Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rent is getting too high so let's make it illegal to have roommates? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bostonfred
- Start date
bostonfred
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I mentioned this topic -- affordable housing in general, not co-living specifically -- in one of the abortion threads. This seems like a great example of a local government stepping in to artificially drive up rents. I suppose I'm open to counter-arguments. Maybe there's a good reason for banning this kind of practice and I'm just unaware of it, but this strikes me as just being plain-old NIMBYism.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I’m at a loss as to why they think this is a bad thing but my spidey sense tells me it may have nefarious reasons behind it.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I know this isn't the Big Thing in the news today but it should be. Why would it possibly be illegal to have roommates? Why would this pass unanimously? Is it pure corruption, artificially reducing housing supply? An attempt to keep some "undesirable" element from moving to their community but keeping "families" there? An opportunity to kick out married LGBTQ families?
Nugget
Footballguy
KC Pitch article
This ordinance was in response to a company, HomeRoom, purchasing a four-bedroom home, converting it to seven bedrooms, and advertising a room for $300 a month, which includes a shared kitchen and living room along with landscaping.
Proponents of the co-living ban paint quite the picture: “third-world tenements” are coming to Shawnee! Property values will plummet as heathen co-renters block all roads with their jalopy vehicles parked all willy-nilly!
This ordinance was in response to a company, HomeRoom, purchasing a four-bedroom home, converting it to seven bedrooms, and advertising a room for $300 a month, which includes a shared kitchen and living room along with landscaping.
Proponents of the co-living ban paint quite the picture: “third-world tenements” are coming to Shawnee! Property values will plummet as heathen co-renters block all roads with their jalopy vehicles parked all willy-nilly!
squistion
Footballguy
Thread title is misleading as it does make it illegal to have roommates, just the number of unrelated roommates in a dwelling unit.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Nugget
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
But it has to be a minimum of four. Three unrelated people who are roommates does not violate the law.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
We should be encouraging more of this sort of thing not prohibiting it. But people are greedy.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
This is actually a little nuanced. A lot of these co-living homes are owned by investment companies that buy houses and then reconfigure them into essentially apartments with a common area (i.e. kitchen). Those ICs drive up the cost of single-family homes, etc. Now whether this is the appropriate remedial action is another matter, but this is effectively trying to stop those ICs.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Seems like this would bring down the cost of homes, that’s why it was prohibited. How do you see this practice driving up the cost of homes?
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Philadelphia has had a law on the books for as long as I can remember banning four or more non-related people from living together in a dwelling unit (in non-dormitory uses). It was enacted a century+ ago to combat the rising advent of brothels throughout the city. It remains on the books today.
ETA the reason I know this is that I designed a 40 unit building in University city that was just off campus and was directly geared towards students that didn't want to pay to live on campus. Each unit was a four bedroom unit with living room and kitchen and two full baths, but the rental structure was that a single person would pay $x rent and be funneled into a unit with people they didn't necessarily know (unless four friends got together and applied at the same time and requested a unit). We got through zoning and building permits and were halfway through construction when we got a cease construction order.
I had to plead our case to the Board of Building standards and seek a variance around this regulation. We eventually were granted relief. This was probably 10 years ago.
ETA the reason I know this is that I designed a 40 unit building in University city that was just off campus and was directly geared towards students that didn't want to pay to live on campus. Each unit was a four bedroom unit with living room and kitchen and two full baths, but the rental structure was that a single person would pay $x rent and be funneled into a unit with people they didn't necessarily know (unless four friends got together and applied at the same time and requested a unit). We got through zoning and building permits and were halfway through construction when we got a cease construction order.
I had to plead our case to the Board of Building standards and seek a variance around this regulation. We eventually were granted relief. This was probably 10 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Willy
Footballguy
This doesn't surprise me at all.
A long time ago, (early 2000s), I owned a duplex that was 1 block from UW-Milwaukee. It had 5 bedrooms up and 4 on the first floor. The local ordinance was no more than 3 unrelated roommates allowed. The city had an entire department dedicated to code enforcement and these department of neighborhood services guys would come through and count beds and issue citations if there were too many. It felt totally unAmerican, but the city was very unfriendly to investors - pretty much no voice at all. I don't know what the answer is but I just sold the dang thing years ago because it was virtually impossible for me to enforce. I'm sure whoever is renting it out now is a violator of that rule.
A long time ago, (early 2000s), I owned a duplex that was 1 block from UW-Milwaukee. It had 5 bedrooms up and 4 on the first floor. The local ordinance was no more than 3 unrelated roommates allowed. The city had an entire department dedicated to code enforcement and these department of neighborhood services guys would come through and count beds and issue citations if there were too many. It felt totally unAmerican, but the city was very unfriendly to investors - pretty much no voice at all. I don't know what the answer is but I just sold the dang thing years ago because it was virtually impossible for me to enforce. I'm sure whoever is renting it out now is a violator of that rule.
Nugget
Footballguy
Same in Atlanta, but only for women. Sorority houses at Georgia Tech were very small.
Nugget
Footballguy
In Lawrence I think they split the houses into separate apartments. Each house, built 100 years ago, now has 4 mailboxes.
supermike80
Footballguy
Not a lot of meat to that article so I am curious why it was unanimous-----what are we not being told?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Anybody in this thread ever lived on a street of nice homes where one of them turns into a coliving situation?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Can't say "turned into" as it's pretty much been this way for as long as I can remember, but I live on a nice street of homes with several apartments interspersed throughout. No one seems to mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Wow. I did this for 5 years in the 90s and it was a great way to have a decent house without paying a fortune. How are 25 year olds supposed to get off the ground if they can't afford to live anywhere near your city?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Both the places I lived were in nice residential areas. We kept the place up, mowed and etc, got along with our neighbors, and never had any complaints as far as I know.
the moops
Footballguy
Seems that there were some loud NIMBY types that complained loudly enough. Here is a quote from one of the council members
"Basically, they don't want a mini apartment stuck next to their house," Jenkins said. "These guys are wanting to come in and stick six and seven individual units inside of this house and lease them all separately. And the residents are very up in arms about that. That is not a good thing, and it's really not in character with the neighborhood."
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
My reading of the story is that yes, this definitely appears to apply to apartment complexes.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I think some cities - Minneapolis was one - completely eliminated all single-family zoning throughout the city a few years ago. Seemed like a somewhat radical attempt to provide rental relief. I saw something recently indicating its working but don't understand all the costs or issues at play. Certain neighborhoods in my City would absolutely riot at the mere suggestion they could not be zoned exclusively single family.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Interesting. My experience with this is probably biased because my only experience with it is living in a college town (Gainesville) for 30 years.
There, it was essentially expected, especially in certain apartment complexes, that the number of bedrooms would equal the number of un-related people living there. My 2nd year in college I lived in a 3br apartment with one living room room and one kitchen and there were 3 of us, unrelated, living there each with our own bedroom. This was pretty much expected in that complex, and I'd say 95% of the units in that building operated that way. And the one next to it. And the one next to that.
But where things got hairy is with single family homes doing the same. It was a CONSTANT battle between investors and the city, the same way we see nowadays between STR owners and the city, back then it was LTR owners that split the place up and the city. My brother lived in a 4br single family home the same way I lived in my apartment and it was really day to day worrying about whether they were going to eventually be evicted.
I would imagine the reason we see so many of these things pass unanimously is because they typically have overwhelming support from local residents, that are the ones voting in those people casting the votes. In some sense I suppose that makes sense, they're accurately representing their constituents.
From a resident's perspective you can kind of understand. In my example above I was isolated to an apartment building that was essentially an extension of a college dorm. Meanwhile where my brother lived there was a family that bought a nice house in a nice quiet upscale neighborhood and now they had a bunch of college students next door throwing parties and smoking weed out on the porch while their kid walks home from school. I'm not saying it's right, but you can understand why the resident's feel that way and why they overreact to it. Even if that doesn't happen in the majority of cases, they hear those stories and get scared.
A college town may be an edge case in this, I don't know if it relates to KC or not. And I'm not saying it's right, just that it's easy to see why this would pass unanimously from legislators whose constituents likely heavily support it.
I think in general we all externally hate zoning laws/ordinances/ while implicitly loving zoning laws/ordinances. We all think we should be free to do what we want with our land, until someone buys the house next door and wants to bulldoze it and build a steel mill there, and then suddenly we decide maybe it makes sense to put all the industry stuff together somewhere separate than all the nice residential homes.
There, it was essentially expected, especially in certain apartment complexes, that the number of bedrooms would equal the number of un-related people living there. My 2nd year in college I lived in a 3br apartment with one living room room and one kitchen and there were 3 of us, unrelated, living there each with our own bedroom. This was pretty much expected in that complex, and I'd say 95% of the units in that building operated that way. And the one next to it. And the one next to that.
But where things got hairy is with single family homes doing the same. It was a CONSTANT battle between investors and the city, the same way we see nowadays between STR owners and the city, back then it was LTR owners that split the place up and the city. My brother lived in a 4br single family home the same way I lived in my apartment and it was really day to day worrying about whether they were going to eventually be evicted.
I would imagine the reason we see so many of these things pass unanimously is because they typically have overwhelming support from local residents, that are the ones voting in those people casting the votes. In some sense I suppose that makes sense, they're accurately representing their constituents.
From a resident's perspective you can kind of understand. In my example above I was isolated to an apartment building that was essentially an extension of a college dorm. Meanwhile where my brother lived there was a family that bought a nice house in a nice quiet upscale neighborhood and now they had a bunch of college students next door throwing parties and smoking weed out on the porch while their kid walks home from school. I'm not saying it's right, but you can understand why the resident's feel that way and why they overreact to it. Even if that doesn't happen in the majority of cases, they hear those stories and get scared.
A college town may be an edge case in this, I don't know if it relates to KC or not. And I'm not saying it's right, just that it's easy to see why this would pass unanimously from legislators whose constituents likely heavily support it.
I think in general we all externally hate zoning laws/ordinances/ while implicitly loving zoning laws/ordinances. We all think we should be free to do what we want with our land, until someone buys the house next door and wants to bulldoze it and build a steel mill there, and then suddenly we decide maybe it makes sense to put all the industry stuff together somewhere separate than all the nice residential homes.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that we have too many homeowners in this country, and for too many of them the price of their home is a huge investment in their economic well-being. It's time to just blow up this ridiculous notion that homeownership is the "American Dream."
If we look at most products, the ratio between sellers and buyers is like 1:100,000 or something. Almost everybody wants cars to be cheap because almost everybody is a purchaser of cars, not a seller of cars. If the government was going to make a policy that made cars more expensive, people would be unhappy.
But when it comes to houses, the ratio is closer to 1:1. Half of this country actively supports policies that make the price of housing go up, because doing so is in their own financial best interest. I don't see how we ever make housing more affordable when so many people own houses.
If we look at most products, the ratio between sellers and buyers is like 1:100,000 or something. Almost everybody wants cars to be cheap because almost everybody is a purchaser of cars, not a seller of cars. If the government was going to make a policy that made cars more expensive, people would be unhappy.
But when it comes to houses, the ratio is closer to 1:1. Half of this country actively supports policies that make the price of housing go up, because doing so is in their own financial best interest. I don't see how we ever make housing more affordable when so many people own houses.
I agree that homeowners are bad voters about housing policy for the reasons you mention.
I suspect that concentrating homeownership into fewer hands may make the problem worse rather than better because it would make homeowners an even better organized, more strongly interested special interest.
The ratio of drug manufacturers to drug consumers may be 1:100,000, but that doesn't make Big Pharma less politically influential when it comes to policies affecting drug prices.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I think home ownership can be part of their dream in life but isn’t required to be happy or have your American Dream. For me, home ownership and my neighborhood is a great part of what I wanted in life - along with wife, kids, dog and some yard to do stuff. Sure, not for everyone but it’s still pretty awesome IMO.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
...
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
That's not the same thing.Rich Conway said:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Sounds like a smart group of homeowners.the moops said:
I have never lived on a street where this occurred, but we have friends that currently live two doors down from one of these.
It stands out like a sore thumb. The sheer volume of vehicles is the first thing you notice. The poor appearance of the house and yard is next. The next annoyance is probably more of a Colorado thing since everybody here has a freaking dog, so of course there are like 6 dogs living there.
Where I used to live in WI where driveways we're long and yards were big this probably would be way less annoying.
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37
Footballguy
not on the same street, but I pass a bunch of these situations everyday right near my neighborhoodparasaurolophus said:
We live in a part of Long Island which has a very high population of day labors from other countries. A bunch of houses here have been converted into bedroom rentals and it’s not uncommon to have 7-8 people in a 3 bedroom house. They convert any other room, the living room, dens, garages, etc into rentable rooms.
most are poorly kept up and you can see the tell tale signs like odd wires just loosely running into multiple parts of the house, 3-4 satellite dishes on the roof, etc.
these guys come here for a certain amount of time, live very modestly and send all their money back home. They are all undocumented young men so the living conditions are not a premium as if they had kids or families.
Caveman33
Footballguy
My American Dream is to live in a small apartment with only 3 other unrelated people. (The 4th one is a nuisance atm.) I suppose your scenario doesn't sound too bad.
Caveman33
Footballguy
the moops
Footballguy
Sounds pretty uppity. And I say this as someone who recently moved to the burbs and am surrounded by million dollar homes with lake front property (my house is worth far less and we have no lake frontage). But I would care very little if the house next door had several vehicles in their driveway. Hell, a few neighbors currently have 1/2 dozen automobiles in their garage + driveway.
Obviously if the house and yard are in disrepair and there are a dozen dogs, that sucks. But I think we could rectify those annoyances without banning co-habitation
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think this is a fair criticism, I definitely have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to what makes other people happy. I'm going to try to explain as best as I can.
(1) There is a tendency for me (and a lot of others I think) to think that if something is important/interesting/rewarding for me, then it would be the same for other people, and that if something is unimportant/uninteresting/unsatisfying to me, then that's true for others. It took me a long time before I realized I'm an atypical American. Compared to most Americans, my interests are different, my priorities are different, my goals are different, etc. When thinking about public policies I need to think not about what I think is important but what others think is important, and that can often be difficult for me to do.
(2) With all that said, I really do feel as though there is often a difference between what people say they want and what will actually make their lives better. In particular, I feel like the American obsession with things like status and consumer goods are not the result of lots of Americans independently determining that those are the things that will make their lives better. I feel as though Americans are often convinced by outside forces that these are the things they want, when in fact they might be able to live better lives a different way that they hadn't really considered. The fact that so many Americans tend to be miserable seems like pretty compelling evidence that some of this is definitely happening.
(3) And it's really, really hard for me to distinguish between (1) and (2). Do so many people aspire to live in single family homes with manicured lawns in suburban neighborhoods because that's actually the most fulfilling way to live? Or do they want that because of some sense of "keeping up with the Joneses" or other societal pressures? It's probably some combination of the two but actually considering and quantifying the level of these different influences seems impossible.
(4) So to go back to public policies that subsidize and promote homeownership, my first instinct is generally that these policies are bad. That's because it isn't clear to me why people that own homes deserve to have their interests trump the interests of people that don't own homes. But if it's true that an overwhelming majority of Americans are happiest and most fulfilled as homeowners, maybe the government should be subsidizing and promoting it. As long as those people's lives will actually be made better through home ownership, which, as described earlier, is a really tough question to figure out.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Kansas* legislature has referred to gay marriage as "parody marriage" in the language of an actual bill and made gay sex illegal this year. It's not unreasonable to be concerned about a bill making it illegal for unrelated people to live together, while the Supreme Court will likely hear a case challenging obergefell soon.
* I believe this is Shawnee City in Kansas but i admittedly get confused with Kansas city Missouri vs Kansas like a lot of people who aren't from the area
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yep. If you've got a trailer parked in your driveway and you let your dog run around without a leash, there's an easy solution to that -- we send a friendly email to the guy who runs our HOA and it gets handled with a minimum of drama. I don't care who's living in the house with the trailer and/or leashed dog.
In other words, trailer in driveway = my business. Unrelated people living together = not my business.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Thats why i said it would probably be less annoying with long driveways. The cars end up on the street. And when homes are jam packed like they are in colorado(and other places) the street gets filled up fast.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, currently. Renters are dreaded because house prices in Southern California are so high that it makes it necessary, but renters treat the property and act differently than residents (who are generally older because they can afford it) do. This legislation seems stupid on its face, but living in a residential area that becomes rental properties is problematic in certain ways. I get the rationale behind the law.parasaurolophus said:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I know what you mean, but renters are also residents. You make them sound like invaders.
rockaction
Footballguy
They are. They're not invading. They've all got their own reasons to be there. I guess I refer to them that way because we have noise problems and other problems arising from those that rent rather than own. They are likely to care less about the residential property value, and it shows.
I'm not saying that it's right one way or the other, I'm just answering parasaurolophus's question.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Let’s just say many don’t value a rental like they would if they owned it. The same applies to Air-BNB’s. I’m glad my town doesn’t allow them.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, I understand why some homeowners might want to live in a community with only other homeowners but I don't think the interests of homeowners should be more important than the interests of renters (or potential renters). And I'm also not sure if it's healthy for society for us to be segregated that way.
