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

381–390 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#381

Post by itake »

narrator wrote: post #253
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…

One interesting thing about roommates is the landlord can't discriminate, but the roommates can discriminate against other roommates on any basis they want if they reside in the same dwelling, at least in the U.S.

even more confusing: landlord occupied housing.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#382

Post by itake »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #127
AlexandrB wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2/ From a legal discriminatory standpoint, the law doesn't have much protections for people blocking certain raises or genders from renting. Probably an unpopular opinion, but why is this a problem? When you're living in such close quarters with people, you should have some freedom in choosing who you're living with. The classic example would be a "female only" household that doesn't allow men for real or perceived…

> Probably an unpopular opinion, but why is this a problem? Because it makes it relatively more difficult for minorities to obtain housing, see sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348212 > The classic example would be a "female only" household that doesn't allow men for real or perceived safety reasons. There are also cultures/religions where cohabitation with those of the opposite sex is taboo. Th…

> The solution to the “female only”

Landlords/sellers aren't typically the limiting on gender (because they legally cant), but the renters/buyer's "self-select" process is sexist/racist. People post advertisements on FB looking for a new roommate of certain type.

If anything, landlords in my area subrenting / house hacking are better at managing a home with mixed race / gender than people "self-selecting" with racist/sexist ads.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#383

Post by itake »

bluGill wrote: post #217
bsghirt wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem currently isn't the landlords, but the tenants and subtenants. Maybe if landlords could offer more shared housing, this problem would go away. But tenants frequently look for people of the same gender or race to rent a shared housing.

The other (smaller) issue I think is house hackers (landlord occupied properties). The landlord doesn't own multiple units and is effectively "airbnb-ing" out rooms for short term leases.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#384

Post by itake »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #190
bsghirt wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I don’t get it either. The typical roommate situation around here is between two or four in one unit. Maybe it was harder in the days before the internet, but I expect that even then the kinds of tight-knit religious communities that would be opposed to cohabiting outside the faith would have the internal social networking infrastructure to solve this problem.

How does social media solve the issue? I don't think it matters if the landlord or the tenant is advertising sexist/racist housing opportunities, its still sexist and racist, blocking certain groups from accessing housing.

Landlords can't advertise racist/sexist whole-unit housing. Primary tenants shouldn't be allowed to advertise racist/sexist housing either.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#385

Post by 15155 »

xnx wrote: post #112

Laws like this are designed to keep undesirables out. Rich folks don't want 18 people living in a single house and attending schools in their district.

Is there potentially an overlap between the kind of individuals that might want to live in a house with 18 other people and general criminality?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#386

Post by BirdieNZ »

array_key_first wrote: post #374
bpt3 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is just a tragedy of the commons situation. Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up. But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes. We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons…

> Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them.

Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents).

NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it to stay that way. Upzoning brings in a change in the vibe and demographic that they don't want.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#387

Post by AfterHIA »

In coming to terms with the real estate crisis we're getting here in Utah it seems that the biggest issue is the zoning laws which prevent outright or deincentivize developers from producing anything other than multi-family apartments, new hotels, and swaths of single family homes. It's killing our state's psychogeography and Brandon Fugal is profiting widely from this. If we had the political will to create new legislation we could literally be building the communities of the future. Right now we're taking ever open field or piece of undeveloped land and turning into retail pads. It's absolutely sinister.

https://www.colliers.com/en/experts/brandon-fugal

https://www.colliers.com/en/experts/alexis-osmond

https://monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Benjamin_Walter_The_Arcades...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_...

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#388

Post by Spivak »

potato3732842 wrote: post #154
2THFairy wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're forgetting the most important one. Having a bunch of your money tied up in an illiquid asset that is subject to all manner of government micromanagement gives you a huge incentive to see to it that the government doesn't get progressively more shitty toward you than it already is.

Yep, saying it's an age thing is missing that every homeowner is directly financially incentivized to ensure prices go up. I literally get physical printed mail (against my will) every other week telling me about the health of my neighborhood where higher home sale prices means better. Being older makes a person more likely to be homeowner, they got the causation backwards.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#389

Post by bpt3 »

hamburglar wrote: post #299
bpt3 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Let me know your address so I can buy the adjacent properties and force you to live next to a landfill or move away from your now-worthless home.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#390

Post by bpt3 »

BirdieNZ wrote: post #386
array_key_first wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a tragedy of the commons situation. Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. They naturally want to pull the ladder up. But if you just let them, then there's 0 new homes being built in the US. And then the economy implodes. We have to toe a line necessarily. If you just allow the tragedy of the commons…

> Obviously, every single existing property owner wants it to stop right now. Because more housing means more supply, means less money for them. Upzoning actually increases land values, because it gives you the option to develop your land into a higher-productivity use (and hence higher potential rents). NIMBYs in my observation tend to be anti-change; they bought with the neighbourhood a particular way and want it t…

Exactly. Most people don't buy a home with the hope that the surroundings will change drastically. And of course is there is a change for the better, the same people who complain about about NIMBYs will complain about gentrification.
Post reply on HN