Government officials in Buncombe County, North Carolina, have begun forcibly evicting homeless individuals from “tiny homes” and cabins built and donated by the Amish community.
Three weeks ago, hundreds of Amish carpenters began working to build cabins in Western North Carolina where many people are still using tents for shelter.
These small, sturdy structures were intended as a temporary solution for people without stable housing, providing a safer, more private, and dignified alternative to traditional homeless shelters.
The homes, though modest, offered a refuge from the overcrowding, crime, and lack of personal space that often plague shelters. However, county officials argue that these structures fail to meet local housing codes, citing the lack of anchoring and heat sources that are not cord or plug connected as grounds for eviction.
The Amish-built homes were designed to address an immediate need, offering homeless individuals a safe and private space to call their own. Advocates for the homeless note that many people avoid shelters due to safety concerns, strict rules, or the lack of dignity afforded in FEMA-approved shelters.
“These tiny homes weren’t a permanent fix, but they were a crucial step toward stability,” said a local advocate. “They gave people hope, a sense of privacy, and protection from the dangers of the streets.”
Bureaucracy Stands in the Way
Buncombe County officials maintain that while tiny homes are not explicitly banned, any structure used for habitation must have access to plumbing and electricity to comply with housing codes. The lack of these utilities in the Amish-built homes, they say, makes them unsafe.
Critics, however, argue that this rigid enforcement does more harm than good. “The people living in these homes were safer and healthier than they would have been in shelters or on the streets,” said one housing advocate. “Why not work toward solutions instead of tearing down what’s already helping?”
The uproar over these tiny homes underscores the broader challenge of addressing homelessness. While officials focus on enforcing regulations, advocates argue that immediate solutions are needed for those living in crisis.
“Forcing people back into shelters—or worse, onto the streets—serves no one,” said a volunteer working with the displaced residents. “These homes were a step toward dignity, safety, and independence. Taking them away feels like a step backward.”
As the debate continues, the people most affected by these decisions—those who simply need a place to stay—are left searching for stability in a system that seems to prioritize bureaucracy over humanity.