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

211–220 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#211

Post by koolba »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175
SoftTalker wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure in some/many cases there were racial motivations but also SROs that have many unrelated people in individual rooms often become seen as flophouses and are seen as undesirable by other property owners. So they are often prohibited at least in single-family zoned areas.

Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. (as someone who has acquired lots, rezoned, and hav…

> Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density.

Of course they're entitled to stop efforts to change the world around them. If you moved into a neighborhood with a minimum lot size was X acres, it's a reasonable expectation that it remains as such. If someone comes along and not only wants to change that, but also build multi unit apartment complexes across the street from you, why should you not have a say? Clearly the person was not allowed to do that before changing the zoning rules so why can't I try to stop them from changing them at all?

There's nothing racist about wanting to live a quiet suburban or rural life where you can neither see nor hear the next house over.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#212

Post by TimorousBestie »

bpt3 wrote: post #199
toomuchtodo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. (as someone who has acquired lots, rezoned, and hav…

Property owners absolutely are entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density, and I say this as someone who also has done similar work to you. If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't afford to live there or would just like to see higher density would really like them to change their mind.

> If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right

I’d be interested as to any country that recognizes this as an explicit right.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#214

Post by basisword »

dkarl wrote: post #65

For a few weeks I was looking to rent a bedroom to use as an office, because my wife works at home and takes a lot of in-person meetings in our house, and also to help with work-life separation. I reached out to a few people who were advertising for roommates, proposing to pay significantly less in rent, with limits on the hours I could access the space and how I could use it (no sleeping over, no cooking in the kitc…

Seems like the person renting it out would just be throwing away a large sum of money for very little benefit.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#215

Post by koolba »

caycep wrote: post #177
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 vaguely remember a group of friends in college, at one point they were notified by the town that their shared house technically qualified as a brothel; some compromises were made, I think something like putting up more room dividers or something, that satisfied the powers that be

> I vaguely remember a group of friends in college, at one point they were notified by the town that their shared house technically qualified as a brothel;

From what I hear, 2025 college kids aren't have anywhere near enough sex to be classified as such.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#216

Post by joshuamorton »

potato3732842 wrote: post #210
toomuchtodo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tptacek nailed it with regards to it being historically racial, but I've also seen, to your point, animosity towards anything that isn't a "traditional" or nuclear family. Fear of the different and unknown is a powerful motivator of the people who bring these complaints. Also animosity towards poverty and the belief or perception of material increases in crime and/or traffic. (property owner, many units, yimby, have…

The whole race thing is a red herring. Pretty much every "racist" law outside of the former confederacy was written with the Irish in mind and last I checked they were just as white (technically whiter if you want to hair split) as the wasps who championed those laws. Those people back then were trying use government force to make it harder for people to live in ways they didn't like in the via regulation all the sam…

This is both just historically inaccurate (many of these laws were written, specifically, with black people in mind, even in northern states), and even if it were true, would still be a clear example of anti-irish racism.

> Of course people who want to use government to micromanage other people's decisions in shortsighted ways in the present harp on the race bit,

You are saying this in reply to someone who is discussing past racism while also commenting on how they want to de-regulate things, so I'm very confused. Do you somehow think that removing restrictions on unrelated tenancies is going to "micromanage other people's decisions in shortsighted ways "?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#217

Post by bluGill »

bsghirt wrote: post #178
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can't find a group of people to share a lease with, but you want to live in a residence which excludes people by race or gender? Sounds like a you problem.

There are a significant amount of people who care about gender such that it makes sense for landlords to discriminate by shared unit. They should have a mix of male only and female only units. (and if they want mix units). In the US not enough people care about the religion of their roommate to be worthwhile trying to find a fair solution to those who care (if you do care you can ask at your church).

It is important to ensure that when you allow such discrimination it is by unit and that landlords not be allowed to discriminate overall

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#218

Post by visarga »

gosub100 wrote: post #184

How do you serve a warrant in a house with 12 unrelated people? How much easier is it to commit rape, petty theft? How much more communicable disease such has Hep-B is spread with N people sharing a bathroom? How much more likely is a house fire? How much more likely is domestic violence due to conflicts over the kitchen or utilities? I think these laws are built with at least some creedence.

The article is about SROs not houses with 12 people.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#219

Post by supertrope »

koolba wrote: post #211
toomuchtodo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. (as someone who has acquired lots, rezoned, and hav…

> Certainly, but I'll also argue that single family zoning needs to go, and upzoning enabled anywhere reasonable. Do existing owners not like flophouses? Do they not like density? Do they not like any change at all? All of the above. Property owners are entitled to their property, they are not entitled to stop efforts around them to increase housing supply or density. Of course they're entitled to stop efforts to cha…

People pick housing based on current conditions and want it to never change. This is very understandable. Using force of law to maintain aesthetic levels and social class divides is where the perverse incentives set in. The US Supreme Court approved the earliest zoning laws based on health justification. The dicta in the court opinion cited cities as parasitically infringing on bucolic greenery. We now see the logical endpoint of restrictive zoning. Million dollar houses that are mostly the right to live at that address (the structure is small and worn). Landlords having tremendous power over tenants.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#220

Post by basisword »

physicsguy wrote: post #208
basisword wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 This isn't correct. When a house is split into multiple flats, they're individual flats rented out under separate agreements and not a HMO. A HMO is when that house is rented to a group of people who are unrelated to each other (i…

> They are generally jointly and severally liable (under an AST). That’s usually the case for student rentals but largely isn’t the case for professional rentals where each room is let separately

In about 18 years in HMO's I've only had one occasion where the rooms were let separately (in that case they were all being let separately from the start). Most of the time you move in and join an existing lease where the leaving tenant is removed and you are added alongside the other tenants.

I think it probably depends on how the initial people moved in. If the estate agent is renting the rooms individually from the beginning it'll be separate agreements. If it's initially rented to a group of friends it's likely a joint AST and then re-assigned over the years as individuals change and the lease is renewed until you have a bunch of strangers jointly and severally liable (not a great idea).

Post reply on HN