Urban Trailer Parks - Grit or Blight?

[Kheldane]

There was an artile in the Nashville City Paper today that included the following blurb about urban trailer parks: "The removal of the mobile home that sits on 37th Avenue North near the train bridge that connects Sylvan Park and Sylvan Heights. And note to the still-living city officials who years ago allowed this monstrosity: Mobile homes belong in rural settings and in trailer parks. A 10-year-old should know this. "

Here's the whole article:

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...s&news_id=46694

This made me wonder, what is everyone else's opinion about urban trailers and trailer parks?

Do they constitute a legitimate form of housing that is part of the urban fabric, or are they an abberation that must be removed in order to "purify" the city's architecture?

My personal view is this: Zoning laws are unconstitutional because they represent an uncompensated confiscation of private property (since any restriction on usage is a restriction on ownership; that is to say, ownership is nothing more than the ability to control the usage of the property in question). But beyond that I say Zoning is immoral in that it represents a violation of citizen's private property rights. Property owners pay their hard-earned money to acquire a piece of property and then their neighbors run in and start demanding this and that without any payment to compensate the owner for complying with their requests. These neighbors want to get something for free: They want partial control of their neighbor's property without paying anything for it. My opinion is that all city zoning should be abolished, kind of like Houston used to be, and then groups of owners can impose restrictive covenants (similar to those in most suburban neighborhoods) on a voluntary basis.

Of course, the above is an extreme view, but what about a more moderate approach? What about urban trailer parks like those on Dickerson Road or individual trailers on lots? Should they be removed (and their poor inhabitants forced out of the county) just to avoid offending the aesthetic sensibilities of Nashville's rich and middle class? And what happens when I drive by a row of so-called "fancy" houses in Green Hills and judge them to be total crap? Does my opinion mean they are urban decay? What if a majority said they were, would they then become urban decay? I really think trailer parks are high quality grit that adds to the city's character.

But what do the rest of yall'uns think? I love hearing your opinions!!

[Rural King]

As long as the trailer was built there when it was zoned appropriately then it should stay as long as the owner wants. Trailers are not bad, as they are the only affordable form of housing for many citizens. If we as a society don't want trailers as forms of housing, then a viable alternative should be offered, but IMO trailers are fine, perhaps not aesthetically pleasing, but of no harm or reason to ridicule those who live there (often working class folks). Should modern zoning laws allow them to just be put up everywhere? No, but an urban county shouldn't try to force them out as a means of getting rid of a perceived blight, because by that reasoning projects should also be eliminated/removed since many people view them as a blight as well.

Often I find that people who oppose and ridicule trailers and projects, and those who live there, are pretty much folks who would like to hide and/or forget about the poor as they find them of little or no worth in the grand scheme of things, and would prefer someone else deal with them. IMO it's rather snobbish to look down on people who live in trailers, since they are often hard working, but low paid, citizens who do alot of work that has to be done, or are quite often senior citizens.

[smeagolsfree]

I think mfg. homes, trailers or what ever they are have a place if they are done right. I have seen some trailer parks that are very well kept and look better than a lot of the cracker box homes that are being built. There is a place for them in zoning and if its not out of character for the neighborhood they are in. However with trailer homes, there have been many standards they have been built to over the years. Many are fire hazards or are poorly maintained because of money constraints of some of those that live in them, usually the poor or lower middle class. Rural areas are fine or even trailer parks in an urban setting as long as they are kept up as well as any other home in the city regardless of the type of construction. Many times the trailer parks will just disappear because the property around it has become too valuable for the park.

There was an interesting article on the news a couple of months back. I saw a trailer on a small parcel of land in CA. overlooking the ocean for sale at over a million dollars. Sometimes it doesn't matter if you are sitting on gold.

I do understand your political point of view, but put yourself in the shoes of someone that has bought a home for $200,000 and then someone puts a single wide trailer next to it, or a home very much like yours and the owners put their son in a trailer home in the front yard. Now will you be able to sell your home for what you paid for it? Zoning is needed many times as a means of safety to the community. Would you want to live right next to a oil refinery or a pig farm? I do agree we have way too much government involvement in our lives but too little can be a dangerous thing as well. I don't want to start a huge political debate as I respect a persons views and many times understand where they are coming from.

[sleepy]

I don't have anything against trailer parks. I don't find them particularly attractive, but it's affordable housing.

Plus, most run-down areas in cities aren't trailer parks, but dilapidated, blighted standard housing.

[Hankster]

In general, I would have to support zoning laws for many of the reasons Ron stated. Having said that, a government can get too involved in people's affairs to the point that personal rights and liberties are violated. If politicians pass and enforce laws that are clearly not for the good of the people, and interfere too much with their rights, it is our right and our duty to remove them from office at the next election, and replace them with people who will right their wrongs.

If the molbile home in question is being taken care of, I would respectfully disagree with William that the city should remove it. It may not fit with the rest of the area, but it was built there legally. If it is totally rundown to the point that is a safety hazard, I believe the city should have the right to comdemn it and have it removed.

[Kheldane]

Thanks for the responses guys!

RuralKing, I especially have to agree with you about how some people try to hide poor people and quietly "sweep them under the rug" so that they don't have to look at them.

[StevenRocks]

Trailers aren't pretty, but neither are dilapidated shacks andd rundown apartments. Providing decent housing for people is much more important than the aesthetics of same.

[EbonyGardens]

If trailers are well-taken care of by the city and the residents, then let them stay. Some people can't afford to live in $1.5 million homes, so Section 8 is their only option, or rental homes. Projects are more of an eyesore because they breed murders, drug sales, rapes, shootouts, gang wars, fights among other things.

[Rural King]

^ Lots of places and forms of housing can be the focal point of that sort of activity.