In May, the Gazette published an editorial headlined “A setback for ‘tiny house’ life.” I read this with great curiosity, wondering what the “setback” was.
The editorial notes that tiny houses are illegal and 99 percent of U.S. cities do not allow them. Who said they are gaining approval? It notes that they won approval in Nantucket. Wow, is Nantucket the benchmark of the U.S.? Is California the place to be because they place a tiny house in front of a city hall?
Where else but Town Meeting would people be able to voice their concern about a zoning change?
Opponents did not state it was a bad fit for Hadley.
People of Hadley voiced their opinion on the concept of the tiny house, not on economics. Lack of affordable housing was brought up, but Hadley is very affordable; however there is not a huge amount of available rentals. Why begrudge an owner of a two-family home or rental properties to not get as much as the market will bear? Are these owners, after paying taxes and fees, going to give it away?
Yes, Thoreau built one at Walden Pond.
Why was there no reference to the fact that the individual built the tiny house, placed it on a land owner’s property with their permission but did so without checking into any rule, or by-laws? And then that individual went about saying that the town of Hadley needs to change its bylaws with regard to this situation after circumventing all rules.
Like many others who own property and homes in this town, I believe there is a proper procedure to follow with regard to any situation regarding placing or changing buildings of any size.
The outcome of the vote was based on most people objecting to the procedure that was not followed, not the concept of the tiny house.
The Gazette needs to address the situation, not denigrate the townspeople who voted against the zoning change. You will notice, I said “zoning change” not “tiny house.”
Joseph Madenski
Hadley