets policy makers off the hook and abrogates their responsibilities for addressing the genuine causes of Australia’s housing affordability malaise.
