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

141–150 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#141

Post by dec0dedab0de »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #127
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…

> 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. Th…

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.

I think it's because the only two options being presented are a group of people signing one lease with one landlord. Or a group of people individually signing leases with the landlord.

So basically, the problem is for people that can't find a group on their own. Or for a landlord who wants to act like every room is an apartment, when they're clearly not.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#142

Post by xnx »

wat10000 wrote: post #45
gryfft wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You certainly don't want yucky undesirables to have shelter when homeless, to be fed when hungry, to be clothed when naked? Just because they happen to be the same species as you? Just because their blood is the same color as yours? Just because that's the moral teaching of every dominant religious system? No, some people should be homeless, and suffer, and be made to bear humiliation. It is self evident that the suf…

You see, the only reason people are homless or otherwise down on their luck is because we make it so darned comfortable for them. If we can just make it sufficiently unpleasant, then they'll stop doing it.

Some people are just too lazy to be born in the right circumstances (geography, economy, parentage, skin color, physical ability, etc.) /s

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#143

Post by philipwhiuk »

cjs_ac wrote: post #5

In 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...

> They are regulated, licensed and inspected to ensure that they're not dangerous.

ish.., to the level of attention councils can afford to do so in an era of tight local government finances, and in the backdrop of limited housing stock making it difficult to refuse planning permission.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#144

Post by owlbite »

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 the UK specifically the radical reform (read destruction) of council housing by the Thatcher government had a large impact on the housing market in the 1980s.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#145

Post by vidarh »

boringg wrote: post #111
vidarh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your housing pressure is so significant, or your poverty so extensive, that people are willing to live in unsafe, overcrowded situations, then trying to regulate that away is not very likely to improve things, but just push people into other negative situations, like illegal lets where they have little recourse to complain about problems without the risk of losing their home.

One example - and very a extreme one to prove a point and not a very compelling one at that.

It wasn't remotely compelling to me, given the very obvious issue with it. Are you going to enlighten us about the other examples that are not affected by the same counter-argument?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#146

Post by ashtakeaway »

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 is also deindividuation which occurs in homelessness. You are rarely referred to by your own name and ignored or practically invisible by everyone else except by those providing services. I was homeless for 6 years so this was apparent in a lot of that society. In red states there was a third cohort: those disowned by families for having a differing view than them so they got kicked out. It takes a minimum of one year to recover from the effects of homelessness, mentally. That process only begins after they are rehoused.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#147

Post by buildsjets »

mig4ng wrote: post #30
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 have been sharing house with a roommate for years now (in Portugal), and I prefer it to living alone. Even with a girlfriend, I highly prefer to live in a house with more people. I come from a "big" family, and I am used to movement where I live. And living alone or just with one person, makes my energy go down. Now that I plan on moving to Paraguay, I am looking for co-living options or someone to rent place with.…

Two friends sharing a lovely home is not the same thing as twenty random crackheads living in a trap house.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#148

Post by tw04 »

tptacek wrote: post #123
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…

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 thi…

>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).

That really doesn't track with the laws actually written. Every single city I've lived in with restrictions on number of unrelated tenants, simultaneously has an exception that there are no limits on related parties, whether through blood or marriage.

They are very much limiting the number of unrelated people in a single dwelling and it's targeting slumlords, not the renters.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#149

Post by fortran77 »

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…

I think back in the day when people would take on boarders (you see this in a lot of old movies, tv series, etc) it was also much easier to evict.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#150

Post by danaris »

tw04 wrote: post #148
tptacek wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

>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). That really doesn't track with the laws actually written. Every single city I've lived in with restrictions on number of unrelated tenants, simultaneously has an exception that there are…

Or they're targeting polyamory.
Post reply on HN