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

281–290 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#281

Post by petsfed »

SoftTalker wrote: post #171
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…

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.

Sure, but part of the point of in-effect racist zoning policies is that the affected population is predominately the targeted minority. It would be more effective and more equitable to address the actual issues created by flophouses.

Single-family zoned areas by definition only have single-family homes, and only some families will be able to afford those homes. The designers of such policies are often well-aware that the only families affluent enough to purchase or rent a home in such an area is of the preferred race (thanks to the strong racial correlation to socioeconomic class, as well as historic explicit racist policies like redlining, employment and education segregation, etc etc).

To be clear, I don't believe that single-family zoning is necessarily racist, especially with the continued democratization of the middle class. Single-family zoning is bad for a lot of reasons. Its just that it is absolutely the case that historically single family zoning was deliberately used in several cases as a racist policy, but in such a way that it would pass muster in court.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#282

Post by ipaddr »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #280
potato3732842 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a different point not related.

A black family or single person could not live in that location. We are talking about 4 unrelated people.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#283

Post by wil421 »

jojomodding wrote: post #258

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…

This is not illegal. I with 3-4 unrelated people in college from time to time. There was one group that rented a massive house and had 15-20 people living in it.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#284

Post by antisthenes »

jaredklewis wrote: post #182
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…

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…

> It seems unreasonable to me unless there is some reasonable justification as to why 4 is legal but 5 is illegal.

It's not a set number...Municipalities can set this as low as 2 or as high as whatever.

As to why - go and ask them? Presumably it's what the local voters wanted, or at least the most vocal ones that cared to show up to council meetings and such.

> I'm all for regulation that makes sense. Like mandating safe or sustainable building materials, clean water, carbon taxes, emission standards in cars, and so on. It just feels like 95% of the laws are just pointless stuff like "put a employees must wash hands sign in every bathroom"

Chesterton's Fence.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#285

Post by gosub100 »

haroldp wrote: post #221
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.

Now ask the same questions about homeless people living in tents down by the river.

That's a false equivalency; there is no imperative that laws must be broken to minimize homelessness.

Furthermore it's a false conclusion that the primary reason they are in tents by the river is because they couldn't find a cheap hostel. Maybe they are psychotic, or addicted, or don't like being around people. Maybe they would burn the hostel down or flood it trying to fight their psychoses.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#286

Post by ipaddr »

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…

"Prohibitions on multifamily housing are all rooted in racial animus". That's not true even if part of your statement is true.

Many prohibitions are based on moral reasonings outside of race. You couldn't rent a hotel room in most places if you were not married regardless of race.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#287

Post by brazzy »

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…

> it's targeting slumlords, not the renters.

That's the stated reason. The real reason is of course to target the renters who cannot afford anything else.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#288

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#289

Post by gosub100 »

visarga wrote: post #218
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.

Ok so we agree there is a valid reason to limit the total number of people who live in a single residence?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#290

Post by antisthenes »

dkarl wrote: post #257
basisword wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the benefit is significant. Based on my vivid memories of having roommates, not sharing cooking facilities and having guaranteed quiet and privacy in the evenings are pretty huge. Also having to share space in the bathroom with another person's toiletries, towels, and mess. People forgo lots of income in order to avoid living with roommates because of these issues, so I think it's plausible that they would co…

> having guaranteed quiet and privacy in the evenings are pretty huge.

That's a benefit for other roommates, not the landlord. Unless the roommates are the ones subleasing, which is a lot less common.

There is 0 incentive/benefit for the landlord to accept an uncommon arrangement for less money.

Post reply on HN