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

Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

marginalrevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#101

Post by yonran »

alistairSH wrote: post #34

The article doesn't make this clear... is sharing a house illegal, or is it only illegal to separate leases for each room? Immediately post-college, I shared houses with other 20-somethings. It was always a single lease - 4 roommates listed, 4 beds, all of us responsible for the full amount of the rent. But, we were absolutely allowed to reside in the same home. Same thing in college - single lease for four people in…

> is sharing a house illegal, or is it only illegal to separate leases for each room?

Too many unrelated people living in a housing unit is illegal. Here’s San Francisco’s version of this law which was used to shut down house sharing companies such as HubHaus; see definition of “family” https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...

The article also mentioned dormitory-like “group housing” apartments (which differ from housing units in that they don’t have a separate kitchen for each unit). San Francisco is pretty enlightened in that it allows group housing in many zoning districts, but even they have group housing density limits and now common space requirements which are designed to prevent much group housing (see definition of “group housing” https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...).

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#102

Post by sokoloff »

reactordev wrote: post #31
Workaccount2 wrote: post #10

While 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…

I thought the entire goal was to get to a point where you're checked out? Retirement. The issue is income hasn't kept up with inflation and definitely not the rents required for older gen folks to survive on their own. Perspective: My mother owned a home in a wealthy area of Virginia, her mortgage was $1200/mo for 30 years. When she sold it (for double what she paid for it) she thought she was rich. Then came the ass…

If she only doubled her money in 30 years, that’s only 2.3% CAGR, probably less than general inflation over that time period. Most housing, especially in wealthy areas, has appreciated significantly more rapidly.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#103

Post by emseetech »

AlexandrB wrote: post #75
red_rech wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?

I think everyone in this thread should read https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-call-that-compassio... Addiction requires some level of coercive intervention to address. No one wants to admit this point so we keep arguing about whether we want to leave addicts to die in the street or in a crowded crack den. Neither really solves the problem.

Is it bleeding hearts preventing this or the unwillingness to properly fund it?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#104

Post by mothballed »

sokoloff wrote: post #95
TuringNYC wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Where are these types of places illegal in reality? Because eventually individual rooms start being rented by families. Next you have four families living in a single-family occupancy location and there is a huge fire hazard. I've seen this happen in NYC growing up, and its super dangerous. I also empathize with the other side -- as a poor person you may have no other option.

Living in a car or being homeless is also super-dangerous when contrasted to living in a more typical housing arrangement. It’s not at all clear to me that four families in a single family-intended house is worse than the alternatives. (Building more housing is the long-term solution, of course…)

Rational people tend to get the safest housing they can afford.

Therefore regulating housing is quite possible to only make things less safe, as people end up giving up money for healthy food / education / healthcare / dentistry etc to fund the trumped up "enviromental study" "planning and zoning" "code" and other requirements that might not best fit their budget.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#105

Post by Workaccount2 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #75
red_rech wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?

I think everyone in this thread should read https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-call-that-compassio... Addiction requires some level of coercive intervention to address. No one wants to admit this point so we keep arguing about whether we want to leave addicts to die in the street or in a crowded crack den. Neither really solves the problem.

Or just binge watch soft white underbelly on youtube[1].

Mark followed a bunch of homeless people in Skid Row as well as providing assistance to them and documenting it all through interviews.

The problem is so much (soooo much) deeper and worse than the surface level virtuous hand waving of "Just give them food and shelter and the problem is fixed".

[1]https://www.youtube.com/@SoftWhiteUnderbelly

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#106

Post by olalonde »

yonran wrote: post #101
alistairSH wrote: post #34

The article doesn't make this clear... is sharing a house illegal, or is it only illegal to separate leases for each room? Immediately post-college, I shared houses with other 20-somethings. It was always a single lease - 4 roommates listed, 4 beds, all of us responsible for the full amount of the rent. But, we were absolutely allowed to reside in the same home. Same thing in college - single lease for four people in…

> is sharing a house illegal, or is it only illegal to separate leases for each room? Too many unrelated people living in a housing unit is illegal. Here’s San Francisco’s version of this law which was used to shut down house sharing companies such as HubHaus; see definition of “family” https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... The article also mentioned dormitory-like “group housing” apartments…

Meanwhile, people build tiny homes to "solve homelessness"...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yJsWjulAonc

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#107

Post by AlexandrB »

itake wrote: post #70
alistairSH wrote: post #34

The article doesn't make this clear... is sharing a house illegal, or is it only illegal to separate leases for each room? Immediately post-college, I shared houses with other 20-somethings. It was always a single lease - 4 roommates listed, 4 beds, all of us responsible for the full amount of the rent. But, we were absolutely allowed to reside in the same home. Same thing in college - single lease for four people in…

Part of the problem is the law isn't designed for shared housing. 1/ If one roommate is disruptive (noise complaints, property damage, safety issues), landlords and other tenants have limited legal tools short of eviction of everyone. That blunt instrument makes it unattractive for landlords to allow multi-tenant arrangements. 2/ From a legal discriminatory standpoint, the law doesn't have much protections for people…

> 2/ From a legal discriminatory standpoint, the law doesn't have much protections for people blocking certain raises or genders from renting.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but why is this a problem? When you're living in such close quarters with people, you should have some freedom in choosing who you're living with. The classic example would be a "female only" household that doesn't allow men for real or perceived safety reasons. There are also cultures/religions where cohabitation with those of the opposite sex is taboo.

The race angle is more thorny, but I'd rather lean in the direction of allowing people to choose who they co-habitate with.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#108

Post by Ntrails »

cjs_ac wrote: post #97
Traster wrote: post #73

I don't like this line of reasoning because it's largely just crystalizing a loss. We have this in the UK - houses of multiple occupancy. It's a great idea where you take a home that in the 1980s would house a family and split it into 5 flats where each person can rent 10-20 square metres each. I would much rather someone did something to address the fact that the average family in the UK can afford roughly 1/5th the…

In the 1970s, it was usual for working class newlyweds would have to live with their parents until they were able to find housing. That's why second-rate comedians of the time like Les Dawson had so many mother-in-law jokes: there was an awful lot of resentment between young men and their mothers-in-law to exploit. There's nothing new about multiple families crowding into houses designed for just one family in this c…

Afaict Housebuilding will not improve based on current legislatory changes, not even close. Until you murder land value capture nothing will change.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#109

Post by mothballed »

cjs_ac wrote: post #97
Traster wrote: post #73

I don't like this line of reasoning because it's largely just crystalizing a loss. We have this in the UK - houses of multiple occupancy. It's a great idea where you take a home that in the 1980s would house a family and split it into 5 flats where each person can rent 10-20 square metres each. I would much rather someone did something to address the fact that the average family in the UK can afford roughly 1/5th the…

In the 1970s, it was usual for working class newlyweds would have to live with their parents until they were able to find housing. That's why second-rate comedians of the time like Les Dawson had so many mother-in-law jokes: there was an awful lot of resentment between young men and their mothers-in-law to exploit. There's nothing new about multiple families crowding into houses designed for just one family in this c…

In 1970 you could basically buy any non-city plot of land and build a shack on it without anyone bothering you. Think of the back to the land hippies in California just chopping down trees and starting their little communes -- they'd be utterly fucked if they did that now, some Karen would rat them out instantly to planning and zoning committee.

In the late 60s/70s DIY builders were almost completely displaced by developers who lobbied for regulations that stomped out "a guy and his pickup truck" by and large almost anywhere with desirable land. Then the owners of those houses reinforced same to prop up their property values.

I live in one of the last remaining counties that didn't do that, and last year I built a house for $60k. Pretty easy if you're in a place with essentially no codes or zoning. My (fairly) newlywed and I built the house with basically no experience either.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#110

Post by echelon »

9rx wrote: post #74
echelon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning rules can be useful, but if they produce negative externalities then they should be taxed. Want to only allow single-family residences? Fine, but pay the city taxes on that privilege. Then use those funds to offset the negative externality.

If the majority faction of the population want to force single family residences, what other majority faction is going to want to force a tax on it? Mathematically, you would need to find overlap where a large segment of the population want both single-family residences and to be taxed on it. Good luck.

You won't in the suburbs, which isn't where the problems lie. Nobody cares if you have a big single family residence when the land is plentiful.

Major urban centers have enough renters to form a voting bloc, and this is where such a policy could be useful to increase housing supply.

Post reply on HN