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

291–300 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#291

Post by Paradigm2020 »

reactordev wrote: post #156
sokoloff wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she only doubled her money in 30 years, that’s only 2.3% CAGR, probably less than general inflation over that time period. Most housing, especially in wealthy areas, has appreciated significantly more rapidly.

I don't disagree but when my father passed, she took out some equity to pay his medical bills as well when she inherited the house. Life has a way of getting in the way.

Before the money is up... Move to thailand / malaysia / vietnam / mexico ? Do research online ?

Not sure where you / other siblings are based but find a place w good and cheap flight connections.

Changing sucks. Being forced to change even worse so maybe talk about options

(Or even a cheaper place in the usa)

Good luck

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#292

Post by duped »

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…

> Maybe we can just let people decide how many electrical outlets and parking spots they need?

The last people I expect to know how much of a resource they need are small business owners. Parking regulations are there when there isn't sufficient street or garage parking. It should be obvious that a restaurant needs more parking spots than say, a dry cleaner, so they shouldn't have the same burden. Parking capacity is inelastic, so if you under build then businesses and traffic suffer. Meanwhile if you overbuild, you're stuck maintaining empty parking lots and have inefficient use of space. It makes a ton of sense to me for this to be tightly regulated.

> No, politicians (who are omniscient) know exactly the right amount of parking spaces and electrical outlets that will work best for everyone in all situations.

I mean if you spend some time in municipal spaces you find out quickly this isn't decided by politicians, but by city planners and managers. The outlet stuff comes from building codes like the IBC which is widely used (and as the saying goes, written in blood).

As always when you have a beef with your local government the solution is to get involved instead of complaining on the internet. The barrier to entry is shockingly low.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#293

Post by bpt3 »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #278
bpt3 wrote: 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…

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

Of course.

> 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.

Pro-housing people in my area absolutely are trying to force people to do things with their property and in their neighborhood by barring covenants and other restrictions that can be put in place by municipalities and HOAs.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#294

Post by xvedejas »

wil421 wrote: post #283
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.

I've definitely done it in places (in the US) where locally it was not legal. But it's not like the cops ever checked and caused us trouble about it, so it's easy to get away with it if there aren't other legal issues going on.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#295

Post by bpt3 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #279
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. Zoning regulations should reflect the desires of a community, and there's no inherent reason they can't be more restrictive than yimbys would like.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#296

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

glitchc wrote: post #167
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #151

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.'

How did you qualify for a mortgage without income?

It was 1991 and we pooled money from 10 people. The house was super cheap ($60k) and in a very depressed area (Attica, Indiana). The seller was a person and not a bank.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#297

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

coryrc wrote: post #273
portaouflop wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep this place was around $60k for a big three story victorian in a crappy little town (former rail road hub between Indianapolis in Chicago). 4 big bedrooms, 2 small ones and 3 bathrooms.

Rent back in 1991 in the college town was around $600 per person and up... we made out like bandits but we did have to share cars.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#298

Post by dkarl »

antisthenes wrote: post #290
dkarl wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn’t talking to landlords; I was talking to residents whose leases gave them the option to sublease.

Edited to add: I was also possibly talking to residents who were looking to sublease illegally. I didn’t ask.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#299

Post by hamburglar »

bpt3 wrote: post #293
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> The only reasonable way for them to be entitled to prevent density is for them to own the property and not build anything. Of course. > 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. Pro-housing people in my area absolutely are trying to force people to do th…

Barring restrictions is absolutely not “forcing” anyone to do anything. Take away all restrictions on my lot and I am still not forced to develop on it.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#300

Post by standardUser »

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…

College living in not comparable to SROs, in part because college kids are privileged, in part because college towns abide, and primarily because they are transient. A tenement full of grown men in SROs is an entirely different beast.
Post reply on HN