Dear Editor:

A 1.85-acre lot in town is advertised at just under 2 million dollars.

There is little incentive for a developer to build a Planned Affordable Development (PAD) when they have to spend that much money on land, infrastructure and construction costs and make their money back, let alone a profit. Why would they choose to build a PAD with low rents and high deed restrictions?

In addition to that, developers do not always have aesthetically pleasing non-toxic energy efficient habitats in mind as their primary motive.

I wonder if there is some way we could create a locals mutual investment fund for loaning

money toward eco-development — super energy efficient, cooperative living habitats that

incorporate shared greenhouse, garden, play and work spaces for our residents?

I envision a combination of eco housing developments and cooperatively owned tiny

home parks with shared community work and play spaces.

Imagine a tiny home park that is owned and managed by its residents. Each resident owns a

share of the park itself as well as their tiny home. If we zone the park as mixed-use with 80 percent

residential and 20 percent commercial, then several of the tiny homes could be dedicated overnight

rentals owned and managed by the cooperative. The income generated from the overnight

rentals would contribute toward the purchase of the mobile home park.

Only the designated 20 percent commercial tiny homes are allowed to be overnight rentals. The long-term residential tiny homes can only be owned by full-time residents. Something like that.

Something that aids locals’ ability to pay for their tiny home park and ensure control over their


And if the desert dries up they can drive their home to some place greener.

Kaki Hunter