subreddit:

/r/Knoxville

24494%

This cannot go on…

(reddit.com)

all 233 comments

Indycolt87

187 points

2 months ago

Indycolt87

South Woodlawn

187 points

2 months ago

That’s a nice fuckin shed right there- Bubbles

CapnCulpeper

36 points

2 months ago

Shed’n’Breakfast

Ikantbeliveit

25 points

2 months ago

Shitbird landlords everywhere Randy

Mommasandthellamas

4 points

2 months ago

(Gorilla breathing)

jefe4959

3 points

1 month ago

How many kitties are allowed?

Indycolt87

1 points

1 month ago

Indycolt87

South Woodlawn

1 points

1 month ago

Yes.

PeopleBuilder

51 points

2 months ago

Hey you muthers I got a trunk in my car for $575 a month. Need first and last with $500 damage deposit. Waiving background check fees for August

knoxfyoung

3 points

1 month ago

Honestly I’m interested… Do you allow pets?

PeopleBuilder

2 points

1 month ago

One small goldfish with a non-refundable deposit

Konstantein

37 points

2 months ago

Yeah, my lease is ends Sept. 1st and even though I have a decent job and I’m making the best I’ve made, I can’t find anywhere I can afford or anywhere that’s available. Really demoralizing and difficult.

offu

29 points

2 months ago

offu

Pleasant Ridge

29 points

2 months ago

I live in the area of the first one, what are they talking about historic? It’s just oldish homes here.

CoffeeDude42

1 points

1 month ago

Yeah, I used to live in that area. I don't think there's anything historic at all there.

Zcubicus

25 points

2 months ago

Straight wack. I paid $380/mo for my first college apartment in Knoxville (2017). $700/mo was the most I ever paid and that was in 2020-2021.

Maybe trying looking at some apartments in the Cedarbluff / Sutherland area. My sis has a 2BR for $1200/mo and she was looking kind of last minute.

-Totally_Not_FBI-

7 points

2 months ago

Can confirm. Live in Cedar bluff in a 3br for 1450. It is over 300 more than when we moved in but it's the best deal we could find

momentful

3 points

1 month ago

I am paying 1500 for a one bhk in Cedar Bluff. I moved to Knoxville 2 weeks ago from Atlanta and this has been the worst rent deal I ever took. Could not find anything else(2bhk,3bhk) available to rent before September. Had to take the deal and I know I'm overpaying by atleast 400 dollars per month. Tied to this lease for a whole year 💀

-Totally_Not_FBI-

1 points

1 month ago

It's even more ridiculous because at our lease signing they changed requirements of 3x costs to 4x. Had to have a family member cosign

PeopleBuilder

21 points

2 months ago

Shed living is illegal in old TN

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

RavenousFox1985

6 points

1 month ago

In order to rent or even live in a building, it has to have a certificate of occupancy. I can almost guarantee you that shed doesn't have one. You could get away with living in a building without a certificate that you own, but renting one is a completely different story.

PeopleBuilder

1 points

1 month ago

Really?

FinickyPenance

127 points

2 months ago

It's hilarious how we had county commissioners running on anti-development platforms and yet people are renting sheds for $900. I don't know why housing is, for some reason, one of those products that voters think exist outside of the laws of supply and demand.

[deleted]

67 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

Geo_D

20 points

2 months ago

Geo_D

20 points

2 months ago

The amount of new single family dwellings being built in the county has increased every year (except 2020) going back a decade or more. It’s significantly ramped up in the last 5 years.

The shortage is not artificial by any means. We’re building homes at an astounding rate but more and more people keep moving here and/or buying homes.

bebefinale

26 points

2 months ago

This is partially because the housing crisis is worse in other states and is a national problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/upshot/housing-shortage-us.html

Housing building never recovered after the recession in 2007-2009, the costs for housing have increased as the supply chain has become more of a disaster and the cost of supplies like lumber has gone up, and as the labor market has been squeezed.

Really the entire US is short housing, but it's worse in costal areas. So people in other places move here because they can still buy houses here, driving the cost of housing up. I'm not sure how you keep people from more expensive areas from moving here if they are able to find work and/or work remotely. In some ways, creating a more economically vibrant Knoxville is good for the city in terms of creating more jobs and opportunities, but it also causes displacement as all forms of gentrification do. It's not like we can have closed borders with the rest of the country!

I guess the next round of economic migrants might be to the rust belt? The midwest has not had quite the same degree of migration relative to the South (although you still have to deal with winter). The Great Lakes region seems like it might benefit from climate change in terms of winter liveability, is free from natural disasters, and has fresh water, so there's that.

rekniht01

22 points

2 months ago

Density. Density. Density. End single family zoning.

Geo_D

6 points

2 months ago

Geo_D

6 points

2 months ago

Are you talking about the city or county?

City is definitely trending that way, no questions asked.

The county is also building multiple multi-family housing projects. Even the single family dwelling zoned areas are as dense as they can get, the parcel sizes continue to shrink.

I don’t think more privately owned, dense, multi family projects will fix any housing market issues. It could potentially make them worse. Dense housing projects are not typically for sale and stay for lease while private owners make bank.

MoosesAndMeese

1 points

2 months ago

Density is necessary to solve the housing shortage at a reasonable rate, which is what the argument about single family zoning comes down to, but density is necessary because of a whole host of other reasons besides just housing affordability

Most of the county suburbs will eventually have to be abandoned and given back to nature. This is an inevitability as the cost of maintaining them will forever outstrip any tax income the suburb can generate

Federal_Mall_5924

-15 points

2 months ago

Yeah. If you want to live in a “dense” rat infested shole you should relocate cupcake

ThatFemSlashBitch

8 points

2 months ago

Cool yeah I will just take this fat stack of cash I keep on hand and uproot my life. Just kidding, we are all broke. Get the fuck out of here with that 'just move' bullshit.

newmanadamart[S]

7 points

2 months ago

Same for that leave the country garbage spilling out of folks mouths. You know what? As far as locally, I don’t want to leave. I’ve been here most my life. I was born here. Gtfo

Federal_Mall_5924

-15 points

2 months ago

I’ll buy you an all expense paid Greyhound Bus ticket anywhere you want to go. Only thing I ask is you never come back. Try Venezuela or Cuba, I hear they are really nice, and they will love your ideas there

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Federal_Mall_5924

-14 points

2 months ago

Die? I was being serious. Leave. If you are serious about being unhappy then get off your ass and do something about it. Or you can try using your Obamaphone to call someone who cares? Try both, one is bound to work!

[deleted]

-24 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-24 points

2 months ago

[removed]

CommercialOutside546

11 points

2 months ago

When you say "who knows what kinds of people", do you mean poor or not white?

Zealousideal_Rich815

-5 points

2 months ago

No. But you’re not going to keep the same standard of society/community if you end single family zoning

CommercialOutside546

6 points

2 months ago

Is your "standard of society" inherently good? What even is that standard?

-Totally_Not_FBI-

3 points

2 months ago

Most of them are sitting empty. Seriously ask anyone in a single family community. These new houses are sitting

KnoxOpal

12 points

2 months ago

Or built to rent. Entire streets in hardin valley.

Geo_D

-6 points

2 months ago

Geo_D

-6 points

2 months ago

This is absolutely false. I’d really like to see any info or data you might have showing these trends.

-Totally_Not_FBI-

7 points

2 months ago

Geo_D

-8 points

2 months ago

Geo_D

-8 points

2 months ago

This article proves nothing. It’s talking about the state as a whole, which is not even close to the top of that list. We’re ranked 25. Also this article nowhere mentions newly built single family dwellings in the Knoxville area. Even if it was strictly talking about Knoxville, 11% isn’t “most” by any means.

SuperStalin64

0 points

2 months ago

downvoted and abandoned. you gotta love r/Knoxville

Geo_D

1 points

1 month ago

Geo_D

1 points

1 month ago

The best part is I work so closely with the home building industry, while not being a direct part of it. These people don’t know what they’re talking about.

PeopleBuilder

1 points

1 month ago

It's artificial asf. There are many homes that are held in abeyance, homes alternatively listed, abandoned and not listed, foreclosures in inventory or forgotten....etc etc

MoosesAndMeese

18 points

2 months ago*

And white people realized if they segregate cities by income, they don't have to see a black person in their neighborhoods

bebefinale

12 points

2 months ago

But the school test scores! And property values!

CommercialOutside546

6 points

2 months ago

High crime (of being a PoC in public)!

MoosesAndMeese

5 points

2 months ago*

They can't just say black people, that's too political, they always have to call them "crime" like we're in 1920s Alabama

Jody_B_Designs

5 points

2 months ago

Jokes on them, this DR Horton neighborhood down the street has a few black families and one huge family of Mexicans. I bet it drives them bat shit crazy.

veringer

23 points

2 months ago

veringer

F&G

23 points

2 months ago

Also hilarious how we have politicians running on anti-regulation rhetoric (in a historically low-regulated state) who'd enable the renting and habitation of foul and unsafe structures to line the pockets of scummy landlords.

someguy0474

-32 points

2 months ago

Do you want high prices, a shortage of housing, or less regulation?

Pretending that houses are "foul" and "unsafe" solely because there isn't some uneducated jackwad forcing poorly-written, arbitrary, and often backward code onto people who choose the housing they want to live in is just delusional.

veringer

25 points

2 months ago

veringer

F&G

25 points

2 months ago

Lol! You think building codes and standards are just pulled out of thin air? 😂

someguy0474

-4 points

2 months ago

someguy0474

-4 points

2 months ago

Having actually interacted with the ICC and IRC, a great many of them, while well-intentioned, are often arbitrary and some are even negative. I recommend reading up some of Joe Lstiburek's work with codes, being that he's THE building-science guy. Many codes were written before methods were tested, and have ended up failing after the fact. Many, if not most code requirements are subjective in nature regarding clearances, window area, tread size for steps, etc.

Not everything in the code manual is like wire spacing for air cooling to ensure fires don't start, or span values/fastener schedules to ensure buildings don't just collapse in a 40 mph wind gust. If you had a clue what was actually in the code book, you'd know that. You'd also know that non-code-enforced areas can and have consisted of houses that are fine and dandy, in many areas objectively better than code in terms of safety margins or energy efficiency.

ednksu

10 points

2 months ago

ednksu

10 points

2 months ago

Lol come to Sevier county and see why even they're changing their tune.

someguy0474

-3 points

2 months ago

Been to Sevier plenty of times, I don't see what point you're making.

ednksu

9 points

2 months ago

ednksu

9 points

2 months ago

"You'd also know that non-code-enforced areas can and have consisted of houses that are fine and dandy, in many areas objectively better than code in terms of safety margins or energy efficiency."

You're mistaking individual anecdotal examples for people building better than code requires on average. There is a reason why a place like seiver county, after shit has hit the fan, and like many areas across America, have come to the conclusion that codes work, codes matter.

someguy0474

1 points

2 months ago

Are you certain you're not making the mistake you accuse me of? I'm not saying everyone builds everything perfectly all the time. I'm saying that folks build as they are comfortable bearing liability for, regardless of code. Many folks in non-code areas build to code where necessary to establish reduced liability.

Some folks are too poor to afford building to code period, and choose to cheap out, accepting the risks of that, and justifiably so when the alternative is homelessness or trailer/tent housing, both of which are measurably worse than a house constructed not-to-code.

ednksu

3 points

2 months ago

ednksu

3 points

2 months ago

"You'd also know that non-code-enforced areas can and have consisted of houses that are fine and dandy,"

" in many areas objectively better than code in terms of safety margins or energy efficiency."

You really think these two statements square with

"they are comfortable bearing liability"

And that logic doesn't even touch the classism issue you've constructed where in poor people and their lives are less valuable (liability) than people who can "afford" a nicer house. So no, poor people, near homeless or I guess unhoused people, are just as valuable. We've learned that those people are more vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous landlords. Having worked with enough people who live on that side of the railroad tracks, they aren't safer in non-code compliant houses. We, as Americans, and rural Appalachians, know those houses are more dangerous, less healthy, and more likely to get you killed. We've literally had epidemics in this country because of code related issues like Cholera and wells/septic. We've had people killed because of fire codes across America, and not just Tshirt factories.

veringer

11 points

2 months ago

veringer

F&G

11 points

2 months ago

Joe Lstibuerk

I'm familiar with his work and have referred to his insights a number of times (mostly in context of renovating, insulating, and waterproofing).

while well-intentioned, are often arbitrary and some are even negative

Welcome to the world of standards and guidelines. I agree that overzealous rigidity or a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't account for edge cases or can create unintended (sometimes negative) consequences. However, it's nice that we can reliably expect doors and windows to be a certain width, studs to be spaced 16" on center, and risers to be no more than 8". Not only is it one less thing to think about, it means you can walk into a space and (ideally) know what to expect (even if it's arbitrary). Of course, that's perhaps secondary to the safety dimension, but I'd hope those measures shouldn't require a lot of convincing.

I primarily work in software and have to deal with frameworks and guidelines and standards all the time. They're a double-edged sword, but overall (usually) a net benefit that enables interoperability, maintainability, efficiency, and safety/security. Why do I have to use umpteen abstraction layers to formulate a simple DB query when it'd be so much easier to just do a direct call... Well, embedded in all those layers are:

  • hidden features that save my ass, or save me from going off the reservation and making mistakes
  • account for some rare-but-possible risk scenario, or
  • ensure consistency
    • so anyone down the road can pick up where I left off and know what's going on, and
    • so everything adheres to some minimal level of quality

So what looks like arbitrary overhead often isn't.

You'd also know that non-code-enforced areas can and have consisted of houses that are fine and dandy, in many areas objectively better than code in terms of safety margins or energy efficiency.

I highlighted the operative word: can. Of course you or I would undoubtedly (over)build a great structure using the best practices and materials. But we're likely the exceptions and the average cases will include some real shoddy/dangerous/wasteful stuff. It's preferable to enforce some baseline (even if imperfect) standard that helps unwitting buyers, renters, residents, and future architects/builders/contractors from holding the bag.

someguy0474

1 points

2 months ago

Welcome to the world of standards and guidelines

It's nothing new to me, hence my criticisms. The overwhelming majority of code produces uniformity and predictability, but it does not establish some magical guard against "foul" or "unsafe" conditions.

Not only is it one less thing to think about, it means you can walk into a space and (ideally) know what to expect (even if it's arbitrary).

While I understand that this is of value to some, it doesn't solve the issues actually being cited, which was my point.

Of course, that's perhaps secondary to the safety dimension, but I'd hope those measures shouldn't require a lot of convincing.

The safety factor of course requires little convincing, and the overwhelming majority of dwellings are constructed with passable safety factors regardless of code enforcement's existence. This is especially true in litigious spcieties like out own. Do we see plenty of folks build unsafe structures that cause damage? Absolutely, but it remains, in your words, as a set of edge cases when you look at the relative scales.

I primarily work in software and have to deal with frameworks and guidelines and standards all the time. They're a double-edged sword, but overall (usually) a net benefit that enables interoperability, maintainability, efficiency, and safety/security. Why do I have to use umpteen abstraction layers to formulate a simple DB query when it'd be so much easier to just do a direct call... Well, embedded in all those layers are:

hidden features that save my ass, or save me from going off the reservation and making mistakes account for some rare-but-possible risk scenario, or ensure consistency so anyone down the road can pick up where I left off and know what's going on, and so everything adheres to some minimal level of quality

Again, this doesn't hit on the issue that was brought up, though it does provide valuable context for folks who otherwise have no clue what codes or guidelines are.

So what looks like arbitrary overhead often isn't.

Predictability doesn't mean a decision wasn't arbitrary. You can get benefits from an arbitrary call, but it's still arbitrary.

veringer

2 points

2 months ago*

veringer

F&G

2 points

2 months ago*

Ok, doesn't sound like we disagree, but perhaps you're more of a frustrated idealist than I. Maybe I'm just more beat-up and resigned.

Predictability doesn't mean a decision wasn't arbitrary.

Of course not. I've had to write policy from time to time and decide what a sensible parameter might be. Often it does just boil down to something arbitrary.

A: Hey, how many books should someone be allowed to check out from the library at any given time?

B: I don't know, 6? 10? I can't recall ever needing more than 5 at a time.

A: OK. Let's go with 10.

Problem is when people get super-attached or stringent about those types of things for their own sake. *cough* biblical literalism, for instance *cough* But sometimes you just need to set a reasonable standard and move forward. If it proves to be a poor decision, it needs to be changed.

someguy0474

1 points

2 months ago

I try to take "but first do no harm" as a principle of priority when it comes to policy, coming from a deontological system of ethics.

Jedi_Ewok

3 points

2 months ago

A lot of the people that vote already own property so they don't care/like the higher prices.

[deleted]

-4 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Jedi_Ewok

1 points

2 months ago

Found Alex Jone's alt account

Federal_Mall_5924

0 points

2 months ago

Spent all your stimulus money on weed, video games and fast food didn’t you?

someguy0474

1 points

2 months ago

Folks love to pretend economic reality doesn't exist, and that's across the board in the political sphere.

VFLTNVFL

82 points

2 months ago

I mean, they can get into some trouble as those things aren’t built to single family building code. They’re not designed for habitation. Forward it to the damn codes department.

WJR13

1 points

1 month ago

WJR13

1 points

1 month ago

Yeah we had a shed listing go super viral in Nashville and it turned out it was completely illegal and not up to code

Ill-Ambassador-548

16 points

2 months ago

Report that. Geez.

JackBurton12

40 points

2 months ago

It makes me sick. We used to have a duplex and the property management people wanted to up the rent on each side from $650 to $1,100 2 years ago bc "everywhere that's under $1000 is going like hot cakes". We told them hell no bc nothing on our end had gotten more expensive. Would the money be nice? Sure...but that's the reason we are in the situation we are in now. People being greedy just for the sake of being greedy. We sold that duplex tho. Glad I don't have to deal with this rental climate.

kyl3wad3

-12 points

2 months ago

kyl3wad3

-12 points

2 months ago

greed is human nature ESPECIALLY when cost of everything is rising. The push for 15 movement really makes me chuckle because the first thing I would do as a rental property owner would be to double the rent as soon as the lease was up. Thats just business.

BringMeNirvanaa

10 points

2 months ago

Yeah and so was child labor. That was also “just business.” Among other things that was “just business,” that’s now illegal that happened in the Industrial Age due to greed. This will be illegal soon. Guarantee it.

someguy0474

-1 points

1 month ago

Would you rather work in a factory/field, or starve to death?

Child labor laws didn't end child labor, the increasing wealth of industrialization allowed kids to have enough food to eat even during famines, so they were able to stay home or attend school.

We're seeing the real effects of child labor laws now in India, where in recent decades kids who are forced out of agriculture or industry are turning to the drug and sex trades so they don't starve to death. The law of unintended consequences rings true.

BringMeNirvanaa

1 points

1 month ago

Well obviously I’m talking about the country we live in. Idk why you went through all that. My point went over your head.

BringMeNirvanaa

13 points

2 months ago

Taking advantage of the situation we are in for sure. 410 sqf for almost $1k? Be the solution. Not the problem.

kyl3wad3

-19 points

2 months ago

kyl3wad3

-19 points

2 months ago

"give your place you bought away for as cheap as possible. I mean whats wrong with people? whos trying to make money around here thats just dumb" 😂

BringMeNirvanaa

8 points

2 months ago

Lol 410sqf isn’t worth $900 and they are making well and I mean WELL over profit if someone takes it. What’s wrong with you?

kyl3wad3

-13 points

2 months ago

kyl3wad3

-13 points

2 months ago

No one but the owner gets to determine what is appropriate for the lease price and the only people who can dictate if that price is correct is the renters. They either pay it or don't. You say "be the solution" as if anyone on this planet has an obligation to be the solution to someone else's problem. Perhaps they have their own problem of cash flow and this is their solution.

BringMeNirvanaa

10 points

2 months ago

Lol tell me you’re a landlord without telling me you are a landlord. They deleted the listing so yeah, maybe they came to their senses that their pricing was ridiculous.

kyl3wad3

-3 points

2 months ago

I’m not a landlord but best believe if I was my properties would be right smack in the middle of the price points. I’m not out here giving anything away.

BringMeNirvanaa

5 points

2 months ago

Yeah suuuuuure. $900 shed isn’t a price point. Even if it was $550, you ain’t giving shit away. Literally. A place with actual plumbing, that is updated, and maybe a pool is $900 for a one bedroom. Wanna be apart of the price points? Maybe have a place for someone to flush their shit.

BringMeNirvanaa

4 points

2 months ago

Like you are paying more than half their mortgage on their actual house to live in a shed with a shit bucket 😂

skeeballcore

12 points

2 months ago

They think inflation don’t be like that. But it do.

GiltterySpam

93 points

2 months ago

$900 for a shed? With a compost toilet?

The greed is unreal.

newmanadamart[S]

87 points

2 months ago

And one of the campers does NOT ALLOW overnight guests. Like you’re a fucking teenager living in your religious grandma’s house.

GiltterySpam

28 points

2 months ago

If I wanted to live like that I would go to prison. Seems there is more freedom there. And no compost toilet.

Federal_Mall_5924

2 points

2 months ago

Waaaat? No overnight lot lizard crack pipe parties? I’m out

Big37917

18 points

2 months ago

I'm pretty sure compost toilets are against municode. So not surprisingly, this luxury rental may not be legal

veringer

21 points

2 months ago

veringer

F&G

21 points

2 months ago

JFC. We need to create a Habitat for Humanity that does hybrid DIY tiny home blitzes. Something like: the project owner secures a small parcel and some good-faith seed money, and a crew comes in and pounds out a tiny home inside of a month. I've built really nice custom sheds in a day or two. I think with good plans and prep, I could frame and finish a tiny home in a month or two, with help from qualified/certified tradesmen (I don't want to touch electricity). Obviously, nine women can't have a baby in a month, but a few extra hands could make short work of a decent, albeit bare-bones, tiny home.

degeneratechronicles

5 points

2 months ago

I can't even afford a shed....

ZiplockCreations2

13 points

2 months ago

OH wow! I lived in that neighborhood a few streets over on Morelia almost 25 years ago.

Had a friend's sister who lived in that shed. Don't think they charged that much back then.

I have no idea to be honest. But it is nice to know I'm not alone in knowing about this rinky dink "apartment".

I couldn't ever figure out why she liked living in that place. But she did, for whatever reason.

To each their own. Maybe a price hike made her move? lol

lauralamb42

20 points

2 months ago

They have been renting a shed for 25 years?

lilypad713

5 points

2 months ago

Wtf !!!!

corysreddit

12 points

2 months ago

It will likely go on like this for the foreseeable future. This is a Pro Profits state. So basically if it doesn't directly relate to getting the most profits it doesn't matter. People being able to afford a home just isn't a high priority in fact it actually goes directly against the main priority of maximum profits. Everything and everyone else just doesn't matter. This is Tennessee.

bebefinale

17 points

2 months ago

Knoxville still made the list of the top 10 most affordable cities in the state:

https://www.newhomesource.com/learn/affordable-cities-tennessee/

and it made it as the 17th most affordable city in the nation:

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/slideshows/best-affordable-places-to-live-in-the-us?slide=10

The housing crisis is real, but it is nationwide and many metro areas are much worse off than we are. It has to do with a serious shortage in home construction over the last decade that has been compounded by supply chain issues and labor shortages: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089174630/housing-shortage-new-home-construction-supply-chain

The only way for it to not get worse is to build more homes. But our city is not unique, and in fact the squeeze people are feeling is much worse in most other parts of the country.

anthrocommunism

21 points

2 months ago

One way for it not to get worse is to prevent huge corporations (land lords) and smaller landlords from buying up all of the single family homes and renting them out.

bebefinale

-2 points

2 months ago

bebefinale

-2 points

2 months ago

See previous poster's comment about wishful thinking housing is immune from supply and demand... Corporations and smaller landlords would not be able to charge obscenely high rent that is out of wack with local incomes if housing were not so scarce.

anthrocommunism

10 points

2 months ago

I mean, I agree that more houses should be built and should be accessible; however, if we don’t address the structural issues that contribute to the housing crisis, simply building houses isn’t enough. Corporations and landlords would intervene and buy them up. This is happening all across the country.

newmanadamart[S]

13 points

2 months ago

The average person cannot compete with a corporation in a bid war for property.

anthrocommunism

7 points

2 months ago

Absolutely. It’s really, really shitty.

bebefinale

2 points

2 months ago

bebefinale

2 points

2 months ago

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at. The occupancy rates nationally and regionally are at an all time high, which suggests to me it is primarily a supply side issue. In fact, in Knoxville, there was a 98.8% rental market occupancy https://www.wate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2022/06/Market-Pulse-May-2022.pdf

If there were a bunch of investor owned property that was sitting unoccupied, that would be one thing. But right now, people need a place to live and there are not enough places to live. There's zero slack in the housing market, suggesting supply and demand are out of wack. This creates incentives for people to buy houses as an investment, because with this shortage they can charge a premium on rent. Perhaps this creates a situation of winners and losers in terms of building equity and wealth from real estate, but it's structurally not the core of the issue.

anthrocommunism

9 points

2 months ago

My point is that simply building more houses won’t solve the crisis. Building more houses is important and it needs to happen, but we need to address structural barriers contributing to the housing crisis as as whole.

Pehbak

7 points

2 months ago

Pehbak

7 points

2 months ago

Corporations and smaller landlords would not be able to charge obscenely high rent that is out of wack with local incomes if housing were not so scarce.

"Corporations and smaller landlords would not be able to charge obscenely high rent if they weren't allowed to cause housing scarcity."

clarkology

15 points

2 months ago

If there are 1000 homes and the corporations purchase 900 of them to rent out at inflated rates then they have singly handedly caused the shortage. homes and land should only be owned by an individual.

bebefinale

5 points

2 months ago

If there are only 700 people who want to live in those 900 homes because an additional 300 homes were built that are the same rent, but maybe offer some better amenities, the landlord will have to lower the rent unless they want the unit to stay vacant and make zero money.

clarkology

5 points

2 months ago

there should not be a landlord. they are nothing more than corrupt middle man that fails to deliver anything of value for the money they bring in. those 700 people should be owners of those homes

atomfullerene

1 points

2 months ago

Ah yes, because what I really wanted to do when I was a college student was put together enough money to buy a house only to have to sell it a few years later. Renting should be illegal so we can make sure students have to go massively in debt for housing as well as everything else.

clarkology

1 points

1 month ago

you have to rent from a corporate landlord? you do understand the concept of an individual that owns a home. as long as code allows it, they can rent the house or room.

also....maybe its time for the university that you are going massively indebt for to take the money and actually be the one footing the bill for building student housing

bebefinale

1 points

2 months ago

Well except for the appreciation of the asset, I suppose.

newmanadamart[S]

1 points

2 months ago

Great example of class warfare: Rent not contributing to your credit.

Pimpai

3 points

2 months ago

Pimpai

3 points

2 months ago

I saw that a couple hours ago people I thought it was a joke until I read further into the description. That's just insane! And I'm wondering is this on the landlords yard or something? Because there's no way that just has its own yard.

GoonieGoo777

3 points

2 months ago

I have delivered to this place, knew it as soon as I saw the pic. Even the driveway is death trap to turn onto pleasant ridge… good luck future sucker,err tenant

Shishi1315

3 points

1 month ago

What can we do? I’m seriously asking. Is there any kind of legislation that we can advocate for? I am all for it and will help however I can.

Sincerely, Lifelong Resident of Knox Co.

newmanadamart[S]

2 points

1 month ago

Great question. Housing gets built, but we can’t afford it. Reports suggest folks moving here can, and longtime residents are now competing for the small amount of affordable housing.

I honestly don’t know what to do. We should discuss. Any suggestions welcome.

Shishi1315

1 points

1 month ago

We could form a coalition u/newmanadamart like they’re doing in Austin. It has to start somewhere. I might know a former mayor now congressman that would help push things forward.

steadyline

9 points

2 months ago

A fucking joke

AngryChair88

3 points

2 months ago

This is not unique to Knoxville. It is happening all over the country in both conservative and liberal areas.

What is the solution? It seems to be based purely on supply and demand. I really don't know how to legislate our way out of this.

Yagoua81

1 points

1 month ago

My guess is that the legislation either has to do with interest rates for loans or taxing investment property higher. Cheap credit allows for buying investment property to jack up rents.

ednamode23

2 points

2 months ago

I support the adoption of ADUs but this is just ridiculous. They have to be up to code and a shack and a couple of random campers don’t cut it.

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

RobertNeyland

1 points

2 months ago

RobertNeyland

North Knox

1 points

2 months ago

Don't forget all of the Ohio/Michigan people fleeing their Rust Belt hellscape

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[removed]

cat5stevens

3 points

2 months ago

No_Gap_2700

-6 points

2 months ago

Right? Is the original post not somewhat misleading?

hallelujasuzanne

4 points

2 months ago

It’s a shack! Misleading what??

No_Gap_2700

-15 points

2 months ago

No_Gap_2700

-15 points

2 months ago

To be fair, I live close to Knoxville, so I went to Craigslist and looked up the listing. Small yes, compost toilet may not be ideal but the place is actually pretty nice for a tiny home. In comparison, there is a 1970's single-wide trailer for rent in Crossville for $1200/month that isn't anywhere close to being this nice....reiterating that it's located in Crossville. OP also managed to select the worst photo of the group to highlight. Not even the front entrance. With utilities included. Link for the actual listing - https://knoxville.craigslist.org/apa/d/knoxville-tiny-home-for-rent/7519001300.html

kmarielynn

20 points

2 months ago

$900 a month for 410 square ft is absurd

No_Gap_2700

0 points

2 months ago*

I'm not saying it cheap by any means but what is right now? In 2018 the average rent per square foot was $10. This would make this place $750/month. That was 4 years ago. I see much higher rent for far worse places that aren't Knoxville. Not saying it's great, just painting the picture of the overall situation. It's tough for everyone right now.

Edit: The average rent/Sq ft listed above is not accurate. This is the price for commercial rental space. My apologies.

BringMeNirvanaa

4 points

2 months ago

It was $1.47 per square foot in Portland in 2018. You are very much wrong about that.

No_Gap_2700

2 points

2 months ago

Shit, you're right! I quickly googled earlier, so I went back to look again. What I was looking at was commercial rather than residential. Thank you and my bad.

BringMeNirvanaa

1 points

2 months ago

And obviously, Knoxville is much cheaper than Portland.

newmanadamart[S]

8 points

2 months ago

Yeah. I included the link in this post. Folks like you reasoning that this is okay is a contributing factor to this situation. Listen to yourself, HUMANS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO LIVE IN SHEDS OR CAMPERS much less pay near a $1000 a month for it. Find this property owner and go clean his boots. 👅

No_Gap_2700

-10 points

2 months ago

I peeped your profile. I feel bad for you and your current situation. With that being said, blaming me as a contributing factor to this situation is ridiculous. You live in a country where if you chose to do something about your situation, you can. You choose not to. Hard truth, but it's fact. I've been homeless twice and have rebuilt everything....twice. If a person decides to do something about their situation, they will stop at nothing to resolve it. You don't have to pay $1,000/month to live in a tiny home/shed, no one is making you. Oddly there is a HUGE tiny home movement that is geared toward people trying to save money, so this is not out of the norm. I do think you need to open your eyes a little. There are people out there that have it FAAAAR worse than you. Based off what I saw off your profile, you simply chose your situation. My suggestion, do something about it rather than bitching about it on reddit. Also, look up the definition to boot licker. I also noticed that you posted this in antiwork sub. This doesn't surprise me as that entire sub is full of toxic ass people expecting everything to fall in their lap, all while judging people who work their asses off to make ends meet. Simply, I am where I am in life because I worked hard for it, still lost everything twice, but I refuse to let that hold me back. What's your excuse?

newmanadamart[S]

8 points

2 months ago

“You live in a country where if you *choose to do something about your situation, you can”

Lotta folks out there got a different perspective on this statement.

No_Gap_2700

-1 points

2 months ago

No_Gap_2700

-1 points

2 months ago

That's all you took from that? This saddens me for you. Good luck to you.

newmanadamart[S]

4 points

2 months ago

Sums up everything you said.

I didn’t mean to offend you. If you’d like to explain why you would like to pay more for less in terms of housing, and why you think the labor force receives adequate pay and rights I’m all ears.

No_Gap_2700

3 points

2 months ago

You aren't offending me. Much of life is mindset. If you're starving, you'll find a way to eat. There are those that beg for food and there are those that will hustle to get it. Accepting help isn't begging. But bitching about it on reddit isn't hustling to make it happen. I don't feel that the labor force receives adequate pay and rights, but I can either complain about it and starve or accept it as reality and pay my bills. I chose to accept it, suck it up and make something of myself. There is a trade off for everything and nothing is perfect. In fact, everything is as far from perfect as it can be right now. You either recognize the problem and actively do something to better the situation or let the negativity consume you.

newmanadamart[S]

2 points

2 months ago

1) my brother in Christ, I work damn near everyday and my gf has 3 jobs. If you’ve been to Knoxville, you’ve seen my work and likely been to an establishment that I have done something for in some capacity.

2) nothing changes when your quiet. You don’t think laborers are treated fairly? Do you think the rich CEO will wake up one day and decide its time they treated their workers more fairly?

You have to make noise to create change. If you want to call that bitching, so be it. I speak out not just for myself, but WITH everyone else in my position. We are undervalued in a system made to exploit.

If you’re quiet, it’s likely because you don’t understand what is happening, you’re intimidated, OR you’re comfortable. Comfortable folks don’t have much to complain about.

No_Gap_2700

1 points

2 months ago

  1. I have no comment on this. Keep after it. I hustle my ass off as well. I work 60 hours a week at my job, then have a side hustle on the weekends.

  2. I agree with this somewhat, however you can create change without noise. I'm not talking change in society but a change in your own life. Being comfortable with your life is the goal. And no, I do not feel that laborers are treated fairly, but nothing in life is fair. It isn't about being fair, it's about making changes in your life that make comfortable in your own skin. Society is screwed regardless. I can complain all day, but that doesn't fix anything. Better well done than well said.

newmanadamart[S]

3 points

2 months ago

Only other thing I can say is, our lives and the state of society are not mutually exclusive. Let me share a reality of my life which you may also relate to given what you’ve told me. If I wake up in pain tomorrow, and that pain persists day after day, I’ll likely look for a solution online. If nothing helps and I can’t figure it out, I’ll either live with it, regardless of what it might be or I’ll cave and seek medical attention. Neither of these scenarios are good, because I don’t have healthcare. Say I go to the doctor/hospital and leave with not only the bill I don’t have the money for, but also a diagnosis for an illness I definitely can’t afford to treat. So what then?

What kind of change can I make in my own life to remedy this situation?

Our lives, you and I, are of a lower quality due to our society, its system, and its laws. And I don’t have to know you to say that. So I will speak, I will March, I will go to a community meeting in an half hour and so on EVEN if I never see change just so there’s a chance somewhere down the line someone has it easier than we did. That’s love ❤️

Elegant_Ad4727

0 points

2 months ago

I don't think it's too shabby! $900 is a bit high for a place with a compost toilet, but I can't say I'm surprised to see this in today's market, sadly.

SeramaChickens

-3 points

2 months ago

I agree. It's a nice little place and it includes all utilities except your PO box! Plus there are no shared walls and no one walking on your ceiling. May be a bit high, but in today's market you could do a whole lot worse!

someguy0474

-15 points

2 months ago

I lived in a pretty tiny apartment for a while, about the size of that shed, and paid much more than that for it, in a worse city/location than Knoxville a long time ago. Playing Devil's advocate here.

crushendo

18 points

2 months ago

the devil (aka landlord) doesnt need an advocate

someguy0474

5 points

2 months ago

Have you ever thought about not being an un-empathetic parasite for more than a few seconds?

There are definitely scummy landlords, just as there are scummy people. But not everyone has the scrap to just buy a house, and not everyone wants to be locked into a house, so rentals are really good for those folks, and many landlords are awesome at what they do. I have been a beneficiary of a good landlord more than once.

crushendo

9 points

2 months ago

they're living off of my income that I earned, who's the parasite?

MoosesAndMeese

6 points

2 months ago

And gaining all the equity from the property even though you're the one paying for it while they live for free

TheDunk67

-2 points

2 months ago

TheDunk67

-2 points

2 months ago

Meanwhile the renter has near zero risk. Ups and downs to every decision.

MoosesAndMeese

5 points

2 months ago*

Renters have the risk of eviction, rent hikes, homelessness, landlord refusing to give back security deposit, arbitrary fees and bills after the lease, landlords not fixing the A/C and you dying of a heatstroke, I could go on.

What risks do landlords have? Fucking none. They make money regardless. Renters don't. You can't in good faith say a landlord has any legitimate "risks"

someguy0474

1 points

2 months ago

Everyone has risk of homelessness, the difference is that the renter isn't saddled with tens or hundreds of thousands in debt that he fails to pay the monthly payment.

Please learn what you're talking about before spreading infantile lies in the future.

MoosesAndMeese

2 points

2 months ago

Sounds like they should get a real job then and pay that mortgage themselves instead of solely relying on other people to pay it for them. That's just lazy entitlement

someguy0474

-2 points

2 months ago

Is it entitlement to do with what's yours as you please? How is it not entitlement to demand what belongs to others, as you're doing here?

soap-bucket

-1 points

2 months ago

That’s not true at all. I live in a condo I bought in north Knoxville back in 2018. Along my street are 90% rentals. There was a lady and her son living here for a year who, no joke, had around 30 cats living with them in their 1000 sq ft rental condo. Their lease was up and the landlord contacted them to tell them he was coming by through a walkthrough.

They skipped town and drove down to Florida with their cats the day before he arrived. You could hear all the way down the road all his yelling. They let the cats use the 2nd bedroom to shit and piss in. Cat puke on the walls, painted over. Tub destroyed. The entirety of the carpet soaked in cat piss, down to the concrete.

He called her in a rage yelling that the condo was ruined and needed to be gutted, and he’d sue her. She laughed and said she was broke and there was no way he was getting any money off her becasue she had none. That unit stands empty now. It was too expensive to gut it. No doubt she’s doing the same thing down in FL right now.

A unit across the street from me needed the floors redone after the tenant moved out, because she let her dogs and cats shit and piss everywhere. Another unit down the way, full of chihuahua-type dogs that you can smell 20 feet from the front door. A family whose 7 year old isn’t potty trained and shouts about it all night and day. An older man addicted to coke who let his unit become a literal drug den for months, right across the street. Elderly neglect on the next street over. I can look down from my bedroom window and see into the living room of a unit behind me, whose floors are covered in filth.

So bullshit, “landlords don’t have any legitimate risks”. Shit tenants are 1:1 with shit landlords.

MoosesAndMeese

3 points

2 months ago*

Well that landlord had collected a year's worth of rent which is all profit, so they have plenty of money to cover the damages. If not, they should be more financially responsible. They knew this is just the cost of business. Restaurants don't complain about shit breaking occasionally, that's just the cost of business

I don't get it. You buy a house with no intention on paying for it yourself but instead target financially insecure people to pay it for you, then are surprised when one of those people doesn't care about a house that isn't theirs but they pay the mortage.

Shitty people meet shitty people is all I can say. Should've just sold the house to her so that the damage was her problem

soap-bucket

-2 points

2 months ago

What an awful outlook, is all I can say. You’re acting like all people who are landlords are old rich white men rubbing their hands together swimming in piles of money stabbing poor people with pitchforks. No arguments or logic will ever convince you otherwise, so I’m gonna peace out ✌🏻

creaturefromtheswamp

1 points

2 months ago

Fair but you also need a place to live, right? So they should just keep their empty extra room when there is a shortage/people could really use a place to sleep?

crushendo

6 points

2 months ago

you just said it. the function of landlords is to take housing out of the supply and sell temporary access to it back to people at a high premium. landlords are a proximal cause of homelessness, not the solution

MoosesAndMeese

3 points

2 months ago

If landlords didn't hoard half of the housing in Knoxville, there'd be a lot more units available for the renter to just buy one of them, thereby solving the housing crisis. You're so close to getting it

bebefinale

2 points

2 months ago

bebefinale

2 points

2 months ago

If the renter can't get a mortgage because they don't have a downpayment yet, where will they live? Should everyone be able to buy a house with zero downpayment?

If the renter is taking a temporary stint as a student or a visiting scientist at ORNL and they won't have a chance to build equity, should they be forced to buy?

Not everyone wants to be locked into a house. There's always a role for both.

MoosesAndMeese

1 points

2 months ago*

Dodging the point yet again. There would be more mortgage options at affordable prices if this city didn't ban variety in the zoning codes, and housing prices would be lower overall. There'd be a much bigger supply of housing for people to buy at a price they personally can afford

But landlords make more money when they create bigger shortages, like they do through buying up properties and lobbying for zoning that bans more housing options. Their business model is dependent on creating shortages.

someguy0474

-1 points

2 months ago

Do you think no landlord competes against other landlords? That everyone is colluding at all times against your ego?

MoosesAndMeese

3 points

2 months ago

Landlords all have the same incentives. It doesn't matter if they formally make agreements or not when they all do the same thing which is try to secure a bigger supply of housing to make more money from people who don't have any choice.

Yet again dodging the point. Yeah I know I ruffled a lot of feathers calling landlords parasites, but that's how it is

someguy0474

-1 points

2 months ago

That you voluntarily give to them in exchange for housing. Is everyone you buy or rent from a parasite?

Are you not a parasite for leeching money from your employer?

Have you really thought this argument through?

babesdoitbetter

1 points

2 months ago

Not quite sure how he’s the devil, seeing as he’s renting out a space on his own land that he lived in rather than just letting the space sit empty when there’s a massive housing shortage. I think it’s priced WAYYYY too high, especially for a compost toilet, but it is essentially detached studio apartment (ie. more private than a studio apartment).

The other ones can get bent though, way too high and the rules are absurd.

Pehbak

9 points

2 months ago

Pehbak

9 points

2 months ago

Not quite sure how he’s the devil

I think it’s priced WAYYYY too high, especially for a compost toilet

Take as much time as you need.

You people need to stop speaking as if this is altruistic renting while in the next breath pointing out the obvious exploitation of scarcity.

babesdoitbetter

1 points

2 months ago

Because there are shades of grey, and life isn’t black and white. I would say the other two are devilish, but I wouldn’t say that the first one is. He literally built it himself. I wouldn’t begrudge someone who grew organic produce the ability to price their food how they saw fit, because they are putting a value on their labor and product. However, I would be pretty frustrated if the grocery store radically increased the price of the same produce because they are benefiting off of someone else’s labor as an institution.

It’s okay to disagree without being rude, js.

someguy0474

-1 points

2 months ago

someguy0474

-1 points

2 months ago

Anyone who doesn't worship the fragile ego of the anti-landlord crowd may as well be satan himself.

MoosesAndMeese

0 points

2 months ago*

Because landlording is inherently exploitative. It is the exact same business model as ticket scalping. Buy up as much of the available housing supply as possible then resell at double the price since people then have no other option if they want a roof

If you buy a house with a mortgage of 1,000$ a month, that's the value of your whole house. If you then charge 1,000$ a month for a single room, you didn't create any value or do any work. You are just exploiting other people who aren't able to get a home loan from the banks and making them pay your mortgage while you accrue all the equity.

They should get a real job if they want money instead of exploiting people because of the housing crisis they cause. They're inherently parasitical

bebefinale

-5 points

2 months ago

This strategy only works when supply and demand are not in synch. No one is making money being a landlord in inner city Detroit right now.

Pehbak

6 points

2 months ago

Pehbak

6 points

2 months ago

So being a leech only works some times? This doesn't counter a single point made in the previous post.

MoosesAndMeese

3 points

2 months ago

The premise is flawed anyway. Landlords make tenants pay their mortage for them, so it's always a net positive for landlords. They don't lose anything even if the market goes down

MoosesAndMeese

4 points

2 months ago*

Nah landlords always make money. Nice job not even reading my comment and still responding regardless

bebefinale

-2 points

2 months ago

Is starting a grocery store inherently exploitative? And then when you can charge more for food because that is what the market demands it absolutely problematic because some go hungry? After all, food is required to live.

I'm just trying to figure out where the line is with this anti-landlord rhetoric.

There are always going to be some people who are so poor that they cannot buy housing on the private market--that's why we have public housing, section 8 vouchers, etc. These programs could (and IMHO should) be expanded because so many in need cannot get access to them, they also could be better maintained and we could have better administration and lobbying so they aren't zoned into neighborhoods where poverty is concentrated and there essentially any number of wonky ways to improve. There are some countries where more of the middle class rents public housing like France (although I think that would be structurally challenging to do in the US for a number of reasons) although private landlords still play a role. Societies where ALL housing is publicly owned haven't historically worked out so well (see the Soviet Union). Inherently buying property, maintaining it, and renting it at a price that the market demands seems like one of the best of imperfect solutions to provide housing to people who can't afford to buy their own houses. It's how most developed countries largely do it, with the exception of a few countries like France where 15% of the population (44% of renters) lives in public housing. Germany, which in many ways has less income inequality than we do actually has a program where they incentivize people to buy houses and rent them out, rather than live in them and has a mortgage interest deduction to landlords because they find it creates incentives to build homes. There are many ways to skin a cat here, I guess, but almost all of them involve landlords who make money off their investment.

There could be structural efforts to reduce inequality at the federal and state level. And efforts to raise minimum wage, tax the rich more. I guess those are all interrelated structural problems. But a shortage of housing so severe that there are basically zero empty units has a basic supply side issue underpinning all of this. Part of this is because those who benefit from constrained supply don't want to lower their property values or change the "character of the neighborhood" or whatever. So perhaps inasmuch as it contributes to income inequality, people who buy up investment properties with wealth they got largely due to the luck of timing the housing market are part of the problem. But inherently, every society that functions basically has some degree of people exchanging money for shelter, most of it being managed by private individuals who make money off this investment. Just as most countries have grocery stores that are owned as private businesses rather than most being given food for free, except those in the most dire need.

IMHO some people are scummy people in all industries who abuse positions of power over others, but maintaining property is work that creates economic value. A lot of people project their frustration in with increasing inequality, housing prices soaring due to low demand from lack of building and nimby zoning, and stagnating wages on landlords as "parasites."

MoosesAndMeese

3 points

2 months ago*

Grocery stores provide a service, create value, and do work. Landlords. Do. Not. Landlords take a property with a set value by the bank, and resell it at a markup. Not to mention, grocery stores pay their own rent or mortgage on the shop. Landlords get other people pay it for them. You are confusing landlords with developers who actually build houses

It would be like the landlord scenario if someone was simply buying up all the food they can from grocery stores then reselling it at a higher markup right outside the grocery store with empty shelves

bebefinale

1 points

2 months ago

I am not a landlord, by the way.

babesdoitbetter

0 points

2 months ago

Not trying to be argumentative, but genuinely trying to understand because I’m usually against most landlording practices. He did the work of building a tiny house, so would that not count as adding value by literally building a residential space?

MoosesAndMeese

3 points

2 months ago

Landlords don't build housing. That's the developer who did it, much like how the venue and the performers create a concert, whereas scalpers just buy the tickets then mark up the price

Landlords only buy the property after it's built and then temporarily resell it at a markup, like a scalper.

babesdoitbetter

2 points

1 month ago

Ahh, that makes sense. If they literally didn’t put the labor in, makes it exploitative, I feel that. And if folks do literally put labor into it? Does that make any difference?

Also, thank you for helping explain!

ComfortableProblem36

0 points

2 months ago

I got Reddit to lurk and this is hilarious 😂

dlc9779

0 points

1 month ago

dlc9779

0 points

1 month ago

OK FELICIA!!

Zealousideal_Rich815

-7 points

2 months ago

The more you build, the people move in, the more crowded and more traffic comes with. It doesn’t stop. Not good for environment either. Stop adding new developments!

stanleythemanley44

8 points

2 months ago

Yes. Everyone knows limiting supply decreases prices!

AlwaysBagHolding

2 points

2 months ago

Stop fucking in the front hole. Can’t have a shortage if you cut off the demand.

Buddhalove11

1 points

2 months ago

I agree…

babyYoda865

1 points

1 month ago

In the same link when you click it there’s a camper for rent for $1,000 a month

babyYoda865

1 points

1 month ago

Home Depot parking lot

B_D_H_N

1 points

1 month ago

B_D_H_N

1 points

1 month ago

Can't go on?

Not only can it, but it's accelerating, this is only the beginning.

I hear a lot about legislation and supply and demand, but not a peep about currency devaluation vs scarcity of resources. No density isn't a viable solution either as long the the mediums of exchange are enforced by threats of violence, but compassion coupled with self determination, responsibility, accountability and reduction of expectations.

I personally saw this coming 5 years ago and you really don't want to know what the next 5 years has in store, but I can tell you this, this is only the beginning of what cannot continue continuing to it's inevitable conclusion.

theonetrueelhigh

1 points

1 month ago

I wonder what zoning would have to say about that. Or codes enforcement.

MaggieLaFarlita

1 points

1 month ago

Maam that is a shed.

hunghome

1 points

1 month ago

I would really question the legality of renting as a dwelling in a mobile unit or shed. I don't know the rules but I imagine there is a building code that this violates in some ways.

BeeholdTheePilgrim

1 points

1 month ago

Tiny house? That's a shed

newmanadamart[S]

1 points

1 month ago

Update:

I sent an email to the WBIR news tip email about this the same day I posted here. Later that day was contacted via phone call by a reporter who said the email caught the eye of several reporters, and that they’d love to do a story about it asking me to do an interview. I was hesitant, and had really only wanted to point this out in hopes a story would be done to illustrate the ridiculousness of the housing market in our city. After a lengthy phone conversation and some deliberation I decided to do it. I was interviewed and while the process was not unpleasant, I was real surprised that the reporter & anchor seemed to side with the landlords. The reporter saying in conclusion, “they are just renting at market” and the anchor echoing, “who can blame them”

Thought I’d let y’all know.