Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates • Hacker News Board

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#121

Post by Taek » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #107

itake wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some freedom? My house is my safe space, it's the place I go when I'm exhausted, when I'm sick, when the rest of the world sucks.

I should have a very high degree of freedom over who is allowed to share that space with me and I shouldn't have to justify not allowing another person (stranger or not) to co-habitate.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#122

Post by fragmede » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

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…

hahahaha. A room in a house is going to cost you $1,800/month in San Francisco.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#123

Post by tptacek » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

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…

These are challenges for people sharing housing, but they're not the legal reason why letting out rooms is illegal. Prohibitions on multifamily housing are all rooted in racial animus. It's the entire reason we have single-family zoning (a related legal proscription), which emerged very shortly after the Buchanan v Warley decision that outlawed outright racial zoning. There's a long and well-documented history of this, all the way down to regulations targeting multi-generational households (Black and Latino families are more likely to have a grandparent or aunt living alongside a younger family).

"The Color of Law" is a good starter read here.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#124

Post by alistairSH » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:12 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #121

AlexandrB wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Some freedom? My house is my safe space, it's the place I go when I'm exhausted, when I'm sick, when the rest of the world sucks. I should have a very high degree of freedom over who is allowed to share that space with me and I shouldn't have to justify not allowing another person (stranger or not) to co-habitate.

If you want that degree of freedom, a boarding house or shared occupancy is not for you. Pay up for dedicated solo housing.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#125

Post by 9rx » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:12 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #110

9rx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> enough renters to form a voting bloc

Maybe, but voting would only matter if there was a referendum, which is highly unlikely for something that isn't challenging fundamental rights. Taxes are easily repealed if the people realize they made a mistake. It not need that kind of level of agreement.

What does matter is having time to participate in democracy. It very well may be that in theory the renting crowd have a loud enough voice to be heard, but in practice do they really have the time/the feeling of having enough time to actually do it? Statistically, renters are lower income and tend to struggle to make ends meet. While making themselves heard would be beneficial, often they face other pressures, like needing to go to work, instead that diminish their ability to carry through with it.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#126

Post by joelwilliamson » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:13 PM UTC

mattkrause wrote: post #87

throw0101d wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article doesn't make this clear... is sharing a house illegal, or is it only illegal to separate leases for each room? A private bedroom but shared living/cooking space is generally called a rooming/boarding house : * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_house * https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/housing-shelter/mult... There is a separate contract with each tenant (i.e., multiple contracts), and each te…

My impression is that boarding house usually includes some services (cleaning, maintenance, food) from the owner or an employee who lives on the premises.

The “board” in a boarding house is food. There can be other services as well, but food is definitely required to be a boarding house.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#127

Post by TimorousBestie » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:14 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #107

itake wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Probably an unpopular opinion, but why is this a problem?

Because it makes it relatively more difficult for minorities to obtain housing, see sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348212

> 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 solution to the “female only” or the religiously observant household is for the renters/buyers to self-select and organize themselves. I don’t see why the landlord/seller needs to mandate it.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#128

Post by zozbot234 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:16 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #117

emseetech wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm guessing both. I think a lot of people get the ick about forcibly incarcerating people who are addicts or suffering from severe mental health issues[1]. I know I did when I was younger. We've moved to a more voluntary model of "mental health outreach" and the like. But this requires folks with compromised thought processes to regularly make a rational decision to seek help. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deins…

There's a huge difference between "suffering from severe mental issues" (which is very hard to establish an objective standard for) and engaging in outright anti-social, criminal behavior. The latter can most certainly result in incarceration or court-ordered treatment, and no one sensible will "get the ick" about that.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#129

Post by xphos » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:16 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #77

imgabe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people living in them should just try not being to poor to have real housing Yes, unironically, they should. And most would be trying to do exactly that. I don’t know why some people treat economic status as some immutable property outside of your control. People move up and down in economic status all the time. And most people move up as they get older and get more work experience and higher paying jobs. Having a…

Most homeless have "mental issues". On a good day they will try, but they have bad days often enough. Sometimes mental issues are caused by 'hard drug' use, but there are plenty of other causes. Society has not found a good answer to these people (many of the things tried have been worse than living on the streets - despite a few freezing to death) Some of the homeless could live in a roommate situation. Others are "…

I appreciate not being defeatist just because people might be homeless because of drugs or mental issues. I agree that there is a good chance they might destroy a room but I think SROs as a step up from shelters would be respected by like 80% of the people in that situation at that point you can start to price in and adjust the costs of things. Common area's can be managed reducing the overall risk not to zero but even in full appartements you can get really bad tenants that can pay.

My uncle once had a tenant smear feces on the wall before leaving it was nasty but that person was homeless and I don't think think that had mental illness beyond having a break down. I think they lost there job and it was a hard time for them. Still the wall was nasty.

Ultimately SROs do not solve homelessness hence the mitigating it factor if it solves 30% of the homeless problem that would be amazing

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#130

Post by AlexandrB » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:18 PM UTC

gryfft wrote: post #116

AlexandrB wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill If we were living in pre-agrarian society you would either be on the "work treadmill" building/maintaining shelter and finding food or you would starve or freeze to death. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Do you think animals spend most of their time looking for food because they're also operating under the capitalist syst…

> If we were living in pre-agrarian society you would either be on the "work treadmill" building/maintaining shelter and finding food or you would starve or freeze to death. It is my understanding that anthropology has shown that the people of prehistoric times cared for their sick, elderly, and infirm. > "From the very earliest times, we can see evidence that people who were unable to function were helped, looked af…

These were almost certainly family members, not strangers. Obviously you would care after your child/father/grandmother if they were infirm regardless of economic system. And even that is far from universal. Indigenous Amazon societies still practice infanticide[1] in times of scarcity or for infants that are infirm.

[1] https://www.scielo.br/j/csp/a/kPn9cHW4RWKz94CjxDBw3ds/?forma...