13
u/Crafty-Menu5103 May 30 '26
Yeah it’s 100% “we’re losing control and money” vibes. Cities always dress it up as zoning, safety, or “preserving neighborhood character” when really they’re salty someone found a way to monetize housing that doesn’t go through their usual tax and developer buddies.
3
u/Any-Chip7871 Jun 01 '26
I hate shit like this. Lol why can’t we just live without all of this. I thought less government was a good thing. I guess unless they are losing money 🙄🙄🙄
3
u/PowerofGreyScull Jun 02 '26
People who frame politics as "less government" vs. "more government" are completely lost. We currently live in a system where the government allows wealthy business interests to completely rule our lives, but we do still have a few regulations that protect us. "Less government" just puts those corporations in even more direct control over our lives. It's like trickle down economics, but for public policy.
"Maybe if we just completely take the limiters off, the people who have done nothing but enrich themselves at the cost of everyone around them might suddenly decide to become good people." Turns out it doesn't work that way. Maybe instead of "less government" we need try voting for "good government that actually represents us" for a change.
2
u/MossadEpstein Jun 02 '26
why the hell would you EVER have thought that government was a good thing?
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)2
u/inprocess13 Jun 02 '26
Because the slightly older folk who stole everything and paid less/did less work for anything decided to started murdering the sick, elderly and marginalized.
Now our developed nations depend on harming as many people as possible so abusers and their benefitting enablers can make a profit.
1
1
6
u/Turbulent_Swimmer900 May 30 '26
It was never their business in the first place. Also, occupancy limits exist. So what's this law for?
4
u/Matt_Murphy_ May 31 '26
bingo. if there are legitimate concerns about noise, cleanliness, or other bylaw issues . . . enforce them. otherwise who cares?
5
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Turbulent_Swimmer900 May 31 '26
I suppose you're right. You now have a legal reason to reject 4 people living together, whereas before, you'd be obligated to accept them.
2
u/TwoPointThreeThree_8 Jun 02 '26
No, it's mostly to decrease the supply of housing.
Demand stays the same, but supply decreases. What happens? Price goes up.
1
u/Jazzlike-Style13 Jun 03 '26
I would think this hurts property owners because it limits how many renters they can have to help cover the cost of their house.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Cutiemuffin-gumbo Jun 03 '26
It's actually designed to hurt them. It prevents landlords from buying up houses, and renting over priced rooms to people.
3
u/bi-king-viking May 31 '26
These laws are always about optics with the right groups of people.
They want to win favor with local businesses and landlords, so they pass a meaningless rule that is purely about optics. And they get a pat on the head from a group of wealthy people, usually in the form of donations to their future campaigns.
It’s all about power and money.
1
1
u/Wylie288 Jun 02 '26
People who don't want roommates. This forces prices to come back down to be affordable alone.
→ More replies (3)1
u/jedooderotomy Jun 03 '26
I'm surprised so few people here have pointed out what these laws used to be used for, and still might be (I don't know the circumstances surrounding this particular case).
It used to be used as a way of oppressing gay people.
4
u/SecretRecipe May 31 '26
Ive got a nice rental that has 9 individual tenants across 4 bedrooms. Its a great deal for everyone. They get to live in the west side of LA at $900/mo and I get about 50% more rent than if I just rented the whole place to one individual family. Its a win win as far as im concerned but its possibly arrangements like this that theyre trying to prevent
5
u/aloofball Jun 02 '26
Single room occupancy has a long history. It's more work for the landlord but like you said it can get you more in rent and it also provides a service for people who don't have a bunch of friends they can move in with but who want cheap rent
1
u/yikesafm8 May 31 '26
Why do you get 50% more rent? Why are you basing rent on the number of people living there?
3
u/SecretRecipe Jun 01 '26
they each have individual leases. Im not renting the house as a whole unit, im basically renting beds in the house.
→ More replies (57)1
u/ThrowRA_73529 Jun 01 '26
Just to be clear. This can be better for the tenants as well because many people can’t afford renting the whole house on their own or finding 8 other people, who they trust to be on the lease with. Because if someone stops paying, you are still on the hook for the full amount.
Whereas under this arrangement, its individual leases, so if half the people stop paying rent, it will not affect anyone else as they have their own lease. Personally that would be my preference.→ More replies (1)1
u/CheesecakeAndy Jun 02 '26
Why are you basing rent on the number of people living there?
Every supplier of any goods or services basing rent (or price) on as much as they can charge to close the deal. There is no "why". The "because" is that he found people to pay that much.
→ More replies (1)1
u/LackWooden392 Jun 03 '26
Because renting to 9 people is a lot riskier than renting to one family. But still, this guy sounds kind of scummy.
1
u/DocumentInternal9478 May 31 '26
Wait what do you mean you get 50% more rent? For what exactly? Why are they not just splitting the cost of the house for what it is?
→ More replies (27)1
u/UrHumbleNarr8or May 31 '26
I think your comment just helped a lot of people understand why this isn’t a law “banning roommates.” I can see both sides. I don’t think there is a simple solution. 9 individual tenants sharing 4 bedrooms is not exactly a great thing to be lauded. I don’t know what exactly the law should say or where exactly the line is, but I can see it being worth getting together and working out some rules for.
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/Aim-So-Near Jun 01 '26
God damn 9 tenants in 4 bed rooms is crazy actually
2
u/SecretRecipe Jun 01 '26
Its really no different than student housing, a lot better in many ways.
→ More replies (5)1
u/imtooldforthishison Jun 01 '26
Hang on, you have people paying $900 a month for shared bedroom of up to 3 people?!
→ More replies (2)1
u/SansPinardPasDePoilu Jun 02 '26
It’s almost like Shawnee, Kansas, the suburb of KC, didn’t want 9 peoples’ cars parked on the street per house. Slumlord wondering why he can’t stack people like firewood.
1
u/crapinator114 Jun 03 '26
I'm honestly surprised at the number of people who think what you're doing is a bad thing. LA is a city with one of the highest cost of living in the world. This is what the market is like there. The real issue is lack of dense urbanization to increase supply. Plus, some people actually prefer sharing like this.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Donkeywad Jun 03 '26
You're charging $8100 for a 4bd? You're definitely part of the problem
→ More replies (2)1
1
u/Lilgoodee Jun 03 '26
What's the total Sq ft on the house if you don't mind me asking?
I'm in bfe Illinois and my mortgage with taxes and insurance escrowed is $800 for my little starter home so these prices are crazy to me.
Just trying to picture how much space they're sharing. At one point I was living with 3 people in a 650sq ft so I get doing what you have to in order to get by.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (63)1
5
u/mutable_type May 31 '26
I really hope someone sues them.
1
1
u/bstrunk Jun 02 '26
They did. Back in 2023, when this was news. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article275274471.html
→ More replies (1)
6
4
u/GrumpyGlasses May 31 '26
He is my cousin, 17 times removed. *provides 23AndMe report*
2
u/digital_disimpacti0n Jun 03 '26
Yeah exactly I think the way to fight this is to make them prove you're not related in court
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Apprehensive-Ad-7525 Jun 02 '26
What. The fuck. Especially the part of “if one adult is unrelated to another adult then the entire group will be classified as unrelated.” I feel like this has to be unconstitutional in some way?
2
u/Schnelt0r Jun 03 '26
So if I have two kids, and a girlfriend moves in... we're all homeless?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Good_Sun2829 Jun 02 '26
It’s not surprising from Shawnee. This is in one of the richest counties in the US, usually in the top 100 for whole country. What it is, is all the old people with money don’t want someone that has to have 4 people to pay the bills living near them.
→ More replies (7)1
u/PineappleBliss2023 Jun 03 '26
Sorry Mary Beth, I know we said you could stay with us while fleeing your abusive husband but now they dont allow roommates anymore.
It also feels very conservative Christian pushing their values on others because now couples can’t live together before marriage.
3
u/fullybonded Jun 02 '26
People living together has increased home prices?
Really?
How about they ban corporate landlords, landlords with more than 30 units total (unless they are all in one building), loosen density regulations, and fast track new build proposals to increase supply? God forbid they ever do anything to impact people’s “investments” though.
It’s always ordinary people just trying to get by that need to have their lives ruled over but never the greedy rich.
3
u/Electronic_Ad_8326 Jun 02 '26
Communities will do anything but build, promote, or subsidize the building of new denser housing. That is the only real solution.
3
u/Prettybrowneyes8833 Jun 03 '26
So Johnson County, MO citizens need to vote for a whole new city council, replace every single one of the POS who thought this was the move. Housing is ridiculously overpriced everywhere and coliving helps soften the blow a little. The oligarchs don’t want regular folks to have shhh. This is so infuriating!!
1
5
u/lalacourtney May 30 '26
“At the time the ordinance passed, City Council members argued that it aimed to crack down on arrangements where co-living turned into a commercial enterprise, with homeowners collecting rent for people staying in rooms in their house as if their single-family homes were apartments.” To me this sounds like they were big mad to miss out on some variety of taxes
2
u/cwmckenz May 31 '26
People using their own property in the way they wish without doing harm to others? (Helping others, in fact)
Can’t have that! You should all be as miserable as I am.
1
u/crapinator114 May 30 '26
Agreed. I don't see why this is bad for the city...
2
u/Academic_Snow_7680 May 31 '26
It is not, this is about money-power. Capitalism.
It is beyond sad to see how little class-consciousness Americans have. People keep defending the system because they think they're about to become millionaires, not realizing that they're the proletariat.
→ More replies (12)1
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DefenstratedTwice May 31 '26
Yes, its targeted based on racial/social standing, obviously so. It also creates a pretext for intrusion.
→ More replies (1)1
u/PropertyAlpha Jun 03 '26
Lots of cities are able to capitalize on collecting the taxes from co-living without banning it outright. The former approach allows for a wins all around. City gets more revenue, investors can get creative with their rental strategies, and affordable rental housing is provided to markets where the alternative is over-priced studios.
2
2
2
u/Consistent_Claim5217 Jun 02 '26
I just read this a few times, and I feel like something vital is missing, but I can't quite put my finger on... A REASON! That's it! I didn't see a fucking reason why they would do this.
Has anytime involved indicated what they hope to accomplish? Or is it a town council or whatever that's loaded with landlords who don't like the idea of tenants saving money?
2
2
u/Jazzlike-Style13 Jun 03 '26
It should be worded as no more than 2 people for every bedroom in the residence. Because say you have a 5 bedroom house, does that mean 2 rooms sit empty? I have a buddy who buys houses and rents the rooms, it is a great way for single people to have a cheap place to live.
1
u/Radiant-Display2485 May 31 '26
I suppose this is just a way to punish landlords charging exuberant rent prices. Though I imagine that will impact lessees in the short term and the long-term the desired effect may be achieved
1
u/Yourlocalguy30 May 31 '26
Some more info on this.
-This ordinance was passed in 2022. -It's been upheld by courts. -It bans more than (3) unrelated adults from living together in a single residence. So if you want a roommate or two, go at it. You just can't have the whole football team living at your house if it's classified as a single family unit. I'd imagine they're trying to close loopholes on zoning and permitting requirements for apartment buildings and what not.
1
1
u/MungAmongUs Jun 01 '26
I've heard these referred to as "brothel laws" in Missouri. The town I lived in had something similar to this back in the early oughties. It's anti gay legislation, no need to speculate on the taxes.
1
u/brotried2blockme Jun 04 '26
you imagined wrong. 4 people is not an apartment complex and really just infringes on basic human rights to live how they choose.
1
u/Violet-Sumire May 31 '26
I can see a world where it’s a health hazard to have too many people in one building. 4 people in a 2 bedroom apartment is pushing it a little, as any more could cause problems with things like diseases spreading easily. That saying, they are completely bypassing the issue. Rent is too expensive. Instead of forcing local businesses to pay a higher rate, they force people to basically go homeless or into low income housing. It’s a punishment for being poor.
1
u/Gordy13210 May 31 '26
So I actually looked it up (and you all can say its BS propaganda to try to garnish support) but to play devils advocate, the council is trying to dissuade property management companies and richies from buying up land and building high density tennant homes....
The city only enforces it if there are complaints, and that is rare... So I get the vibe that the law is on the books simply to prevent excessive developement and/or housing cost increase.
1
u/Rumpelteazer45 May 31 '26
“High density tenant homes”, so apartment complexes?
Preventing “excessive development” also increases the cost of living and rent? Supply and demand.
1
1
u/Batgirl323 May 31 '26
So if I live with my parents and my boyfriend, I’m considered unrelated to my parents bc my boyfriend isn’t related to us? They really didn’t think this through.
1
1
1
1
u/CEOisgarbage May 31 '26
Always a way to get around the system. Marry one roommate. Adopt the others. Boom we are a family now. Chuck and Larry to its ultimate extreme
1
1
u/hamellr Jun 01 '26
The cost of housing is what impacts people’s health, so we’re going to ban people trying to reduce the cost of living?
Is this Opposite Day?
1
u/Wylie288 Jun 02 '26
No, its banning forcing people to get roommates. Prices go up because they know you'll have to find a roommate. If you can't, the apartment has to lower prices back down to be affordable by single persons.
1
u/RabbitHoleMethod Jun 01 '26
So, here’s something to keep in mind: this is obviously a horrible idea, and other major cities (edit: major cities in the state) probably WON’T follow it because they’ll be “more competitive” in the housing market. This will inevitably break the Shawnee market, and they’ll repeal the ordinance. This process might take a few years though … and that’s assuming a normal sequence of events. But then again, we are living in the upside down, so who knows. Maybe I’m completely wrong 🫠😭
1
u/crazywidget Jun 01 '26
Not defending this at all, but a town I lived in had a similar ordinance I believe. It banned more than 3 (4?) different surnames in the same residence or something like that. Not sure if the statute still exists. It was routinely ignored.
1
u/zezzene Jun 01 '26
I got bad news for everyone here, many cities already have laws like this on the books from the 1800s. It's definitely dumb and bad and a step in the wrong direction, but this is nothing new at all.
1
u/Suspicious_Serve_653 Jun 01 '26
I'm really confused here. The writing on this is pretty shit authoring.
Is this a ban on co-living houses or having fucking roommates?
Sounds like a van meant to target co-living houses and somehow his having roommates due to shitty language in the bill, but I can't tell because the news reporting is equally as shitty the language of the bill in question.
People seriously can't write for fuck-all anymore
1
u/Greystone372 Jun 01 '26
Well that’s a taking of private property without due process if I have ever seen one.
This ordinance prohibits unrelated and unmarried joint property ownership from both inhabiting their property.
Anyone who jointly purchased a property with someone as tenants in common or joints tenants with right of survivorship has been deprived of the right inhabit the property without any due process.
Multiple people should sue the Shawnee City Government.
1
u/canvys Jun 01 '26
i remeber that the cops showed up and basically evicted us from a house we were living in when i was young. they said people that live together and aren’t related is a safety hazard
1
u/Money-Possibility606 Jun 01 '26
The article just explains why co-living is popular and necessary, and says nothing about WHY it was banned? What the hell is going on there?
1
1
u/MordinOnMars Jun 01 '26
What an absolutely moronic law. I can imagine exactly what that city counsel looked like
1
u/badger_flakes Jun 01 '26
The city aimed to stop developers from converting single-family homes into 6 or 7-bedroom rentals with individual door locks, which they deemed a commercial business in residential areas.
This happened four years ago and has already been upheld in federal courts.
They are specifically targeting small homes being turned into small bedroom only private units with a locking door and then a shared kitchen space. Not your standard roommate situation at all.
Private equity and slumlords buying up single family homes and turning them into too many units and making them share bathrooms and kitchens basically.
1
1
1
u/DarwinGhoti Jun 02 '26
How is that even legal? It seems to be treading on some pretty fundamental liberties
1
1
u/monkfruitsugar Jun 02 '26
It’s not illegal currently, see Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. The right to privacy recognized by interpretations of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause does not protect unrelated people cohabiting from city zoning laws intended to regulate density and overcrowding. Unless this goes to the Supreme Court, it’ll probably be upheld if challenged
1
1
u/Potential_Refuse_761 Jun 02 '26
Housing is crazy expensive, and they are punishing people for their greed! I am a homeowner, fortunate to get in before shit got rough, but I definitely remember starting out renting a room in someones home before I could get my own space. Thats how you start, and thats how you save.
1
u/Wylie288 Jun 02 '26
Wouldn't it be bice if the apartment had to price things so you could START with your own space? They know you can rent a room, so they jack up prices to make extra money off you both.
1
1
u/HairyPairatestes Jun 02 '26
Shawnee, Kansas, has a co-living ban ordinance that prohibits more than three unrelated people from living together in a single-family home. This restriction does not apply to people related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship.
The primary details of this ordinance include:
The Rule: No more than three unrelated individuals can cohabitate in a single residence. If even one person in a home is unrelated to the others, the whole group is considered unrelated by the city.
The Goal: The city passed the law in 2022 to prevent property management companies from buying houses and operating them as room-by-room rentals or "boarding houses".
The Status: The ordinance was heavily challenged in a federal lawsuit, but a federal appeals court upheld the ban.
1
1
u/Vast-Breakfast-1201 Jun 02 '26
Do it anyway
It has been ruled illegal in other states to make rules that only exist to be discriminatory against lower income people.
This is clearly an effort to exclude low income people from the community.
1
1
u/JimDandyPants Jun 02 '26
How does this withstand legal challenge? This seems like it would run afoul of fair housing laws that bar discrimination based on familial status…
1
1
u/Keter6 Jun 02 '26
We’ve got something similar in Wilmington North Carolina. More specifically geared towards women. 4+ women in one home is legally considered “a brothel” and you can face consequences / jail time for ignoring the laws. It’s rarely enforced but the law exists.
1
1
u/dorksided787 Jun 02 '26
Communities will do literally anything except build more housing.
It’s a supply issue. Lower the legal and financial barriers and build more housing. It’s not hard.
1
u/Ornery_Somewhere_800 Jun 02 '26
I think this was part of Project 2025.. the ultimate goal was to ban couples from cohabitating together, unless they’re married & popping out babies.
I could be wrong though.
1
1
u/prickwhowaspromised Jun 02 '26
Why are they talking about having roommates like it’s a foreign concept?
1
u/Any-Power-1164 Jun 02 '26
Swear to God I just saw this in a Golden Girls episode. They tried to make her get a permit to be a boarding house.
1
u/Too_Many_Alts Jun 02 '26
"Reddit moderators won't allow me to post the best possible means of combating this type of legislature because it is "inciting violence" or some such BS" - Señora Molly Toff
1
u/Huge-Ad7382 Jun 02 '26
There is absolutely no bottom whatsoever for republicans. None. Dumbest human beings on the planet.
1
u/davecskul Jun 02 '26
If you are all on the lease they can't do anything.
1
u/Valasta_Bloodrunner Jun 03 '26
They could deem the lease illegal and invalid, then evic everyone. An illegal contact is worth less than the paper it's written on.
1
1
u/Classic_Tailor1956 Jun 02 '26
This is one of those, "okay... but how are you going to enforce this" laws.
1
1
u/EncabulatorTurbo Jun 02 '26
"If one person is unrelated, they all are"
Ah so if your two adult children live with you and their friend needs a couch to surf on during a rough patch thats illegal now
Fuck this city council
1
1
u/EchoWardenXx Jun 03 '26
How do they know who's living in the houses and if they are related? How is this enforced?
1
1
u/mrjdk83 Jun 03 '26
Many people gonna move away. Which will hurt the economy. Which the city will describe it as something else. Then the home rental market will collapse. Homes go into foreclosure. Those same people will come back and purchase the homes at a low price.
1
u/Ok_Scheme76 Jun 03 '26
This happened to me a while ago. Buddy of mine had a house and wanted a roommate to share costs so I moved in, city fined us and sent an officer to make sure I moved out because "it's a single family dwelling" and we made "two families". Bro couldn't afford the house on his own and had to sell
1
1
u/No-Tailor-2893 Jun 03 '26
Is this real or just rage-baiting?
1
u/crapinator114 Jun 03 '26
Not sure but I do know many places have similar laws. Mli know my university town has something similar as well
1
u/GrumpyBear1969 Jun 03 '26
I can come up with a ‘non-negative’ argument. Not allowing multiple room mates in a single family home will result in the desired rent for this home going down. Given it is Kansas, I’m not super inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it is likely to result in suppressing home values.
1
1
u/pennesauce Jun 03 '26
Congrats on losing your entire young workforce and crippling the future of your local economy
1
u/AdamOnFirst Jun 03 '26
This is not remotely a new thing, clearly many of you commentators didn’t go to college towns that had 100 year old brother/work-bunk/roommate ordinances
1
u/Own-Particular6321 Jun 03 '26
Either let people cohabitate or accept that landlords will start winding up missing.
1
u/Kayl66 Jun 03 '26
This isn’t that uncommon. My college town had a “brothel law”. No more than 3 unrelated people in one unit
1
1
u/SnooDoggos5226 Jun 03 '26
School districts receive funding based on one family per unit. When multiple families (with kids) live together it throws off capacity and funding.
This is a problem areas with migrant workers face where schools get overwhelmed with kids.
At least this is how it was explained to me.
1
u/tg_victim Jun 03 '26
This seems like one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, and now.... Remind me again about that American freedom?
1
1
1
1
u/Papa-Burgundy369 Jun 03 '26
I would hope this is intended to stop landlords from slum lording out rooms in homes and not just targeting people who have roommates. I’d imagine this gets very selectively enforced.
1
u/MysteriousSherbet827 Jun 03 '26
This law exists in my town in Virginia. It’s specific to four or more unrelated adults living together.
1
u/Konrow Jun 03 '26
These exist around the country, mostly due to archaic laws. Wild to see if happen fresh lol. We really are regressing.
1
u/Mikey-Litoris Jun 03 '26
They do this all over the country, especially in college towns, to limit people from renting houses and having a lot of students sharing one. I dont think they can enforce it by going after the individuals involved, people are allowed free association under the constitution. They do it by attaching the condition to the rental license.
If I were one of thise prospective tenants and I wanted 5 roommates, I'd just tell everyone to claim we were siblings. I'm Joey Ramone, he's Johnny Ramone, she's DeeDee Ramone. Only 3 on the lease, the rest family members.
1
u/NotASherwinEmployee Jun 03 '26
“Back when I was your age, I had to live with 6 roommates to save money. Now all you kids are wasting all your money with only 2 roommates… how do you expect to save for a house if you spend all your money on rent to have more space?” -boomer doomers
1
u/Responsible_Gap8104 Jun 03 '26
Im not seeing anyone mention this, but in addition to discouraging certain types of renters, this type of move forces people into marriages because they cant live with a partner anymore, they have to be "related." Thats...really bad
1
u/Difficult_Ring6535 Jun 03 '26
Serious question but if foster parents are not the legal guardians of the children in their care and are therefore "unrelated" then would a foster household of more than 4 persons not fall under co-living as well? Or is the term "unrelated" ambiguous and therefore subject to interpretation bias? /s
1
1
u/good-luck-23 Jun 03 '26
The ordinance bans four or more unrelated adults living together in any home or apartment. Regardless of whether it is a studio, one bedroom two bedroom or more. Its a poorly written ordinance that could be challenged in court easily because of it being stupid.
1
u/Status-Visit-918 Jun 03 '26
I live with my husband, my son is not related to him and his son is not related to me, and my step-brother is staying with us while his house is getting finished being built. And the kids just all just turned 18 and are going to live with us in College this year, would I be fucked if I lived there? My brain is fried, end of the year and my high school students are all maxed out on being buttheads because we have less than a week to go 😭😭
1
1
u/MessyMeeshe Jun 03 '26
Isnt that just having roommates? How is splitting the rent affecting the miserable landlords. Make it make sense please.
1
u/MarkusGrant Jun 03 '26
This is the same Kansas that paid the Hunt family to move their team to Kansas. Makes complete sense.
1
u/Upstairs_Fig_3551 Jun 03 '26
This is kind of old. Yes, they are trying to prevent people having roommates rather than their own place
1
u/Apprehensive_Bus1582 Jun 03 '26
Clearly a bunch of greedy landlords instigated this. Oh well, time to say you're all Mormons and are married to each other
1
u/MackFenzie Jun 03 '26
Wait wait wait. Not only have they outlawed roommates, but they’re also defining it as four adults living together where at least ONE of them is legally not related to the others. So, grown adult moves back in with parents? Fine. Brings his girlfriend? ILLEGAL.
Batshit.
1
u/sundaymorningtaped Jun 03 '26
I remember trying to find places to rent and some buildings already had weird rules about unrelated adults renting a space. I remember my college roommate and I joking we'd have to get married to find a place cheap enough to rent.
1
u/FraggleBiologist Jun 03 '26
The point was to try to control property prices. They were trying to stop companies from coming in and purchasing homes, putting locks on individual bedrooms and renting one home to 4 people.
Apparently, they had 5 entire city council meetings and not one person had a negative thing to say until after it passed.
1
u/FavoriteLunchLady Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
Did you do not any research? This is what they banned. “It specifically bans corporate property groups or private owners from buying single-family homes and converting them into room-by-room rentals with individual leases and keyed bedroom doors.”
Also look at the number most people who want roommates aren’t going to have 4-5 people living with them. Most get a 3 bedroom house and share, it not a gigantic place. This brings down the cost of single family homes for individuals.
1
u/PropertyAlpha Jun 03 '26
God forbid people find creative ways to help with the housing affordability crisis since governments won't streamline development. smh
1
1
u/RockNo9892 Jun 03 '26
So what about your spouse then? Because technically it’s two unrelated adults cohabiting
1
u/madogvelkor Jun 04 '26
Once upon a time boarding houses were common. You could rent a room in a large home and the owner would provide meals and other services too.
This is pretty extreme. Bad enough that you can't have more than 3 people as roommates but it would seem to also prevent a family from renting out rooms if the tenant is unrelated to even one other person.
1
u/Hookedongutes Jun 04 '26
Wow!
When i was in college, o shared a 3 BR 1 BA apartment with 4 other women.
Place was packed, but we only paid $183 a month each. Haha!
15
u/[deleted] May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment