8 ms·

This highlights a flaw in the law more than anything else. Who owns your home? If government can tell you who can stay with you, regardless of any private trans

by jjordan 10y ago

This highlights a flaw in the law more than anything else. Who owns your home? If government can tell you who can stay with you, regardless of any private transactions or agreements you make with that person, then government has more authority over your living space than you do.

JonFish85 10y ago
Is it a flaw or a feature? This might be more akin to the local government saying that you can't run a business in a residential area (i.e. zoning laws) than it is to squashing "private transactions or agreements".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
daodedickinson 10y ago
Well, do you not own your home if an association can force you not to paint an icon on your roof or put certain statues in your yard? I would say so. I have always seen homeowners associations as a grevious affront to the First Amendment. But apparently I am missing something vital or I am insane.
- gradys 10y ago
  You are missing something vital. The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot restrict speech, free association, etc. Homeowners associations are not the government. They are private organizations. You generally agree to follow their rules as part of the contract you sign when purchasing the property.
  - adrusi 10y ago
    But why do you have to sign that contract? Why does this private organization have the power to force you to sign a contract before purchasing property? Because the munucipal government has granted them that power. The way the bill of rights is applied to municipal governments isn't clear, but in my opinion this is an overreach.
  - daodedickinson 10y ago
    Well, then it proves my point that you don't own the land or home. The HOA government does.
- hasbroslasher 10y ago
  Homeowners associations aren't the government, you technically agree to join them when you buy the house. It's "free exchange of goods and services" - quotes to indicate that it really isn't but in the government's eyes it's fine. Social coercion is a powerful force, the same that produces many odd laws.
- mikestew 10y ago
  * I have always seen homeowners associations as a grevious affront to the First Amendment. But apparently I am missing something vital or I am insane.* The 1st refers to the government, not to housing communities to which you willingly moved. Don't like HOAs? Don't live in an HOA community. The government has no hand in this.
  - tlrobinson 10y ago
    Legally you are correct. > Don't like HOAs? Don't live in an HOA community. That's becoming harder and harder. Currently 68 million Americans live in some sort of community association [1] and that's constantly rising. These are essentially hyper-local governments. I can "willingly move" between cities and states and yet city and state governments also can not infringe upon constitutional rights (though they certainly sometimes try). It doesn't seem like a big stretch to hold HOAs to the same standard when you're talking about putting restrictions on something as fundamental as someone's residence. That isn't to say they aren't allowed to make any rules governing the community. 1. https://www.caionline.org/AboutCommunityAssociations/Pages/StatisticalInformation.aspx https://www.caionline.org/AboutCommunityAssociations/Pages/S...
    - mahyarm 10y ago
      That is why there are law regulating HOAs, and they talk about that exact mini-government issue you talk about. Ex: https://www.calhomelaw.org/doc.asp?id=460 https://www.calhomelaw.org/doc.asp?id=460 You can also say something similar about corporations.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Some cities/states are effectively or actually forcing all new development to include a HOA as part of the developer opening up that tract of land, under the auspices of reducing the cost of maintenance by foisting that upon the HOA/community directly.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    And what gives the HOA authority? What happens if I say "Screw you HOA, I am going to ignore you". The answer is that the GOVERNMENT enforces its will.
untog 10y ago
That's part of the deal with living in an urban area. Living in such close quarters, you can easily disrupt the lives of those around you - that's why we have noise complaints, rules around trash disposal, etc. etc. If you don't want to live by those community rules then it would best to live outside of a community.
bloat 10y ago
This argument doesn't hold much water. There's many, many things you can't do in or with your own home due to various laws. There are externalities associated with lots of activities, and therefore these activities are regulated or outlawed. I can't use my home as a bar, or as a concert venue. I can't use it to tan leather, or operate a waste incinerator.
- braveo 10y ago
  But you can let your druggie sibling live there for free. There's a reason why zoning laws exist, there's no good reason to disallow someone from doing what's effectively subleasing. It's been legal since forever.
  - greggman 10y ago
    The law still let's you have druggie sublease as long as it's 30days or more. It also lets you have them over for free.
mikestew 10y ago
Who owns your home? If government can tell you who can stay with you The government can do all manner of proscriptions for your residence. For instance, no, you cannot run a brothel from your house. You cannot turn it into a bouncy house park. And you cannot have short-term rentals in an area that the community has decided to use for permanent housing. It's called "zoning", and collectively we've agreed to the allowed uses of our property. You live in a community of others, and your property lines do not define "The Independent Republic of JJordan", so yeah, the government does have some authority over your use of your property. You might not like it, but you'll be going against the flow. Because, personally, I'd rather not have the house next to me used for short-term rentals "shared" with those that don't give two shits about the community they'll be leaving on Sunday afternoon. You also don't get to just decide not to follow the rules after the fact. One moved to a community, and directly or indirectly agreed to abide by the community standards. If one decides that's just not really working for them anymore, well, move to a community that has standards more to your liking. There do exist places that will have no problem with you throwing all the loud parties you like, and renting to college students on spring break. Those places are not in SV, however, so good luck in your search for remote work.
- nilved 10y ago
  This post does a good job of describing why governments are old news that have no place in our fast-paced innovative future.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    If the "fast-paced, innovative future" includes petulant children stomping around mad because the big, bad government won't let them do whatever they want no matter the consequences to those around them, I'd say governments are more relevant than ever.
    - nilved 10y ago
      Okay, but let's see if the governments or the petulant children win. You know which thread you're in, right?
cma 10y ago
> If government can tell you who can stay with you, regardless of any private transactions or agreements you make with that person, then government has more authority over your living space than you do. Fire marshals have limited the amount of people you can have in a particular building for more than a hundred years. I don't know the rationale in this case, but there are very good rationales for government to have more control of your house than you do in some instances. Mandatory fire suppression systems can end up saving not just your apt unit, but your whole neighborhood.
ww520 10y ago
You own your home. Government also has a duty to the well being of the people living around you. Zone laws prevent you from using your home to manufacture chemicals. Noise law prevents you from running musical concert day and night. You would expect your neighbors to obey the same laws to enjoy your peace and quiet at home.
flavor8 10y ago
As long as property tax exists (your county will seize your home if you don't pay it) the concept of real estate ownership is pretty tenuous. I accept taxation in general but property taxes have always rubbed me the wrong way.
- schoen 10y ago
  There's a movement that sees things exactly the other way, based on the ideas of Henry George: maintaining that only real property taxation is legitimate (or appropriate) and that other kinds of taxes aren't! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Property tax is pretty essential. Huge weird distortions can happen in low property tax places. California with prop 13, the UK with it's non-existent property taxes, Vancouver, BC with it's very low property tax rates are all examples of RE gone wrong and are places with low property tax.
  - flavor8 10y ago
    The problem in California is the grandfathering in of rates, rather than the fact that the tax exists. If property tax was completely removed and the state made up the shortfall in some other tax (hopefully progressive) then there'd be no market distortion.
    - mahyarm 10y ago
      Yeah it's not the rate, it's the %2 increase rate. Takes 35 years for the tax to double in cost. Seattle's King County has a lower property tax rate than a chunk of the bay area for example.
awesomerobot 10y ago
If you want to have visitors over when you live in your house you're free to do so. If you own a property and operate it as a hotel while not actually living in it you're violating the zoning laws that every business/hotel operation have to adhere to. AirBnB's use of the word "sharing" is laughably liberal. By their standard if I'm running a convenience store I'm "sharing" my property with every customer who wanders in.
amalcon 10y ago
If you live in the US (where NYC is), you can also tell the government who can stay with you per the third amendment. Therefore, they don't have more authority than you, just different authority. It's probably good that they do. I may not agree with this particular exercise of authority, but I'd like to be able to do something about it if my neighbor decides to build bombs in his spare room.
- pilsetnieks 10y ago
  It's not exactly who but if, per the third amendment. Also, I don't see how your point about neighbors is relevant to it. Is it a serious risk where you live? A common occurence, would you say? And how exactly, in constitutional sense, would you be able to do anything about it?
  - amalcon 10y ago
    If implies who, as it gives negotiating leverage. But that's kind of beside the point. Edit: I just realized I probably misunderstood you. The point about neighbors is meant to be relevant to the notion of the government having a degree of control over your property in general, not the specific question of who's allowed to stay there. Most of my response is no longer relevant with that clarification, so I've removed it.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Who owns your home? It's called "zoning" and it's been around for quite a while. You know, those pesky laws that says someone can't just build, say, a giant slag heap directly behind (and towering above) your house with nothing but rusty wire holding it together. Which laws (a.k.a. zoning laws) you unequivocally agree to abide by when buying a piece of property, in just about any jurisdiction on the planet.
sidlls 10y ago
That's a poor description of what is going on here. I suppose you'd argue that having to pay a property tax is the same as paying the government rent, and so that means one doesn't "own" his home at all as long as it's taxed? Where does that argument end? At what point can we just call it what it is: advocacy for disbanding government entirely?
- jjordan 10y ago
  Great point; property taxes are remarkably similar to rent, are they not? Pay your annual dues or you're out on your ass, so to speak. Consumption taxes are a much fairer way of funding the government, IMO. Rich people consume more and pay more in taxes. Those with less consume less and pay less.
  - devdas 10y ago
    Wealth taxes would be even fairer.
nommm-nommm 10y ago
You only "own" your home because the government itself creates a concept of property ownership and enforces it.
- refurb 10y ago
  I would have to disagree with that. Sure the government enforces property right, but ownership can exist without the gov't.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    What is ownership without a government? Who issues and authenticates the deeds? What do private police do when someone calls them and asks them to remove you from "your" property.
    - refurb 10y ago
      You can enforce your own property rights. The best example is Somali. No gov't, but I wouldn't argue that people don't own things there.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man... To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it. -- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII
mahyarm 10y ago
Have you owned a house or condo? When you do, you find out very quickly that there are a ton of restrictions on real estate.
davidf18 10y ago
The housing in NYC is mostly apartments. People don't want transients in their apartment buildings. We value our safety. It is really that simple. People absolutely do not have the right to make an unsafe environment for others in the apartment building.
Spooky23 10y ago
That's not what the NY law says. You're welcome to rent out your bedroom. You're not welcome to buy a 3 family and turn it into a hotel. There was some house of horrors where a 5 family was converted into an AirBnb ersatz hotel with 30 beds.

by jjordan 10y ago

JonFish85 10y ago

Is it a flaw or a feature? This might be more akin to the local government saying that you can't run a business in a residential area (i.e. zoning laws) than it is to squashing "private transactions or agreements".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

daodedickinson 10y ago

Well, do you not own your home if an association can force you not to paint an icon on your roof or put certain statues in your yard? I would say so. I have always seen homeowners associations as a grevious affront to the First Amendment. But apparently I am missing something vital or I am insane.

gradys 10y ago
You are missing something vital. The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot restrict speech, free association, etc. Homeowners associations are not the government. They are private organizations. You generally agree to follow their rules as part of the contract you sign when purchasing the property.
- adrusi 10y ago
  But why do you have to sign that contract? Why does this private organization have the power to force you to sign a contract before purchasing property? Because the munucipal government has granted them that power. The way the bill of rights is applied to municipal governments isn't clear, but in my opinion this is an overreach.
- daodedickinson 10y ago
  Well, then it proves my point that you don't own the land or home. The HOA government does.
hasbroslasher 10y ago
Homeowners associations aren't the government, you technically agree to join them when you buy the house. It's "free exchange of goods and services" - quotes to indicate that it really isn't but in the government's eyes it's fine. Social coercion is a powerful force, the same that produces many odd laws.
mikestew 10y ago
* I have always seen homeowners associations as a grevious affront to the First Amendment. But apparently I am missing something vital or I am insane.* The 1st refers to the government, not to housing communities to which you willingly moved. Don't like HOAs? Don't live in an HOA community. The government has no hand in this.
- tlrobinson 10y ago
  Legally you are correct. > Don't like HOAs? Don't live in an HOA community. That's becoming harder and harder. Currently 68 million Americans live in some sort of community association [1] and that's constantly rising. These are essentially hyper-local governments. I can "willingly move" between cities and states and yet city and state governments also can not infringe upon constitutional rights (though they certainly sometimes try). It doesn't seem like a big stretch to hold HOAs to the same standard when you're talking about putting restrictions on something as fundamental as someone's residence. That isn't to say they aren't allowed to make any rules governing the community. 1. https://www.caionline.org/AboutCommunityAssociations/Pages/StatisticalInformation.aspx https://www.caionline.org/AboutCommunityAssociations/Pages/S...
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    That is why there are law regulating HOAs, and they talk about that exact mini-government issue you talk about. Ex: https://www.calhomelaw.org/doc.asp?id=460 https://www.calhomelaw.org/doc.asp?id=460 You can also say something similar about corporations.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Some cities/states are effectively or actually forcing all new development to include a HOA as part of the developer opening up that tract of land, under the auspices of reducing the cost of maintenance by foisting that upon the HOA/community directly.
- stale2002 10y ago
  And what gives the HOA authority? What happens if I say "Screw you HOA, I am going to ignore you". The answer is that the GOVERNMENT enforces its will.

untog 10y ago

That's part of the deal with living in an urban area. Living in such close quarters, you can easily disrupt the lives of those around you - that's why we have noise complaints, rules around trash disposal, etc. etc. If you don't want to live by those community rules then it would best to live outside of a community.

bloat 10y ago

This argument doesn't hold much water. There's many, many things you can't do in or with your own home due to various laws. There are externalities associated with lots of activities, and therefore these activities are regulated or outlawed. I can't use my home as a bar, or as a concert venue. I can't use it to tan leather, or operate a waste incinerator.

braveo 10y ago
But you can let your druggie sibling live there for free. There's a reason why zoning laws exist, there's no good reason to disallow someone from doing what's effectively subleasing. It's been legal since forever.
- greggman 10y ago
  The law still let's you have druggie sublease as long as it's 30days or more. It also lets you have them over for free.

mikestew 10y ago

Who owns your home? If government can tell you who can stay with you The government can do all manner of proscriptions for your residence. For instance, no, you cannot run a brothel from your house. You cannot turn it into a bouncy house park. And you cannot have short-term rentals in an area that the community has decided to use for permanent housing. It's called "zoning", and collectively we've agreed to the allowed uses of our property. You live in a community of others, and your property lines do not define "The Independent Republic of JJordan", so yeah, the government does have some authority over your use of your property. You might not like it, but you'll be going against the flow. Because, personally, I'd rather not have the house next to me used for short-term rentals "shared" with those that don't give two shits about the community they'll be leaving on Sunday afternoon. You also don't get to just decide not to follow the rules after the fact. One moved to a community, and directly or indirectly agreed to abide by the community standards. If one decides that's just not really working for them anymore, well, move to a community that has standards more to your liking. There do exist places that will have no problem with you throwing all the loud parties you like, and renting to college students on spring break. Those places are not in SV, however, so good luck in your search for remote work.

nilved 10y ago
This post does a good job of describing why governments are old news that have no place in our fast-paced innovative future.
- mikestew 10y ago
  If the "fast-paced, innovative future" includes petulant children stomping around mad because the big, bad government won't let them do whatever they want no matter the consequences to those around them, I'd say governments are more relevant than ever.
  - nilved 10y ago
    Okay, but let's see if the governments or the petulant children win. You know which thread you're in, right?

cma 10y ago

> If government can tell you who can stay with you, regardless of any private transactions or agreements you make with that person, then government has more authority over your living space than you do. Fire marshals have limited the amount of people you can have in a particular building for more than a hundred years. I don't know the rationale in this case, but there are very good rationales for government to have more control of your house than you do in some instances. Mandatory fire suppression systems can end up saving not just your apt unit, but your whole neighborhood.

ww520 10y ago

You own your home. Government also has a duty to the well being of the people living around you. Zone laws prevent you from using your home to manufacture chemicals. Noise law prevents you from running musical concert day and night. You would expect your neighbors to obey the same laws to enjoy your peace and quiet at home.

flavor8 10y ago

As long as property tax exists (your county will seize your home if you don't pay it) the concept of real estate ownership is pretty tenuous. I accept taxation in general but property taxes have always rubbed me the wrong way.

schoen 10y ago
There's a movement that sees things exactly the other way, based on the ideas of Henry George: maintaining that only real property taxation is legitimate (or appropriate) and that other kinds of taxes aren't! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
mahyarm 10y ago
Property tax is pretty essential. Huge weird distortions can happen in low property tax places. California with prop 13, the UK with it's non-existent property taxes, Vancouver, BC with it's very low property tax rates are all examples of RE gone wrong and are places with low property tax.
- flavor8 10y ago
  The problem in California is the grandfathering in of rates, rather than the fact that the tax exists. If property tax was completely removed and the state made up the shortfall in some other tax (hopefully progressive) then there'd be no market distortion.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    Yeah it's not the rate, it's the %2 increase rate. Takes 35 years for the tax to double in cost. Seattle's King County has a lower property tax rate than a chunk of the bay area for example.

awesomerobot 10y ago

If you want to have visitors over when you live in your house you're free to do so. If you own a property and operate it as a hotel while not actually living in it you're violating the zoning laws that every business/hotel operation have to adhere to. AirBnB's use of the word "sharing" is laughably liberal. By their standard if I'm running a convenience store I'm "sharing" my property with every customer who wanders in.

amalcon 10y ago

If you live in the US (where NYC is), you can also tell the government who can stay with you per the third amendment. Therefore, they don't have more authority than you, just different authority. It's probably good that they do. I may not agree with this particular exercise of authority, but I'd like to be able to do something about it if my neighbor decides to build bombs in his spare room.

pilsetnieks 10y ago
It's not exactly who but if, per the third amendment. Also, I don't see how your point about neighbors is relevant to it. Is it a serious risk where you live? A common occurence, would you say? And how exactly, in constitutional sense, would you be able to do anything about it?
- amalcon 10y ago
  If implies who, as it gives negotiating leverage. But that's kind of beside the point. Edit: I just realized I probably misunderstood you. The point about neighbors is meant to be relevant to the notion of the government having a degree of control over your property in general, not the specific question of who's allowed to stay there. Most of my response is no longer relevant with that clarification, so I've removed it.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Who owns your home? It's called "zoning" and it's been around for quite a while. You know, those pesky laws that says someone can't just build, say, a giant slag heap directly behind (and towering above) your house with nothing but rusty wire holding it together. Which laws (a.k.a. zoning laws) you unequivocally agree to abide by when buying a piece of property, in just about any jurisdiction on the planet.

sidlls 10y ago

That's a poor description of what is going on here. I suppose you'd argue that having to pay a property tax is the same as paying the government rent, and so that means one doesn't "own" his home at all as long as it's taxed? Where does that argument end? At what point can we just call it what it is: advocacy for disbanding government entirely?

jjordan 10y ago
Great point; property taxes are remarkably similar to rent, are they not? Pay your annual dues or you're out on your ass, so to speak. Consumption taxes are a much fairer way of funding the government, IMO. Rich people consume more and pay more in taxes. Those with less consume less and pay less.
- devdas 10y ago
  Wealth taxes would be even fairer.

nommm-nommm 10y ago

You only "own" your home because the government itself creates a concept of property ownership and enforces it.

refurb 10y ago
I would have to disagree with that. Sure the government enforces property right, but ownership can exist without the gov't.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  What is ownership without a government? Who issues and authenticates the deeds? What do private police do when someone calls them and asks them to remove you from "your" property.
  - refurb 10y ago
    You can enforce your own property rights. The best example is Somali. No gov't, but I wouldn't argue that people don't own things there.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man... To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it. -- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII

mahyarm 10y ago

Have you owned a house or condo? When you do, you find out very quickly that there are a ton of restrictions on real estate.

davidf18 10y ago

The housing in NYC is mostly apartments. People don't want transients in their apartment buildings. We value our safety. It is really that simple. People absolutely do not have the right to make an unsafe environment for others in the apartment building.

Spooky23 10y ago

That's not what the NY law says. You're welcome to rent out your bedroom. You're not welcome to buy a 3 family and turn it into a hotel. There was some house of horrors where a 5 family was converted into an AirBnb ersatz hotel with 30 beds.