Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates • Hacker News Board

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#31

Post by reactordev » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

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 thought the entire goal was to get to a point where you're checked out? Retirement. The issue is income hasn't kept up with inflation and definitely not the rents required for older gen folks to survive on their own.

Perspective: My mother owned a home in a wealthy area of Virginia, her mortgage was $1200/mo for 30 years. When she sold it (for double what she paid for it) she thought she was rich. Then came the assisted living rent bill of $8k/mo. She realized she only has a few years to live on her life savings. It's a generational rug pull and kicking the ladder out from those climbing. It's going to end very badly.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#32

Post by AnotherGoodName » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

Where are these types of places illegal in reality?

I know of single room rentals available in pretty much every major metro in the world. Shared common bathroom and kitchen.

I also know of one in plenty of subletting of multi-bedroom apartments.

I have never heard of enforcement against this. It also doesn’t bring rents down as much as claimed.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#33

Post by reactordev » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

red_rech wrote: post #22

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…

> The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as. Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?

The Purge

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#34

Post by alistairSH » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

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 a four bedroom apartment.

Edit - post college was Northern VA (DC Metro). College was UVA, Charlottesville, VA.

Edit 2 - partially answering my own question... For Fairfax Co, VA... Can a home or dwelling unit have multiple renters? Generally, no more than one family, plus two renters, may live together as a single household. Or, no more than four unrelated people may live in one house as a single household. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/code/multiple-occupancymultipl...

All my past rentals were 4 people, so within the limit. And given the size of most homes (4 bedroom is typical), doesn't seem totally unreasonable (ADUs and "granny flats" count as separate homes, so not covered by the 4 person rule).

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#35

Post by MangoToupe » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

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…

[flagged]

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#36

Post by avemg » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

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 think it's well and good to try to address that problem too, but it does seem like a different, although not entirely unrelated issue. What you're describing is already happening now, it's just happening in public spaces (transit stations, parks, etc) where it affects everyone.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#37

Post by duped » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

This reminds me of places where it's illegal for more than N~=3 women to share a residence, ostensibly to prevent sex work (the assumption being that any home with a significant number of unmarried women is a brothel).

When I was in high school a couple decades ago visiting liberal arts colleges across the Midwest, it was a common refrain that only fraternities had houses while sororities did not because they would be illegal (at least, historically).

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#38

Post by triceratops » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

blargthorwars wrote: post #4

Rather than just lambast the people in the past for being stupid, it's often wise to think on why they did what they did. In this case, the article contains the reason: "as SROs disappeared, ... homelessness exploded nationwide." Looks like SROs weren't being used by scientists and scholors.

> the article contains the reason: "as SROs disappeared, ... homelessness exploded nationwide."

You're saying SROs were banned specifically to increase homelessness? Is this a discarded Bond movie plot?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#39

Post by gryfft » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

red_rech wrote: post #22

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…

> The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as. Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?

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 suffering of the marginalized is a social good which the people must not be deprived of.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#40

Post by 9rx » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

profsummergig wrote: post #3

bell-cot wrote: post #2

Zoning rules are awesome tools, for improving your own situation at the uncompensated expense of others. And what decent person would ever want to object, if 95% of the victims are both "not like us", and members of lower classes?

2nd order effects. One moment you allow multiple unrelated people to share a house. Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard. My peeve is about banning of growing food in your front yard in many states. So much available land going waste growing grass (that is not even fed to cows).

> Next moment they're living 5 to a room and there are 8 cars parked in their front yard.

Being from a community where the pro-nationalist movement has really taken hold, that sounds like a single, related family. Why do you give them special treatment?