Unit Sweet Unit
Another thing we’ve noticed about some of the Burns Park zoning coverage: language that suggests a certain point of view. “Portions of that neighborhood currently occupied by single-family homes are actually zoned for multiple-family and two-family dwelling units…Homes already used as students [sic] rentals would ‘grandfathered’ under the plan, unaffected until any change in their use.” These are homes. Something must be done before they’re converted into “rentals” and “dwelling units”!
By definition, a dwelling unit is a technical term that describes any building or portion of a building used for residential purposes . It only becomes derogatory when used by those people who have an agenda using the words to divide the icky from the not so icky.
posted by mucho gusto on December 29th, 2007 at 9:56 amI own a home, and here’s a dirty little secret: an icky person rents the house next door to me. And…I have not yet turned them in to the encased-in-amber police.
posted by Just a homeowner on December 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmAnd a very-non-icky family rents across the street from me, and next door to them is a house that has been occupied by a series of non-icky grad students. Sadly, that house is owned by a very icky landlord. When he doesn’t have tenants (generally in the summer, but sometimes over Christmas break), he can’t be bothered to come in from Livonia and take care of the property, so the sidewalks go unshovelled, the lawn goes unmowed, etc. The very grouchy old lady on that side of the street turns him in, though.
posted by Clem on December 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIt’s not the use of “dwelling unit” that I object to; it’s “home.” Home is an emotionally charged word that should be used either to describe any place where anyone lives, whether the inhabitant owns the structure or not, or not at all.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on December 31st, 2007 at 9:58 amhome
1 the place where one lives permanently, esp. as a member of a family or household
2 a house or an apartment considered as a commercial property
dwelling
1 a house, apartment, or other place of residence.
house
1 a building for human habitation, esp. one that is lived in by a family or small group of people.
When does a building become a home? The term “home” conjures all kinds of images and therein comes the problem of using the word “home” to describe the myriad places we reside. “Home” is too vague to accurately describe all the places where people reside.
When does a rental, single family or multiple occupant house become a home? I may call my place of residence a home, but more accurately it is a dwelling used by a single family.
By definition, a home may have more than one dwelling unit, such as a duplex or multi family apartment building. You wouldn’t call an apartment building a home, would you? You might call a single apartment or condo within a building your home, but more accurately, for governmental purposes, it is called a dwelling unit.
The term “dwelling unit” or “dwelling” has traditionally been used to accurately describe, usually for accounting and legal purposes, inclusively, any building used for purposes of, more or less permanent (as opposed to short term like hotel rooms), residency. The terms single family home, multi-family home, duplex, triplex, apartment building, rental house, SRO, owner occupied multi family, attached two family, condominium, Section 8 rent subsidized, single family home with detached apartment over garage, cave, or in the case of the homeless, a large cardboard box, are not fully inclusive or accurately descriptive, so the term “dwelling unit(s)” is used to accurately and inclusively describe places where people reside.
The term “dwelling unit” is primarily used for counting. Informationally it is used for governmental and sociological purposes. In the bureaucratic sense (as opposed to the political sense) it is not used to make a distinction between those who own and those who rent. Indeed “dwelling unit” is purposely non-descriptive and politically correct of the type of building that is used for residential purposes.
Sorry for the lecture.
posted by mucho gusto on December 31st, 2007 at 11:08 amI agree with AAIO. Let’s stop using “home” to describe anything under construction, for sale, or a subject of regulation. While we are at it, please let’s not refer to anyone as a “mom” or a “dad” outside of the family unit.
posted by anonymous too on December 31st, 2007 at 12:14 pmI really prefer “crib” or “pad”. I also prefer “old lady” to wife or spouse. And “ride” to car or automobile. ” ‘rents” to describe my mom and dad.
posted by mucho gusto on December 31st, 2007 at 1:00 pm“It’s not the use of “dwelling unit” that I object to; it’s “home.” Home is an emotionally charged word… ”
The words ‘home’ and ‘house’ are not defined in the City’s code (ch. 55). I would be surprised if they appear in the code’s text at all and they do not appear in the resolutions text. Anyone using these words is either trying to spin emotional baggage into the discussion or wrongly thinks that ‘home’ is synonymous with ‘dwelling unit’. However in a technical zoning discussion a ‘house’ is a structure (typically called a residence) and a ‘home’ is a mindset. Zoning shouldn’t address mindsets.
It seems that maybe Gannett was just trying to vary his language a little to add spice to his article; none of his uses of ‘home’ are directly attributed to anyone. So what if it emotionally charged things up.
posted by abc on December 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pmI think if the argument is going to get this nitpicky about terms it would be really useful to at least get the reporters name right. It’s Gantert not Gannett. The first one is a reporter that you may or may not like…the later is a corporation that owns many newspapers and treats its workers in god awful ways, including telling truck drivers to drive over them. Then again I’m sure AAIO and its readers will find plenty of words in my posting here objectionable.
posted by andy on January 1st, 2008 at 6:20 pmHey Andy, thanks for the background on the Gannett vs. Gantert. It was very interesting, but not germane.
This discussion may be nitpicky about terms but your point that “…it would be really useful to at least get the reporters name right” is a tangent that does not matter. Just what about getting the spelling of his name correct would be “really useful”? If his name were Smith or Jones what difference would it make? Or is it that you think that if I cannot get his name right that then the rest of my post must also be questioned.
Maybe I should know this guy’s name as I read his articles all the time. But, I might also think that the typesetter at the News should also know this guy’s name as they may have shared a beer together at a holiday party last week. Go back to the *top* of the article and tell me the writer’s name. It says:
“BY TOM GANNETT
posted by abc on January 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 amThe Ann Arbor News”
hahaha. Are they owned by Gannett? If so, this could be some attempt to make all their reporters have the same last name, kind of like the Ramones.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 amMy whole point is this bitching about homes vs dwelling unit is not in any way germane to the greater issue of possibly rezoning parts of lower Burns Park. So the reporters name is just as important as this whole lets split hairs as fine as we can about homes vs. dwelling units.
Sorry I noticed the part where it says who posted the article and the very bottom of the article that have his name right, and overlooked the byline.
posted by Andy on January 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pmhttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/stockholms_feel.php
If the City had mood lighting where should it go?
posted by just passing by on January 4th, 2008 at 10:42 amFarmer’s Market?
City Hall?
The cube?