Georgia City Sued Over Ban on Tiny Houses, Small Cottages
Requiring that homes and apartments be a minimum size is a major driver of high housing costs. A new lawsuit from a nonprofit developer argues those rules are also unconstitutional.

Can the government force you to buy a larger, more expensive home than you want? That's the question at issue in a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit housing group against Calhoun, Georgia, over its minimum home size requirements.
For the past several years, Tiny House Hand Up, Inc. (THHU) and its executive director Cindy Tucker have sought to provide affordable housing for people in Calhoun by building smaller homes, which are cheaper to build and can be sold to people of modest incomes without the need for government subsidies. However, the city's requirement that new single-family dwellings be at least 1,150 square feet is frustrating this effort to create private, affordable homes.
Minimum unit sizes, for single-family homes and apartments, are common across the U.S. and considered a major driver of high housing costs. Those with means are forced to purchase more house than they otherwise would, while people with lower incomes are regulated out of the market entirely.
Cities and states that have reformed their regulations to allow for smaller homes—including California's legalization of accessory dwelling units and Houston's minimum lot size reforms—have seen a wealth of new development.
But despite repeated conversations between Tucker and city officials about how Calhoun's own minimum home size regulations are thwarting THHU's mission, those restrictions remain unchanged.
Earlier this month, the city council also denied THHU's application for a zoning variance that they requested for their Cottages at King's Corner development: a project that would build an initial six small homes (with plans to add up to 40) on an eight-acre plot of vacant, donated land.
In response to that rejection, THHU yesterday sued the city and the members of the city council.
"The Georgia Constitution requires that zoning restrictions bear a substantial relationship to the public health safety and general welfare. These minimum home sizes don't serve any of those purposes," says Joe Gay, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm representing THHU. "Smaller homes are completely healthy and safe. People around the country live in smaller homes and even in Calhoun, people live in smaller homes that were built before this ban was enacted."
Indeed, the land that THHU has acquired King's Corner project was initially zoned for industrial uses. That would have allowed the nonprofit to build a truck terminal, scrap metal processing facility, or any number of other types of seemingly more impactful developments without any issue, notes Gay.
Instead, THHU and Tucker, its director, had hoped to build several one- and two-bedroom cottages on the land. Each would be between 540 and 600 square feet, and come with their own kitchen, living room, and covered porch.
The smaller size of the cottages would enable a sale price of around $99,000, according to THHU's complaint. Their lawsuit says that the nonprofit has finished building plans, obtained financing from a local bank, and has contractors at ready—everything it needs to start work on King's Corner. Except the city's permission, that is.
Because these homes are too small to comply with the city's zoning code, THHU applied for a variance in August 2021. At an October city council meeting, Tucker said that her planned cottages would meet a need left unmet by the larger, zoning-compliant housing being built by private developers and government-subsidized affordable housing providers like Habitat for Humanity.
"We are not subsidized housing in any shape, size or form," said Tucker at that meeting. "We are not trying to step on anyone's toes, we're not trying to compete with anyone, but we saw a gap where we thought we could fit in."
Not everyone who spoke at that city council meeting was as eager to see the gap for affordable, private housing filled.
"If they put them little tiny houses in this neighborhood where we have bigger houses, the first thing I'm thinking of is that they're going to [be] priced less, and it's going to bring everyone's price down," said one member of the public.
Another woman saw the possibility of lower-income people purchasing the planned King's Corner cottages as a bug, not a feature.
"They're keying on low-income housing. You think of low income, how are they going to keep up with everything [like] trash pickup and this and that, and then it's not going to cause more issues and more riff raff than what we're already dealing with?" she said.
In the end, the city council rejected THHU's variance application. Left with no other options for starting their project, the nonprofit decided to sue.
Their complaint argues that Calhoun's minimum home size requirement violates the case law surrounding the Georgia Constitution's Due Process guarantee, which only allows zoning regulations that bear a "substantial relationship" to public health, safety, or welfare.
Minimum home sizes fail that requirement, says Gay. He notes that the city's building code (distinct from its zoning code) already imposes safety regulations on buildings, and the King's Corner development would be in full compliance with those. There are already a number of existing homes in Calhoun that are smaller than 1,150 square feet that have been grandfathered in under the current zoning code.
Governments' court-recognized powers to regulate development to combat the (supposed) negative externalities of traffic and density also don't apply, says Gay, because THHU's smaller cottages would lead to less traffic and density than the larger homes required by the zoning code.
The fact that the city would have allowed an industrial development on the same site "really unmasks what these kinds of bans are about," Gay tells Reason. It's "not to promote a legitimate government interest, but it's about excluding from the community people who could afford a smaller home."
Today, the Institute for Justice and THHU submitted their lawsuit to the Superior Court of Gordon County, Georgia. It will be reviewed by a judge and then filed.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
40 homes on just 8 acres?!!
Talk about a super-spreader event!
Shocking!
Why does this profit seeking greedy developer want to kill children?
There doesn't appear to be a zoning district in the Calhoun zoning code that would allow for 5 detached units per acre.
https://library.municode.com/ga/calhoun/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_APXAZO_ARTVIIUSREDI
Even the PRD (Planned Residential District) category requires detached units to have lots of at least 10,000 feet in area (or 4.3 max per acre). And Calhoun currently isn't approving PRD's.
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.YUp You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here..............Earn App
It's "not to promote a legitimate government interest, but it's about excluding from the community people who could afford a smaller home."
How else are they supposed to get those huge property taxes their future budgets depend on?
I'm not sure the tax revenue from multiple smaller units would necessarily be less than revenue from a single larger unit, especially when you consider many of the smaller homes would end up being rentals and thus qualify for fewer exemptions (higher tax rate)
Really its just because keeping property values up keeps voters happy, because they already own their properties
You are correct. The value of the dirt underneath goes up in collar per acre when the lots are smaller. One acre ddded lot might cos,t say, $50K, five acre would only be maybe $70K. That is IF it were not subdividable. Where I am, max one home per five acres (no sewer or water or natural gas out here, and won't be, so its all on site, thus the 1/5 density) a one acre deeded lot would be about $75K, my five acre appraises by the county at 1139K. Barely over double. But it can't be subdivided.
It’s not about taxes. High density housing costs more than taxes can bring in. Take a look at any of the slums in a city of your choice.
Higher density housing requires more sewer pipe, more water, more wastewater treatment, more electrical wiring, greater chance of fire spread, greater opportunity for traffic accidents, more on-street parking, higher traffic, reduced property values, higher violence and crime, and all that creates higher costs for municipalities.
That, in turn, causes tax rates to increase, without a net increase in tax revenue. It’s a lose-lose for towns to have high density housing.
The only people who benefit from high density housing are developers and corrupt politicians who approve the projects.
Residents of high density housing don’t benefit. Humans aren’t meant to be clustered too closely together.
The residents certainly do benefit, if they would be homeless otherwise. Who are you to say what humans are "meant" to do?
The amount of water and sewage is a factor of the number of people, not the number of houses. Apartment complexes create more population density than small houses do -_-
If they have 40 houses on 8 acres. Say there are 4 people on average (probably an overestimate) That gives us 20 people per acre. The nice 3 story apartment complex by my work has 36 units on 2 acres (including their parking lot). So even if the average occupancy is only 2 people per apartment. That's 36 people per acre.
So small houses are actually a decrease in population density.
Having access to cheaper housing also has positive externalities. People who own their home vs rent their home have a stronger sense of stability, more incentive to upkeep the property, and a reservoir of value. And with more people having smaller families or staying single, why assume that every house needs to fit a family of 4?
The other reality is, giving people MORE options allows them to figure out what works for THEM.
you seem to miss the point that this proposed developmmentis not high density jusst smaller structures on the same number per acre.
But even that is a scam. If the cost of a 900 sf home comes in at $150/sf, a 1200 foot home built to the samw quality standards would drop to maybe 135/sf. To add the additonal 250 sf will not cost the same price persf finished. You're just adding longer walls, a bit more floor and overhead, stretching the floor plan to increase the footage with the same number of rooms would only add 25 feet of stud wall, 500 sf of floor/ceiling, maybe fifty feet mor e electrical wire, don't need any more plumbing for the same number and type of rooms. @5 mroe feet of fttoing/stemwall. 400 sf more sheetrock. Materials maybe would approach another $5K, labour probably the ame.
So by a redesign increasing to city's prescribed minimum would only add at most $15K, not the huge number they are talking.
Sorry I don't buy their schtick.
Ask Gabby how tiny houses add romance.
Too soon!
And they wonder why so many people are homeless.
You used to be able to build a log cabin in a few days and live there, or cut sod out of the prairie to stack as bricks, or build something with a thatched roof. Now you couldn't get the plans approved by the city, or pass inspection and get a residency permit.
Someone wanted to donate tiny houses to the homeless in LA, but they were disallowed since they don't have water and electricity. As if the tents they are living in now do.
Yup. For the vast majority of human history you just built your own shelter if you couldn't afford one. Now that option is gone.
Folks still do it. Legally even. Get out of the city and suburbs.
Yup. In my county the fees to the thieves up on the hill to build a 2000sf "average" home these days is more than I paid for my current home (4 br 1900 sf on five acres) thirty years ago. The sinking county wanted $5K for the PERmItS to REBUILD the barn the snow took down last winter. No electric, no water, just four walls, dirt floor, and a roof. ANd they won't let me use reclaimed/salvaged matreials, nor lumber I cut here on the property and mill.
es, gummit is part of the homeless issue. theyr valueless added costs are a hige part of the problem, as are their standards for ocnstruction. Twenty years ago mys tate enacted "green buiidng laws. The cost of ANY single family dwellling instantly went UP between 35 and 40% for the same size and stule of home before the law took effect. Thus a $100K home before cost $135K after, and the increase in permit fees, (based on finished dollar cost)went from $20K to about $35K. For what? To make the greenies get the warm fuzzies at night thinking they are "saving the planet'
Yes, all that is part of the omeless issue, but a very small one. Almost vanishingly small.
I remember when the left were vehemently against small houses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUwUp-D_VV0
"And the people all went to universities..."
Guess the left like putting people in little boxes, whether homes or diversity checkboxes.
Dontchya reember Elvina Reynold's song abut San Francisco from just before the hippie days? " Litttle boxes little boxes aticky tack all in a row" or close to that. ? I've seen and been in those homes. OPen the bathroom window reach your arm out halfway as far as yuor forearm will reach and scratch the paint on the neighbour's sidewall. I can't even figure out how the builders were able t nail the redwood clapboard siding on the second house, it was tht close. NOO SPACE to swing a hammer. And stable/nail guns had not yet beeninvented. These were built post 1906 quake. my cousin's three stroy and basement was built 1908 or 9.
Calhoun City Government Rips Through Tiny Cottage Home Industry Like A Tornado Through A Trailer Park
Trailer Home Manufacturers Retort That Their Housing Isn't Subsidized
+1 nice
There are a few relevant sections of the widely-adopted International Building Code that also specify minimum sizes for habitable interior spaces, in both residential and commercial buildings. (Specifically Section 1208)
But it basically just says that dwelling units need to have at least one room of not less than 120 square feet in area, that the minimum size of a bedroom is 7x10, ceilings need to be at least 7'-6" high, and every dwelling needs to have both a kitchen and a bathroom.
Following these requirements, one should be able to lay out a small / tiny house of around 350 - 400 square feet; about 1/3 the size of the floor plan required by Calhoun.
But, it also has an option for something called an 'efficiency unit' - something more like a studio apartment - where you aren't required to separate cooking or sleeping areas from the main living room, but you are required to have a separate bathroom. These can be somewhat smaller (minimum 220 sf for the living room + whatever the size of the bathroom).
The homes made from sea freight cans are, most of them, 400 sf. A fifty foot can eight wide. Tall ones can include a loft.
Not just high housing costs but also higher property taxes.
If I had to start from scratch I might proceed with a portable yurt and move it around my property.
some areas that is done, and done well. But nowhere near any decent sized cities.
Bring back Lustron home. Small, affordable, none of that wasteland vibe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustron_house
The restrictions hit folks building this cottage industry the hardest.
For those interested in this subject, a major icon of the tiny house movement: The used shipping container is... problematic as a living space, isn't particularly sustainable, comes with all kinds of problems, requires a ton of add-ons and structural stuff, and ends up being more expensive than had you just built a small house made of traditional materials of the same size.
This architect throws cold water on the concept.
Yeah, i looked into it and it isnt very cost efficient or appealing. In fact, seems kinda retarded with the asking price for a used 40' container.
Yeah, this breakdown really opened my eyes up on this issue. Even I was a bit bamboozled by the concept. Yeah, millions of shipping containers-- sturdy metal boxes with nothing to use them for... make little houses out of them! And they look super modern and cool!
You know, it would be cheaper to just built a standard tiny house that's actually bigger, more sturdy, and just put some corrugated metal as a siding material and call it done, right?
But... that's no fun!
Out west, there was a fad of burying shipping containers as impromptu storage/survival shelters. Seems like the same sort of thrifty trick until you use anything except pristine desert sand which doesn't hold water and the newest shipping containers tarred or otherwise treated on the outside. Otherwise, the whole thing would corrode and collapse in on itself after just a few years.
sea freight cans not sturdy? Have you WORKED with them? Unless you DROP one or smack into it with the forklift, they are incrediblhy strong. At sea they are stacked six to ten high, LOADED with cargo. Strong?Ehat more do you want. Termits can never get a tooth into them. Rot? Well if occupied, and the vientilation si done ritht on conversion, they are as good as a house. Far bettert han MY house.
I know some guys who managed to cadge three 45 footers a while ago. Got them drayed up the hill and dropoped. Cut one in half weled the two halves on to the closed ends of the whole ones, so they had two cans 60 foot long, 9 foot high inside. Set them parallel forty feet apart, trussed over them, and now have a 40 x 60 foot concrete floor shop, wired, plumbed, lights, with an eight by sixty foot set of breakout rooms for macninery with space to USE it. They just got, for the price of "get it out of my yard" two 24 foot truck boxes, and set them outsiede of one 60 foot outer can. Broke through the sides, extended the electrical ,and now have a 24 foot bay dedicated to their 12 foot bed lathe with 30 inch swing.
Had they built this structire conventioinally it would have cost at least half a million. Total cost on this one as now configured is well under $60K.
n alrernative to getting sea freight cans is older semi trailers I've gotten three of them in the last year for the price of hauling them away. Instantly moveble, all you need is a trick tractor. buy old cheap, or hire a gyppo owner/operator. Two 48's and a drop deck super high ceiling of 40 foot. Total cost to get all of them acquried and here was well under $1000. Had to fiddle the brakes to make road lega, all tyres were fine, some low on air from sitting twenty years. Lights I have a set of clip-ons. Work fine and are legal.
Also, once you put it on wheels, the Building Codes don't apply, typically.
interesting blog
if people who live in apartments can live fine within those small walls, they can easily in small houses.
I actually agree with the strategy of bringing suits to cabin the supposed state "police" power.
It's been imported in many states into carte blanche for them to do whatever they want, when in reality State constitutions put all kinds of limits on what its officials can do.
But the state police power line of federal cases, which prohibit *federal* encroachment, have been so transmogrified that you've got various State officials thinking they have no guardrails because everything they do is within "the state police power." It should be understood as a federal constitutional restriction on what the feds can do, not an affirmative grant of any particular power to the States.
All that said, I'm NOT a fan of constitutional challenges to zoning in general, which it sounds like this is. Unless a particular state constitution bars (particular or general) land use restrictions, this is just a recipe for another bullshit substantive due process right, which has plainly been a cure worse than the disease at the federal level.
the US Constitution guarantees to each state a REPUBLICAN form of government.. that means, the same separation of power into the same three branches as FedGov, and the Fed Constitutoin contnues to prohibit government at ALL levels from tracshing our God given rights . The free use and enjoyment of MY pwn land is a right. It is a far stretch to try and make the case that smaller homes on the same sized lots poses somesort of hazard or threat to those with larger homes. cot per suare foot on a 1000 sf home is more per sf than cost of say an 1500 sf home built to the same standards. I've heard prices on some tiny homes I've seen.... cost per sf is a few multiples of cost per sf of a more conventional design and size. BUT some folks want that. WHO am I to tell them tey can't have it?
No, "republican form of government" does not mean that whatever you think our God given rights are, are incorporated against the States.
What actually incorporates federal constitutional rights (both textual and made up by the courts) against the States is Fourteenth Amendment incorporation. Substantive due process. The basis for abortion in roe, gay marriage in obergefell (if we're being honest), and a litany of other made up federal "rights" that were created to restrict the States and the people. Suffice to say, it's been a horrible mistake.
A marginally less horrible idea than substantive due process is Justice Thomas's theory: that the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause should be used to apply unenumerated or federal-only rights against the States. While it's merely tortured textualism rather than obviously made up substantive due process, it runs into the same problem of the left having every reason and intention of making shit up.
Justice Thomas's theory concerns only those privileges and immunities that were established when the Constitution was written, but I don't think that's as good a protection against the left's machinations, as requiring an actual textual basis.
Current homeowners concerned that smaller homes would decrease their property value don't understand how home valuation works. The smaller homes would not be considered "comparables" to their larger homes without adjustments for the differences.
Of course, one of them went right to "riff raff," so it is not the size of the home that really concerns them but who might live in them. Sad.
WELCOME TO THE CITYS CALLED ......KARENVILLE'S
cities(sorry, ina rush)