Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
marginalrevolution.com
Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
1–10 of 418 posts
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#2Zoning rules are awesome tools, for improving your own situation at the uncompensated expense of others.
And what decent person would ever want to object, if 95% of the victims are both "not like us", and members of lower classes?
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#3Zoning rules are awesome tools, for improving your own situation at the uncompensated expense of others. And what decent person would ever want to object, if 95% of the victims are both "not like us", and members of lower classes?
2nd order effects.
One moment you allow multiple unrelated people to share a house.
Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard.
My peeve is about banning of growing food in your front yard in many states. So much available land going waste growing grass (that is not even fed to cows).
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#4Rather than just lambast the people in the past for being stupid, it's often wise to think on why they did what they did.
In this case, the article contains the reason:
"as SROs disappeared, ... homelessness exploded nationwide."
Looks like SROs weren't being used by scientists and scholors.
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#5In the UK, these are called Houses in Multiple Occupation. They are regulated, licensed and inspected to ensure that they're not dangerous.
https://www.gov.uk/renting-out-a-property/houses-in-multiple...
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#6Zoning rules are awesome tools, for improving your own situation at the uncompensated expense of others. And what decent person would ever want to object, if 95% of the victims are both "not like us", and members of lower classes?
2nd order effects. One moment you allow multiple unrelated people to share a house. Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard. My peeve is about banning of growing food in your front yard in many states. So much available land going waste growing grass (that is not even fed to cows).
One moment you allow growing food in your front yard.
Next moment, you've got a rat infestation living 5 to a burrow and 8 of them are moving into your house.
My pet peeve is yet some other thing that might have downsides.
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#7Zoning rules are awesome tools, for improving your own situation at the uncompensated expense of others. And what decent person would ever want to object, if 95% of the victims are both "not like us", and members of lower classes?
Or alternatively trying to not have an area run rampant with too many people living in a house causing fire risks. Or god forbid trying to plan a city for density, resources, school locations.
Come on - zoning rules aren't some tool of repression. Sometimes they can be, but that isn't their raison d'etre.
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#8Rather than just lambast the people in the past for being stupid, it's often wise to think on why they did what they did. In this case, the article contains the reason: "as SROs disappeared, ... homelessness exploded nationwide." Looks like SROs weren't being used by scientists and scholors.
... and those people living on the street is better than them living under a roof?
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#9Rather than just lambast the people in the past for being stupid, it's often wise to think on why they did what they did. In this case, the article contains the reason: "as SROs disappeared, ... homelessness exploded nationwide." Looks like SROs weren't being used by scientists and scholors.
[deleted]
Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates
#10While these are great on paper, I think the part that needs solving is how to stop them from becoming dens of people who have checked out (voluntarily or not) of life/society.
Getting a place to live in for $350/mo would be absolutely game changing for low income (and even middle income) people trying to build wealth. The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as.