We intend to deconstruct and reconstruct the foundations of “affordable/sustainable housing”. We have seen many attempts at “green” architecture that although elegant and possibly environmentally sustainable – often carry a price tag that will limit implementation only to a relative few who can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house.
We have looked around the globe a bit and seen that what makes a home varies tremendously in design, cost, sustainability, and satisfaction of those that live inside.
We fundamentally believe that the vast majority of people can be completely happy with homes that cost much less than $20,000. That’s right. $20,000. Not $200,000. Not $2,000,000. $20,000. Less than $20,000. $20,000 or less homes means that for those buying on loan, their monthly payments could be around $100 per month.
Obviously, more money could potentially be spent on a home – but we have an urgency towards mass implementation that we believe will follow from massive accessibility.
We have seen homes that cost $20,000 in the USA and are beautiful, elegant, more sustainable. The cost of $20,000 is for that single home – NOT as part of a massive contract to build 100 or 1,000 or more similar homes. We have not yet done all the work to estimate accurately what the price would be, but we expect that on 100 or 1,000 home contracts the price may reduce anywhere from 25% to 50%. Truthfully, it does not matter so much about decreasing the cost from $20,000 – more important would be to get lenders so that people could potentially pay $100 per month to own these homes.
Because we wish to facilitate these changes – we need people to do this. We need people to live in manners that pollute less and produce more good. Expensive homes in expensive areas without access to a “green” life – can only help so many people. By working together to “subsidize” green living – we can see to it that these changes happen.
Decreasing the cost of living, decreases the money needed, decreasing the need to earn money, decreases the need of production – which in general means decreasing pollution. However, the purpose is not to decrease income or productivity – if anything we could say the opposite – by providing home ownership and land access – a lot more productivity can occur.
Many people struggle to become productive since they can not simply do things like gather food, grow food, hunt, build with their own efforts, collect resources directly. As technology continues to progress, competing in the marketplace can become more challenging for individuals – however, for individuals who have direct access to land, water, plants, minerals, and animals – competition does not necessarily need to matter. One farmer produces 10,000 pounds on his acre another produces 15,000 pounds… even though the former may be considered “non-competitive” in certain respects… they still produced 10,000 pounds.
Today there seem to be deep conflicts about wealth. The millionaires versus people “only” earning $45,000 per year. Well… what does $45,000 per year mean when you could outright buy a home for $20,000? What does $45,000 per year mean when you have already paid off your home AND you have access to land that has a natural source of potable water AND have enough water to grow enough food for your family? If you ask me, that $45,000 equals HYPER-wealthy.
IN FACT, I would see that $45,000 income ON TOP of a paid off beautiful and sufficient sustainable home on acreage as obviously wealthier than someone earning $100,000 in a place where rent/mortgage equals $70,000 per year AND they have no acreage, no independent water supply, etc… Especially when one considers that the mortgage may be on a million dollar + home such that the owner actually now has a very serious commitment to continuing to earn that money annually OR serious concern that their property value does not fall significantly.
On the other hand, the person that owns land and home that are fully paid off and purchased for less than the price of many new cars – does not need to worry about this investment depreciating. Especially now. As it is, a person could rent out this house for $250 per month and would be making a great return on investment. $3000 annually for a $20,000 investment. In fact, they potentially could do this on loan. So if they qualify for a $20k loan to build this home, they could build it, pay $100 per month to pay the mortgage and get $250 per month from the rent. They could rent it for a much higher price probably, but the point is it’s very very doable.