Solutions and Barriers (Hunter Field Editor’s Note)

A Google Street View image of Little Rock City Hall (© Google)

I am not as reflexively opposed to government regulation as I suspect many of you are, but I have no problem calling a spade for what it is.

The city of Little Rock’s decision to deny a developer’s plans to build four tiny homes in the Hanger Hill neighborhood over a lack of driveways or street parking seems shortsighted.

With all we hear about the shortage of affordable housing in Arkansas, why must we insist on making it as difficult as possible to implement innovative solutions that may not fit into a traditional box?

This episode comes as I’ve struggled to shake several facts I read a few months ago in a fascinating Rand report on the cost of housing in California. The report found it costs more than four times as much money to build a square foot of affordable housing in California as it does to build a square foot of market-rate housing in Texas. This is undoubtedly due to the maze of red tape that comes whenever government funding is involved. Furthermore, it costs nearly 2.5 times more to build market-rate housing in California than Texas. I digress.

Back to Little Rock. I’m sure that the city’s planning staff was following the book when it recommended that the Planning Commission deny developer Mike Orndoff’s plans for the four 600-SF houses on an empty lot at 1522 Hanger St. I’ve certainly never claimed to be an expert on city code; however, I can think of a number of projects in, say, the Heights or Hillcrest that have apparently been approved despite a lack of available parking on the street or elsewhere.

I understand the concern, but ultimately, shouldn’t the parking problem be the residents’? If they’re parking illegally on the street, there are enforcement mechanisms: Start writing tickets. Or — though I know it’s hard for us Arkies to imagine — perhaps those interested in these homes, which are expected to cost about $100,000 a piece, don’t plan to own vehicles, as Orndoff suggested to the Arkansas Times.

I’m under no illusion that four tiny homes in east Little Rock will solve Arkansas’ or Little Rock’s affordable housing problems, but an adversarial government will certainly stop us from ever having a chance.

Creative, privately funded projects like this one are exactly the approaches we ought to be trying.

Orndoff has appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the full city Board of Directors, which plans to hear the appeal next month.

This seems to me to be the very reason we have appellate procedures. Even if a project doesn’t fit neatly within the bounds of the city’s codebook, perhaps common sense can prevail.

Email Hunter Field, editor of Arkansas Business, at hfield@abpg.com