A Kansas city voted to ban co-living in rental units, effectively making roommates illegal

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A city in Kansas has banned co-living, effectively making it illegal to have a group of unrelated roommates split the cost of rent.

Shawnee, located in Johnson County, unanimously voted early last week to ban the living arrangement in an 8-0 vote by the City Council, The Kansas City Star reported.

As rental and housing prices have climbed across the country, people have turned to roommates to help balance the cost.

The Shawnee ordinance said a group of people is co-living if it includes at least four adults who are unrelated. Only one adult needs to be unrelated for the entire group to be classified as unrelated, according to the Kansas City Star.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-city-voted-unanimously-ban-133406971.html

[bahboo]

1. small government conservatives no doubt...jesus christ...

[Autumn]

2. Republican concerns and values

Good god they are pathetic.

[jimfields33]

20. Quite a liberal area. Went for Biden.

[Autumn]

24. Money trumps all.

[jimfields33]

25. True.

[leftyladyfrommo]

29. It's upper income business people mostly.

Doctors. Lawyers. Upper level managers. It's actually close to where the wealthiest people in Kansas City are.
And close to the Old Money.

It's uppercrust, for sure.

But there are older areas where there are smaller houses.
Lots of apartments. Lots of shopping.

[BlueJac]

3. The values party, go figure.

[cbabe]

4. Convents, frat houses, shelters? YMCA!

[Frustratedlady]

5. What will they do when they run out of ideas for laws to restrict people?

People must lay awake at night to come up with ideas for the stupidest law ever concocted.

Who is going to determine the status of each additional occupant?

If they outlaw "roommates" does that mean that when only one rents the apartment, the price will be reduced?

Sheesh! Next they'll restrict the number of babies one couple can have and require a monitor under the bed to make sure they don't do anything to violate that law.

Sounds like China.

[LonePirate]

6. Does this violate Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment?

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. This issue went to the Supreme Court decades ago. In 1974

Here is the decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Belle_Terre_v._Boraas

I remember it well. I was not long out of college living on Long Island, in shared housing.. Belle Terre is a village on Long Island that chose to zone to disallow three or more people unrelated by blood adoption or marriage to live together inside Belle of Terre in an area zoned as single family housing. I was shocked to learn that William Douglas, staunch liberal defender of the bill of rights, wrote the majority decision. It was opposed by Marshall and Brennan, Marshall wrote the dissent, and he made the very points you raise.. Word at the time was that Douglas felt a need to strengthen the zoning power of local governments so that they could resist harmful unhindered commercial growth etc., which is why he backed Belle Terre's authority.

I lived in a large municipality inside Nassau County at the time, the Township of Hempstead. A slimy ambitious Republican Deputy Supervisor there at the time, by the name of Alphonse D'Amato who later went on the become a slimy U.S. Senator, sponsored the adoption of a similar resolution by the Town Of Hempstead. My circle of friends organized against it, and we actually caught them flat footed by turning out three hundred people for a Town Council meeting where it was slated to be adopted.

We had representatives of Senior organizations, of the Libertarian Party, of College Administrations whose students rented off campus housing and more who spoke out against it. The Town Board temporarily halted the meeting and met in private session for a few minutes before returning. Technically we lost the battle, the legislation went through, but not before the Town Board virtually assured everyone present that they had no intention of actually enforcing the resolution, they just thought it proper to have that authority in case of any unspecified future horrors occurring. The Hempstead law, to my knowledge, was never mentioned again, nor was it ever enforced against anyone. They had no idea what type of hornet's nest they had stirred up. I think they only went through with passing the bill, and then filing it away unused, because D'Amato wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having his legislation go down to defeat in a Republican controlled Town.

[LonePirate]

43. Thank you for the detailed response and the comparison to Justice Marshall.

There are so many bizarre and bad laws on the books in this country.

[Hoyt]

7. For what it's worth: Looks like area went for Biden 49.95% vs. trump 47%. Guess that's something.

[lpbk2713]

8. So now you need a certified copy of a family tree to rent a place?

Landlords obviously have friends on the City Council.

[Wingus Dingus]

9. I don't know, it's kind of undesirable, neighborhood-wise, to take

what was meant as single family homes and carve them up with separate entrances with multiple tenants. Sounds like investors trying to snap up and maximize rental income while taking away these single family homes from prospective homebuyers to be used as single family homes. The law as described isn't good, unless it makes exceptions for normal roommate agreements in normal situations. But no, I wouldn't want to live next door to some cheesy-ass unofficial "renovation" of a house to accomodate multiple occupants--one that isn't already a permitted duplex or fourplex. You'd have potential parking problems, sewer line problems, too.

[ExciteBike66]

10. If they wanted to ban a certain type of renovation,

why not just ban that type of renovation? I mean, the owner probably needs a permit for these renovations, just say no.

No need to make it a matter of having roomates prove who is related to whom...

[Wingus Dingus]

33. Right, that's a good idea. It's dumb to ban roommate arrangements in general.

[Ms. Toad]

13. These laws aren't directed at renovated homes with multiple separate living spaces.

They are directed at single family homes, with a traditional single entrance and multiple bedrooms, from being rented by friends (or even strangers) who choopse to live together to share costs.

As to your concern about parking, sewer, etc. When single family homes are carved up, the number of potential residents does not necessarily increase. They are merely split into two separate living spaces. While it is often true that not every bedroom in a single family home is used as a living space, they can be - and each of those rooms could be occupied by a parent or child with the ability to drive. So there is not inherently an increase in use of resources when single family homes are split into multiple homes.

[Mariana]

18. This doesn't prohibit turning single family homes into multiple rental units.

It prohibits renting a single unit to multiple tenants - i.e. roommates.

[Wingus Dingus]

38. Right, that's why I think it's a bad law as written--

if they are trying to preserve neighborhood values/character and prevent zoning problems and that sort of thing, they can target the specific problem better than this dumb proposal.

[Mariana]

42. How is it a "problem" for a group of people to rent a house or apartment together?

If obviously isn't about overcrowding or safety, because it allows adult relatives to live together in the exact same way.

[Wingus Dingus]

44. I didn't say it was a problem.

[brush]

21. That's not what it's about. It's aim at mostly...

younger people who need to share space with a roommate to be able to afford an apartment or home rental.

It's a stupid law and I'm betting rental owners are not in favor of it. I'm also betting it will eventually be overturned when rental properties go wanting and landlords can pay property taxes.

[CrackityJones75]

23. What about vrbo and airbnb?

[Wingus Dingus]

36. That's a whole separate matter for communities to grapple with.

[CrackityJones75]

37. it it relates directly to this as well.

[wackadoo wabbit]

47. Only marginally

Airbnb and VRBO are short-term rentals. This law is targeting long-term rentals.

[CrackityJones75]

48. Dows it specifically spell it out?

Because I am wondering if those outfits may help to defeat shit like this if ot encroaches on their business model

[Ms. Toad]

11. This is not new.

It was done to ban hippie communes in the 60s.

For example, in Dinolfo, an amicus brief filed by the Michigan Townships Association in support of a restrictive single-family ordinance argued that “[t]he purpose of such regulations is to prohibit the influx of informal residential groups of people whose primary inclination is toward the enjoyment of a licentious style of living.” It went on to warn, without any evidence, that failure to regulate household composition will allow “college fraternities, ‘hippie’ communes, motorcycle clubs, and assorted loosely structured groups of people associating for the purpose of enjoying a purely licentious style of living to locate at will in may not condition residence upon the number of unrelated persons present within the household” because “[g]iven the availability of less restrictive alternatives, such regulations are insufficiently related to the perceived social ills which they were intended to ameliorate”). As the court in State v. Baker went on to note, “Regulations based upon biological traits or legal relationships necessarily reflect generalized assumptions about the stability and social desirability of households comprised of unrelated individuals—assumptions which in many cases do not reflect the real world.”

http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol67/iss4/8

Dinolfo was decided in 1984, but many of these ordinances were adopted in the 60s, and pre-Obergefell were used to prevent LGBT individuals from raising families in the communities or sending their children to local schools because the two adults were not legally related. If each had a child, they often fell within the ban of too many unrelated people in the household. (One of these laws, crafted in the 60s, was used against a friend of mine in the 80s, when she and her (not legally related) spouse lived together in the school district in which I was teaching and the District refused to enroll the child in school since the parent to whom he was not related owned the home (making the child and his mother two people to whom the homeowner was not legally related).)

[SharonClark]

12. In a neighborhood of single family homes?

Sounds good to me.

Traffic, noise, and parking can all be issues when 4 adults live in a single family home with their 4 cars.

[Demovictory9]

22. yes. its annoys people to have multiple adults coming and going with their cars

from one home.

[marie999]

34. Around here single Marines rent houses. 3 Marines in a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house.

People would rather rent to the Marines because they have to behave or their company commander gets a phone call.

[wackadoo wabbit]

49. What if it's a husband and wife and their two older teenage children? Would that be alright?

If yes, then you're basically admitting that you're discriminating against people with fewer resources (i.e., the poor).

If no, then would you ban couples from having children? Or would you want a law that kicks the kids out at the age of, say, 14?

[liberal N proud]

14. Not Kansas City, Missouri

It's a conservative area of Johnson County Kansas.

[former9thward]

26. If its conservative how did it go for Biden in the election?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

45. That's why the article's title says "A Kansas city....."

[crazylikafox]

15. Goodbye Golden Girls!

[Mariana]

19. Yes, exactly. This makes that kind of living arrangement illegal. nt.

[Boomerproud]

46. My 1st thought.

[sanatanadharma]

16. Some folk work hard and actively to increase availability housing...

Some folk work hard and actively to increase availability of housing.
Others seem hell-bent to increase the numbers of homeless.

The USA is not a poor country. Many problems in the nation and beyond, including housing disparities, are positively correlated to disparities in wealth.
Money, and the good it can finance, stops flowing when it becomes bunged-up in the coffers of the crass class.

[Samrob]

17. Nothing like kicking people while they are down and then spitting on them. nt

[ForgedCrank]

27. There are some

problems that need addressed and it appears that this was just very poorly thought out and implemented. And I'm making assumption as I haven't read it, I'm just going off the premise of the OP.
In residential neighborhoods, it becomes a problem with rentals and sometimes even 3-4 families living in one dwelling. It creates all sorts of problems and in general, is quite unfair to everyone. Even the property tax system fails the local schools when this is going on.
The idea itself isn't a bad one, it would just need to be very specific in addressing the actual problems, not a broad scope and poorly written and ham-fisted blanket rule.

[Mariana]

32. You remember the show The Golden Girls?

This is apparently meant to make that kind of living arrangement illegal.

[Sympthsical]

35. There's been some problems in my neighborhood like this

Mine is a little subdivision of single family homes. Kind of affluent with 4-5 bedrooms being the norm.

There have been a few homes in the area where they basically rent out every bedroom separately. One house a few blocks over has 8 people living in it. There are cars all over the place by it and people constantly coming and going at all hours of the day and night.

As one can imagine, there are very vocal people on NextDoor who aren't very keen and adamant some kind of law needs to be passed.

I haven't taken an interest in any of it, but then I also don't live next door to it. I think it would drive me somewhat wild if I had that kind of noise and mess going on.

I have heard similar complaints of this kind of thing the closer you get to Berkeley. Housing is insane in the Bay Area, so it's not uncommon at all for college students or young professionals to pile into homes and split costs. Suffice to say, you plop down 5-8 social twenty somethings smack in the middle of single family homes, there's going to be some shit.

I can't imagine what the solution is since housing prices are so outrageously unfeasible for many areas around the Bay. I have had a tenant for the past year and a half. $750 for a downstairs bedroom, private entrance, and en suite full bathroom. But, we never intended to rent. This was a friend of a friend in a bind. He's leaving next month, and we're still debating whether or not to replace him. Even though we never intended it, it was kind of nice to just throw that $750 at the mortgage principle every month. I did some cursory craigslist browsing, and I see spare bedrooms in my neighborhood going for upwards of $1200. Just, what? For a bedroom? In a suburb?

I get the complaints, I do. But banning roommates is just treating a symptom of our massive housing problems. It's not a solution unto itself. In fact, it could be argued it makes things worse by diminishing supply and driving up prices.

[leftyladyfrommo]

28. Johnson County. You gotta love it.

Don't get me wrong. There are nice people in Johnson County. There are also a lot of snobs. There are miles and miles of subdivisions with huge houses that are all the same color. Boring. And very strict HOAs. I wouldn't last 10 seconds out there.

I don't blame people for getting upset about these houses that are bought up and rented out as party houses. That would really upset me. Too.

[leftyladyfrommo]

31. Johnson County people are not necessarily Republicans.

They are just snobs.

I had some family out there. They were rabid Democrats and they were snobs.

It's strange. It's like being horribly racist but racist against lower income, lower status people. It's the 1%.

[Hekate]

39. Where I lived for nearly 40 years, I knew many women who only held on to their houses by...

… taking in roommates, or by carving off a separate apartment by giving the former master bedroom a separate entrance. It was just a given in that pricey region. It’s not a new concept — in prior centuries women who kept a boarding house weren’t in it for the witty company.

Everybody lucky enough to have a roof over their head will do what they can to keep it, and if they have relatives or friends in need, will often share their space until everyone can get on their feet again.

Don’t even get me started on college-age kids.

Shame on Shawnee. Shame on their narrow, bigoted hearts.

[Texasgal]

40. Why?

For what reason?

[Jilly_in_VA]

41. Stupid and ill-thought out n/t