Then you're just contributing to the sprawl problem, because infrastructure has to extend to you somehow.
The options are:
- bring all the infrastructure with you (be rich)
- do without (live in squalor)
The third option we need:
- small dense affordable housing
Yes, we're in agreement that density is sorely missing, due to effectively being made illegal - whether SROs, lot size requirements, building codes prohibiting new triple deckers, etc.
I just don't know why your first comment had this:
> The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it.
Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house.
I'm surprised there haven't been more private corporate attempts to take ruralish land and bootstrap higher density walkable proto-cities with bus (or even train) service to a larger city, especially with the recent trend of remote work making attracting industry less necessary.
It was more of a suggestion to do something quasi-legal like a multi-tenant tiny house village. I know a few folks who did this in the PNW, along with one who bought a disused kids' camp facility with small A-frame cabins and turned it into a permaculture farm & community, and then had all their friends move in.
You're right in that it's not an answer either, because it's essentially a tiny breakaway society.