Live data from Hacker News

Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

marginalrevolution.com

271–280 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#271

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…

One thing you can never depend on racists for is consistency.

There are political cartoons drawn by fascists from the 1920s that attempt to stave off accusations of racism by pointing out that they include Italians (then show Mussolini as a racist caricature of a black man), as if Italians aren't widely considered white.

If you look at how the British and later Americans talked about the Irish "people" or "race", you'll note shocking similarities to how they talked about Africans, Native Americans, Asians of all stripes, etc etc. Explicit skin color rarely came up.

Racism, especially old timey racism, is all about "how do I define my group as 'good' and everybody else as so bad that I can treat them worse?"

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unreasonable to me unless there is some reasonable justification as to why 4 is legal but 5 is illegal. Like I can see why life in a house with 5 people might in some ways be more difficult than life in a house with 4 or 3, but I don't see why it should be illegal. People can think about these things for themselves and decide what works for them. Sure, most houses won't accommodate 5 roommates, but there als…

I agree - I only meant reasonable in relation to typical home sizes. If there's a grand old 6 bedroom house in a downtown area, it would probably make sense to allow 6 unrelated tenants. My only concern there would be homeowners subdividing rooms ad infinitum to get more tenants. But, there are probably solutions to that that don't involve arbitrary caps on household size.

Or, you could let people decide how large a bedroom they are willing to rent and stop micromanaging/over-regulating every bit of real estate, which is why the costs are too high.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During college, myself and friends did the math and found buying a crappy house 20 miles away was vastly cheaper than renting so we did that. I was the one that actually 'owned' the house. No one paid rent to me, but I was reimbursed for all utilities, food, etc. My only expense was the mortgage. Since no one paid rent, it wasn't a 'boarding house.'

Insane to be able to buy a house in college - I could barely afford rent in a crappy shared flat

I could've bought a house for $20k a few miles from my school. Rust belt.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#274
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voters don't actually want house prices to come down. Voters, in aggregate, want rents to fall and prices to rise, roughly divided by renters vs owners. Somehow the homeowners almost always win against the renters in this political tug-of-war. Perhaps because rents are downstream of values, and so it's politically easier for owners to make the correct choices to advance their agenda than it is for renters, which have…

> Somehow the homeowners almost always win against the renters in this political tug-of-war. Demographics. Homeowners skew old, which gives them a bunch of advantages in enacting their political power. Higher turnout, baby boom giving them numerical superiority, and the time advantage of being able to enact policy decades ago. In the US, this is supplemented by matters of race, where because of past redlining policie…

[deleted]

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#275

This seems insane. Living in shared flats is very common in Germany presumably most of Europe. (I'm not talking about boarding houses.) It's not unheard of for them to include eight otherwise unrelated people (as long as there's enough space for everyone). Living in such a shared flat is basically the norm for college students and a formative experience for most. It's kinda shocking that this is illegal in some count…

It’s the same in the US in college towns. Many people live in shared housing as you describe. My kids and my nieces and nephews have all done it. But I do recognize the point of the article.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#276
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK's population has gone up 16% since 1980. Average UK home price, adjusted for inflation, has gone up 104% in the same time period.

Inelastic demand has this effect

Only when faced with inelastic supply, which, unlike the demand, is not intrinsically necessary.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unreasonable to me unless there is some reasonable justification as to why 4 is legal but 5 is illegal. Like I can see why life in a house with 5 people might in some ways be more difficult than life in a house with 4 or 3, but I don't see why it should be illegal. People can think about these things for themselves and decide what works for them. Sure, most houses won't accommodate 5 roommates, but there als…

The electrical outlet requirement is for fire prevention, to reduce the use of long extension cords and people using multi-outlet adaptors. The parking thing I agree with. If you want to try to run a retail business without parking, good luck but you should not be prohibited from doing it.

It might actually do better with less parking... as that can lead to a more pleasurable pedestrian experience. Of course, that requires a certain level of density and proximity to housing (or common/shared parking).

But, generally, parking feels like something "the market" would solve pretty well sans regulation.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#278
post #199

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, 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.

The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything.

>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.

Well then those people should buy the land and keep it low density. Can't afford it? Too bad. Pro-housing folks aren't trying to force people to do something with their property, it's the other way around.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#279
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, 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. The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. >If a community wants to remain SFH-only, that is their right, even if other people who can't af…

Indeed, they want the authority over the land without buying or otherwise having to expend finances to control the land.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#280

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 BS, and race was absolutely part of the equation. The covenants to my parent's house in the SFBAY literally say no black people can live on the property unless they're servants. It's no longer enforceable today, but it absolutely was when their house was newly built.
Post reply on HN