Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates • Hacker News Board

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#61

Post by weakfish » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #45

gryfft wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this sarcasm? This reads as incredibly malicious if not

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#62

Post by wat10000 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #38

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?

People don't specifically aim to increase homelessness, but people do often attempt to make "those people" go elsewhere, and whether that "elsewhere" involves a permanent structure is often not a concern.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#63

Post by orochimaaru » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

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…

I’m not sure what the article is complaining about. I know 2 per bedroom is widely allowed in the US. But more isn’t. It seems like the article is looking to revitalize the concept of a large dormitory where people mostly just come to sleep. Maybe I’m wrong but the article doesn’t do a good job of saying what the problem is.

Either way I don’t think most millennials want more than 2 per room anyway.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#64

Post by matt-p » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

cjs_ac wrote: post #41

matt-p wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure I totally agree. You can still have say two unrelated people sharing a room (x2). So for example a 1 bed flat with 2 people in the living room and 2 people in the bedroom; or a Studio flat with all 4 people in one room. I see where it comes from though, and I guess including them in the definition but not licensing allows them to magically decide to licence 3-4 HMOs on very short notice.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#65

Post by dkarl » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

For a few weeks I was looking to rent a bedroom to use as an office, because my wife works at home and takes a lot of in-person meetings in our house, and also to help with work-life separation. I reached out to a few people who were advertising for roommates, proposing to pay significantly less in rent, with limits on the hours I could access the space and how I could use it (no sleeping over, no cooking in the kitchen, etc.) The people I talked to were very surprised at my proposition and clearly hadn't heard anything like it before. They said it sounded interesting, but they needed the full amount they were listing for.

I ended up renting an office at a coworking space (which was much more expensive) before I found somebody interested, but I wonder, is this kind of arrangement common?

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#66

Post by wat10000 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

weakfish wrote: post #61

wat10000 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this sarcasm? This reads as incredibly malicious if not

It is coming from me. It is a sentiment I see a lot of people sincerely espousing, unfortunately. (It's not stated quite so blatantly, but not far off.)

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#67

Post by bell-cot » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:37 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).

Straw man. You could easily use fire codes, noise ordinances, and other basic measures to rule out the real problems.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#68

Post by ReptileMan » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #45

gryfft wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Definitely true in the places with harsh winters.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#69

Post by zuminator » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:38 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?

Well there's your answer right there. Communal living is discouraged because our capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill. Either join the rat race or it's the streets for you. And now living rough is being made illegal as well, so it's labor camps.

Re: Restrictions on house sharing by unrelated roommates

#70

Post by itake » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

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…

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 blocking certain raises or genders from renting.

3/ Many local codes were written with “traditional families” in mind. Some municipalities cap unrelated adults per household (e.g., “no more than 3 unrelated people”), which makes normal roommate setups technically non-compliant even if the lease is joint.

4/ Standard renters or homeowners policies often don’t contemplate multiple unrelated parties. Landlords worry about claims, while tenants may find themselves uncovered in disputes or accidents.

I tried to get umbrella insurance for myself, but because I rent out other rooms and I didn't want to also cover my 2-3 roommates, I am forced to go uncovered or find another provider.