Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I lived in a town where landlords were buying single-family homes and renting them out to groups of single people. The homeowners didn't like that, so they changed the zoning to prohibit more than two unrelated in a house or apartment.
Will you please tell me what town this was? I have never seen fewer than four unrelated people in such a limitation. I'm amazed if any place got away with two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Then why does government impose land constraints? Why is R1 zoning so widespread? Why is it so difficult to get a variance if one's not politically connected? Why are there minimum lot sizes in many communities?
San Francisco and NYC have geographical constraints but rent control and other government policies make them more expensive than they otherwise would be.
Worth noting that rent control was a (misguided) attempt to level the playing field. All it did was create yet another privileged class. When I lived in NYC I knew a young single man living in a 14-room apt on Central Park West for which he paid less than $2000/mo. He inherited it via rent control.
Such controls, by distorting the market and removing so many housing units from play, most definitely drive up housing costs--tremendously--for everyone else.
I lived in a town where landlords were buying single-family homes and renting them out to groups of single people. The homeowners didn't like that, so they changed the zoning to prohibit more than two unrelated in a house or apartment. What effect do you think that had on housing supply and on rents?
And you find such policies objectionable because... ? Are you an advocate of boarding houses in single family neighborhoods? You like large numbers of renters in single family dwellings, as the more there are the less they care about the neighborhood? You find that large numbers of cars and/or white vans with ladder racks enhance the quality of life in a neighborhood?
Or your feeling is just "screw those who have invested in and are concerned with an acceptable quality of life for their families"?
Everyone wants to live in a nice neighborhood. Not everyone wants to be a good neighbor.
The trend is scattered site housing for low income people. It's the absence of concentration of low income housing in a given geographical area that separates it from it's predecessors, the housing projects. When government money is used to build new multi unit rental housing a percentage of units typically would be set aside for low income dwellers. Low income includes senior housing. Seniors are the primary beneficiaries of Section 8 housing.
Actually, it would strengthen all neighborhoods to have a mix of higher and lower-income families residing together. There's no reason neighborhoods should be segregated by income, race, age, or family makeup.
I don't agree with the income part. many of us work hard to live in certain areas and give our children a safe place to live and go to school. I think purposely building low income dwellings in middle class and upper middle class areas will just increase the "flight" of those who can afford to live somewhere else. I think there are better ways to help the poor out than to move them by the millions into other people's neighborhoods. putting magnet schools in poor areas. providing tax breaks to companies that invest in poor neighborhoods and provide jobs. how about places where some low income units are set aside for the poor and the rest are regular units set at market price in these poor neighborhoods, especially those near downtown centers.
Will you please tell me what town this was? I have never seen fewer than four unrelated people in such a limitation. I'm amazed if any place got away with two.
East Lansing, Mich Ordinance 900. Non-owner-occupied are restricted to max two unrelated, owner-occupied are restricted to three unrelated, i.e. the owner can rent to two roomers.
(c) The keeping of not more than one (1) roomer by an owner residing in a single-family
dwelling, except that a person owning a single-family dwelling on the effective date
of Ordinance No. 900 shall be permitted to keep two (2) roomers while continuing
to own and reside in the dwelling. The maximum occupancy shall not exceed three
-2-
(3) unrelated persons, including the owner, for an owner occupied dwelling or two
(2) unrelated persons for a non-owner occupied dwelling. For purposes of this
subsection, persons comprising a "domestic unit" as defined by §5.5(19) shall be
deemed related persons.
Also:
A: I think the most important ordinance that East Lansing has ever passed in regards to rental housing is ordinance 900, and that really changed the economics of renting in East Lansing.
I don't agree with the income part. many of us work hard to live in certain areas and give our children a safe place to live and go to school. I think purposely building low income dwellings in middle class and upper middle class areas will just increase the "flight" of those who can afford to live somewhere else. I think there are better ways to help the poor out than to move them by the millions into other people's neighborhoods. putting magnet schools in poor areas. providing tax breaks to companies that invest in poor neighborhoods and provide jobs. how about places where some low income units are set aside for the poor and the rest are regular units set at market price in these poor neighborhoods, especially those near downtown centers.
Many people don't work hard and get to live in certain areas. My high school GF inherited $1M on her 18th birthday and paid cash for a house on the Jersey Shore three blocks from the water - at the time she hadn't worked a day in her life, and today the house is worth $1.5M.
What about people who work hard for low wages? I had a co-worker who rents a room in an SRO, he has two jobs including one in a foundry. He's the hardest worker I've ever known, shouldn't he get to live in certain areas?
I don't agree with the income part. many of us work hard to live in certain areas and give our children a safe place to live and go to school. I think purposely building low income dwellings in middle class and upper middle class areas will just increase the "flight" of those who can afford to live somewhere else. I think there are better ways to help the poor out than to move them by the millions into other people's neighborhoods. putting magnet schools in poor areas. providing tax breaks to companies that invest in poor neighborhoods and provide jobs. how about places where some low income units are set aside for the poor and the rest are regular units set at market price in these poor neighborhoods, especially those near downtown centers.
Why can't we come up with ways to let in 'good' low-income people while excluding 'bad' low-income people? Why do the good people have to be excluded when they're not the ones causing the problems?
Many people don't work hard and get to live in certain areas. My high school GF inherited $1M on her 18th birthday and paid cash for a house on the Jersey Shore three blocks from the water - at the time she hadn't worked a day in her life, and today the house is worth $1.5M.
What about people who work hard for low wages? I had a co-worker who rents a room in an SRO, he has two jobs including one in a foundry. He's the hardest worker I've ever known, shouldn't he get to live in certain areas?
Life isn't fair and hard work does not guarantee success, welcome to America.
Why can't we come up with ways to let in 'good' low-income people while excluding 'bad' low-income people? Why do the good people have to be excluded when they're not the ones causing the problems?
And you find such policies objectionable because... ? Are you an advocate of boarding houses in single family neighborhoods? You like large numbers of renters in single family dwellings, as the more there are the less they care about the neighborhood? You find that large numbers of cars and/or white vans with ladder racks enhance the quality of life in a neighborhood?
Or your feeling is just "screw those who have invested in and are concerned with an acceptable quality of life for their families"?
Everyone wants to live in a nice neighborhood. Not everyone wants to be a good neighbor.
I support - gasp - a free market in housing and land use where - gasp - property owners can develop and use their property in ways they deem proper, subject to private property covenants (deed restrictions, HOA, etc) and proper health and safety standards.
I support the promotion of the greatest supply of housing that the private sector is willing and capable of producing.
For example, limiting unrelated house occupancy to two individuals is not a proper health and safety standards when it is lawful for a family of six to occupy the same house.
You sound as if you support elitist standards which artificially restrict the supply of housing and thereby inflate the cost of housing, especially for renters, who unlike homeowners cannot lock in or stabilize their housing costs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
