4 ms·

While the idea of restoring SROs and other dormitory-style housing is a good idea to better serve the lower-cost end of housing, it is completely incompatible w

While the idea of restoring SROs and other dormitory-style housing is a good idea to better serve the lower-cost end of housing, it is completely incompatible with modern ideas around tenant protection. For an SRO to work, you must be able to evict or remove unruly or uncooperative tenants to a degree that is far in excess of what is necessary for a regular apartment or for standalone housing, because by necessity the quarters are much closer. If a manager cannot evict an unruly tenant the entire SRO facility becomes uninhabitable.

gwbas1c 1y ago
> For an SRO to work, you must be able to evict or remove unruly or uncooperative tenants ... If a manager cannot evict an unruly tenant the entire SRO facility becomes uninhabitable. I remember hearing a recent US legal change that makes it easier to forcibly commit mentally ill people. To be quite blunt: Someone who's making an SRO unlivable is mentally ill, and needs to be in a place that's appropriate to handle their needs.
- andrewla 1y ago
  Someone that makes an apartment building unlivable is probably mentally ill. The amount of disruption necessary to make an SRO unlivable is much much much lower. Failing to clean up after yourself in the kitchen or bathroom; playing loud music or coming and going at odd hours, even things like having frequent visitors can be enough. SROs and boarding houses used to have all sorts of "unreasonable" restrictions because of the close quarters, and not having those restrictions makes this untenable. Yes, this power will be abused arbitrarily by managers/landlords in racist and classist and ethno-cist (is that a word?) ways. Attempting to prevent that will lead to the same regulatory quagmires that got these things banned in the first place. You just have to accept the mild social injustice. If you cannot then SROs will have to be banned.
  - gwbas1c 1y ago
    > You just have to accept the mild social injustice. Yes: I'm trying to avoid mentioning a recent executive order that helps this. Basically, SROs aren't a place for mentally ill people, because "You just have to accept the mild social injustice."

gwbas1c 1y ago

> For an SRO to work, you must be able to evict or remove unruly or uncooperative tenants ... If a manager cannot evict an unruly tenant the entire SRO facility becomes uninhabitable. I remember hearing a recent US legal change that makes it easier to forcibly commit mentally ill people. To be quite blunt: Someone who's making an SRO unlivable is mentally ill, and needs to be in a place that's appropriate to handle their needs.

andrewla 1y ago
Someone that makes an apartment building unlivable is probably mentally ill. The amount of disruption necessary to make an SRO unlivable is much much much lower. Failing to clean up after yourself in the kitchen or bathroom; playing loud music or coming and going at odd hours, even things like having frequent visitors can be enough. SROs and boarding houses used to have all sorts of "unreasonable" restrictions because of the close quarters, and not having those restrictions makes this untenable. Yes, this power will be abused arbitrarily by managers/landlords in racist and classist and ethno-cist (is that a word?) ways. Attempting to prevent that will lead to the same regulatory quagmires that got these things banned in the first place. You just have to accept the mild social injustice. If you cannot then SROs will have to be banned.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  > You just have to accept the mild social injustice. Yes: I'm trying to avoid mentioning a recent executive order that helps this. Basically, SROs aren't a place for mentally ill people, because "You just have to accept the mild social injustice."