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

41–50 of 418 posts

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#41

Post by cjs_ac »

matt-p wrote: post #23
cjs_ac wrote: post #5

In the UK, these are called Houses in Multiple Occupation. They are regulated, licensed and inspected to ensure that they're not dangerous. https://www.gov.uk/renting-out-a-property/houses-in-multiple...

Well, TIL that 3-4 sharing is a HMO, but doesn't require a licence. That makes no sense..

The UK is pretty good at maintaining proportionality between regulation and what's being regulated. Given the nature of housing stock in the UK, it's unlikely that four people in an HMO will be overcrowded, but accommodating more people often requires alterations to the house.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#42

Post by mnw21cam »

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.

I'm a scientist and a scholar, and I am right now living in a HMO with some lovely/interesting/weird housemates while I sort out my horrific divorce and fight through the courts to get my house that I own back. For legal reasons, I have had to pay all the normal bills for my house while my spouse has enjoyed the benefits of that. My salary can't stretch to running two separate full households, and so my temporary accommodation has been the cheapest respectable arrangement available.

People fleeing domestic abuse with reasonable means need to have options, because the domestic violence shelters can't be expected to accommodate everyone for the whole time a divorce takes (which in some situations can be multiple years).

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#43

Post by pavon »

Interesting, I knew SROs were not allowed in most places in the US, but never clumped roommates in with that. All the places I've lived I had no problem sharing apartments let alone houses with roommates. I wonder if the laws distinguish from roommates chosen by tenants, vs multiple tenants chosen by the landlord, or if the places I've lived allowed SROs, or if the law was just commonly ignored.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#45

Post by wat10000 »

gryfft wrote: post #39
red_rech wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 suf…

You see, the only reason people are homless or otherwise down on their luck is because we make it so darned comfortable for them. If we can just make it sufficiently unpleasant, then they'll stop doing it.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#46

Post by Nasrudith »

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…

That "problem" seems to rest within you and not them. Ugly patternalism combined with classism and a view of work more appropriate to an aristocrat towards their serfs than an inhabitant of a free country.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#47

Post by selimthegrim »

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…

My cousin helps run one of these as an intentional community for homeless people in New Orleans and it is not at all a social crack house.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#49

Post by imgabe »

xphos wrote: post #19

I find the comments on the site that it would have no economic demand laughable. Everything has demand the question is at what cost. If an SRO could cost 500$ a month in NYC people would jump on it. And don't get me wrong SROs were not happy places, people living in them should just try not being to poor to have real housing (sarcasm). I think homeless issues would not be solved but at least partially mitigated if SR…

> people living in them should just try not being to poor to have real housing

Yes, unironically, they should. And most would be trying to do exactly that.

I don’t know why some people treat economic status as some immutable property outside of your control. People move up and down in economic status all the time. And most people move up as they get older and get more work experience and higher paying jobs.

Having a stable place to live with a physical address instead of a tent, and possibly being around other people who are trying to improve their lives instead of a bunch of drug addicts would absolutely help people “not be poor”.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#50

Post by wat10000 »

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).

The absolute horror of people using their private property the way they wish without doing you any harm.
Post reply on HN