2 ms·

I was surprised to hear that "single-room occupancy" is largely restricted in most residential areas that are meant for single-family dwellings. What is the di

by smeej 4y ago

I was surprised to hear that "single-room occupancy" is largely restricted in most residential areas that are meant for single-family dwellings. What is the difference between "an SRO renter" and "a roommate"? If you share a kitchen and bathroom, aren't you really just roommates? That's how I've always described the other people living in my dwelling when we each have our own bedrooms but share the other areas of the house. Even in single-family-zoned areas, it's common for two or more unrelated people to rent a property together as roommates, so what's the difference if one of them happens to own the building?

bombcar 4y ago
Some college towns have elaborate laws to prevent frats, and having adults living together who are not related by blood or marriage is basically outlawed. It’s weird.
- voisin 4y ago
  These rules are all about keeping different “types” of people apart, for the benefit of one type and to the detriment of another type. It’s discriminatory at its core. I come from a college town that had similar rules, and it was all about keeping students, most of whom are completely peaceful, from renting rooms in neighbourhoods that are meant for non-students. Even mature students pursing professions or graduate programs. The result? Increase the costs for students by decreasing the supply of housing.
opportune 4y ago
SROs are usually small rooms, like 150 sq ft, with not many common areas besides a hallway, laundry room, bathroom, and a single shared kitchen. The big difference between SROs and roommates is that your lease is individual, you are sharing amenities with maybe 8-20 people instead of like 3, and you don’t necessarily have things like a shared living room. They’re cheaper than a roommate situation given the drawbacks. Making them illegal is probably a way to try to keep poor people out of the community. Because they’re single occupancy with shared facilities they skew towards poorer, middle aged single men at least in SF, and are kind of a stepping stone for people getting out of homelessness. I think the concept is great but in practice they seem to often end up slummy
- smeej 4y ago
  Hmm. The example given in the article is of a married couple who owned a house and had another person renting one room in their house. That's what made me me think it sounds like they took on a roommate, not that they did something that would run against the spirit of a single-family dwelling zone. I have friends now who are engaged and recently bought a house, and are renting out the other bedrooms to two of the (adult) younger siblings of one of the partners, which sounds similar too. I can see the difference between "roommates" and "boarding houses," but the article's example sounded like something that should be fine in neighborhoods.

by smeej 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

Some college towns have elaborate laws to prevent frats, and having adults living together who are not related by blood or marriage is basically outlawed. It’s weird.

voisin 4y ago
These rules are all about keeping different “types” of people apart, for the benefit of one type and to the detriment of another type. It’s discriminatory at its core. I come from a college town that had similar rules, and it was all about keeping students, most of whom are completely peaceful, from renting rooms in neighbourhoods that are meant for non-students. Even mature students pursing professions or graduate programs. The result? Increase the costs for students by decreasing the supply of housing.

opportune 4y ago

SROs are usually small rooms, like 150 sq ft, with not many common areas besides a hallway, laundry room, bathroom, and a single shared kitchen. The big difference between SROs and roommates is that your lease is individual, you are sharing amenities with maybe 8-20 people instead of like 3, and you don’t necessarily have things like a shared living room. They’re cheaper than a roommate situation given the drawbacks. Making them illegal is probably a way to try to keep poor people out of the community. Because they’re single occupancy with shared facilities they skew towards poorer, middle aged single men at least in SF, and are kind of a stepping stone for people getting out of homelessness. I think the concept is great but in practice they seem to often end up slummy

smeej 4y ago
Hmm. The example given in the article is of a married couple who owned a house and had another person renting one room in their house. That's what made me me think it sounds like they took on a roommate, not that they did something that would run against the spirit of a single-family dwelling zone. I have friends now who are engaged and recently bought a house, and are renting out the other bedrooms to two of the (adult) younger siblings of one of the partners, which sounds similar too. I can see the difference between "roommates" and "boarding houses," but the article's example sounded like something that should be fine in neighborhoods.