Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Worst Roommate Ever

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 290 posts

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#171

Post by Humdeee »

philliphaydon wrote: post #94
PascLeRasc wrote: post #24

I just lived for my last semester of undergrad with two people like this who really got on each others' nerves (all three of us just needed a semester of housing to finish school). They'd both brought their own toasters and just wanted theirs out and the others in a cabinet. I think they had less than 5 conversations in person, instead putting all their incredibly minor complaints in a group text so I'd have to see i…

I’ve never had problems like this. I had a policy with flat mates which was. If you put food in the fridge, expect me to eat it, if I put food in the fridge, I expect you to eat it, I’m not going to argue about fridge space or who bought what. It’s not worth the time and effort.

Do you also eat co-worker's lunches? Why is eating what you don't buy an issue?

You'd be spending an evening on the toilet by the third day. And I would have laxatives and air freshener as part of my regular grocery shopping list. This arrangement I would be okay with; you get your food, and I get my entertainment.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#172

Post by justherefortart »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #165
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot…

So find an investment that does not amplify the housing crisis.

Takes 15 days where I live to fully evict someone.

I was going to buy a house when I lived in SF and rent out the other 2 floors (to make it both reasonable to me and renters). After reading up on the laws I noped the fuck out of that.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#173

Post by JumpCrisscross »

maaaats wrote: post #110
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot…

> It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. But then how do you kick them out? By doing something ! Which was my point. Saying "nothing whatsoever to do about it" is a lie by the OP. I'm not saying all the rules are sane. But it's better to protect the weak that need roof over their heads, than the persons renting out a house t…

> If it deters people from buying properties for renting to others by making it not as lucrative, it keeps the prices down and makes housing affordable for man

Eviction control makes “some form of rent control necessary: in its absence, the landlord could charge an astronomic rent instead of sending a notice of termination” [1]. Rent controls have a documented effect of suppressing new housing supply, thereby raising rents. Furthermore, “subsequent to the introduction of [German] eviction control in 1971 and 1975, the number of evictions first decreased and then, after some short time interval, returned to its normal average” (page 473).

[1] https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/92900/1/Homburg1993T...

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#174

Post by [deleted] »

smelendez wrote: post #63
0x7f800000 wrote: post #5

One of the most important tools we have for social encounters like interviewing a stranger as a potential new roommate is our "gut" reaction, which is our hard-won evolutionary instincts warning us of potential danger -- warning that something is off about the person or their situation. Trust your gut.

One rule of thumb that's served me well: the sooner someone brings negativity and hard luck stories into your interactions, the more negativity they'll bring into your life.

[deleted]

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#175

Post by NutriSugar »

maaaats wrote: post #110
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot…

> It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. But then how do you kick them out? By doing something ! Which was my point. Saying "nothing whatsoever to do about it" is a lie by the OP. I'm not saying all the rules are sane. But it's better to protect the weak that need roof over their heads, than the persons renting out a house t…

>Having a house to live in should be.

I think their is a confusion of rights and duties occurring here.

You have a right to own a house. What you are speaking about is others having a duty to provide you with a house. In particular, we need to be clear on exactly what the duty to provide housing is. For example, there is a significant difference between the government offering safe homeless shelters because society has a duty to provide some shelter, and legally being allowed to continue living in a rental unit that you stop paying for, because this constitutes a duty of the owner providing you with that particular house.

Sex is a common idea that helps establish the difference between a right and a duty. Banning gay individuals from having sex is wrong because it violates their right to sex. But no one has to have sex with another person because there is no duty to provide sex.

>If it deters people from buying properties for renting to others by making it not as lucrative, it keeps the prices down and makes housing affordable for many.

There is also the possibility of regulatory capture. It prevents someone who happens to own two properties from being a competitor in providing rental services while companies that specialize in it and have many properties of the right value to be able to spread out the risk are not threatened by the laws.

As someone looking to buy a house, I've considered the ability to rent it should I seek to move verses having to sell it, and it seems that tenant rights where I live (which are much weaker than French law) increase my risk of renting far more than it increases the risk of a company specializing in renting. Its weird to be in a position where I rent but feel there isn't enough protection while at the same time there is so much protection that it strongly impacts the logic of if I should buy.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#176

Post by jeffreyrogers »

whack wrote: post #53

The kind of tenancy laws I read in articles like these, sound absolutely idiotic. If you let someone into your home, and they aren't on the lease, you should be able to kick them out anytime they overstay their welcome. If you do sign a lease with someone, and they haven't paid their rent, you should be able to throw their stuff out and change the locks as soon as their security deposit has run itself out. As a forme…

Where I live it's pretty common to have multiple tenants in housing zoned for single-family residential use (I imagine this is true of much of the US). I'm curious whether that makes it easier or harder to evict someone.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#177

Post by JumpCrisscross »

comboy wrote: post #72
megablast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? So no tenants rights at all? Just because of an incredibly rare and unique situation?

I support him. If you want "tenant rights" you can sign appropriate lease contract that allows you to stay longer in case you are in some trouble. Perhaps you could also buy some insurance for that. But why owner of the property would have to keep it in hands of somebody who is not paying? Because tenant is in some bad life situation? I think in most cases if that really would be the case, property owner would help,…

> If you want "tenant rights" you can sign appropriate lease contract that allows you to stay longer in case you are in some trouble

“Tenants do not highly value protection from eviction” at the time of lease signing “because the objective probability of arbitrary eviction is small” [1]. (The same paper notes that subsequent to the introduction of [German] eviction control in 1971 and 1975, the number of evictions first decreased and then, after some short time interval, returned to its normal average.”)

[1] https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/92900/1/Homburg1993T...

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#178

Post by ghaff »

subroutine wrote: post #74

Did anyone else read this paragraph wonder wtf really happened... "Bachman enrolled at Tulane University in the fall of 1975, but his time there was rocky and brief, ruptured by a horrific incident in January at the Sigma Chi house, just off campus. Although Bachman was not a member of the frat, he told Friedman he’d been hanging around the house with a friend from Elkins Park, a boy a year older named Ken Gutzeit. S…

What a weird story. One strongly suspects that there must be more to it. As reported, to not even be indicted (which usually has a low bar) for stabbing someone to death in full view of numerous witnesses seems like a pretty abnormal outcome.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#179

Post by snvzz »

dalore wrote: post #123
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot…

If someone dies and does not pay, and it still takes a year to kick them out, won't the body be severely decomposed then?

Objects don't get the level of protection people do.

Re: Worst Roommate Ever

#180

Post by TheCoelacanth »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #155

This is one of those extreme pieces that illustrate a libertarian trope about property rights. "Due to some crazy librul laws about renting apartments this psycho stabbed me and ate my cat..." Landlord laws are there to protect people from property owners that are often unfair and discriminatory. It is the VAST-99.999%-almost-always-few-exceptions-case that landlords are unfair to tenants rather than psycho's like th…

Also, usually the tenancy laws are much less strict when the landlord is sharing the dwelling with the tenant. There is pretty much zero chance that they wouldn't have been able to evict him quickly if they had good legal representation. This is more of an example of how the legal system is unfair to people without good legal representation than it is of how tenancy laws are unfair.
Post reply on HN