A Kansas city voted unanimously to ban co-living rentals, effectively making roommates illegal in so

[UpInArms]

full title:

A Kansas city voted unanimously to ban co-living rentals, effectively making roommates illegal in some zoning districts

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

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.

"City Staff received input and concerns from residents and City Council members regarding a relatively new trend where single family homes are being purchased and converted into rental units with multiple individual tenants," a memorandum of the ordinance said.

"In this arrangement, individual tenants have leases of varying lengths, have separate secured access to their rooms, and often do not know or have relationships with the others who are also occupying the same single family dwelling," the memo continued, saying the rental arrangements are "not typical of common rental uses in single family districts that are occupied by family units."

this is intrusive and crazy ....

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. This has got to be illegal, right?

[spooky3]

4. No, lots of cities have zoning laws that require single family houses

to be occupied by owners or rented to related persons.

Four college students renting a house, for example, are very unlikely to maintain a house or yard the way most owners would, and they may have more late night parties, etc. Neighbors have legitimate interests in preserving neighborhoods.

There are likely plenty of apartment rentals available for groups.

[Bev54]

17. Then that is up to the landlord to maintain the outside of the house

or don't rent to them. This is a ridiculous bylaw. It has always been up to the landlord to ensure their property is maintained and to vet their tenants.

[ZenDem]

27. You're kidding, right?

The house next to me was a rental. The landlord rented to 5 kids, all under 25. They let their dog run free to tear up garbage, threaten children, etc. They left trash all over their yard which I had to pick out of MY yard, had parties in the backyard on weeknights until early hours of the morning. Drove THROUGH MY YARD to get to their driveway when there were too many cars in theirs. Set off fireworks that I found on the roof of my house and in my yard.

Once they left, he rented to ANOTHER group of kids under 25 with a different dog, same EXACT behavior.

Cops and the city didn't do a damned thing and told me that I should contact the landlord. I tried tracking down the landlord, but he never responded to any calls. No...one...cared...at...all...

Landlords are a business and need to be regulated just like any company. This regulation is not ridiculous and should be standard. This is not only a property issue, but a safety issue. Those shitheads could have killed a kid, set my house on fire, etc. Saying it "has always been up to the landlord" doesn't work. Frequently, landlords are out of the area and no physical access to the house.

This is KC. Cops don't have time to babysit the neighbors and normally take hours to respond. Whey they do, they don't do anything. Nothing. Left the dog, told the kids they should be more considerate. LOL!!!

[spooky3]

31. No. It depends on the lease. Typically, if you rent a SFH, you are responsible

for mowing and other exterior as well as interior maintenance, and for not breaking stuff. If the stove stops working, for example, but you the tenant were not negligent, then the landlord/lady likely is responsible for repairs.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. They did not totally ban co-living.

Just limited the number of unrelated adults who can live together. That's a huge difference. Four unrelated adults can live together. But not five or more.

Many apartment complexes have long had similar rules in effect.

[spooky3]

7. And this particular ban applies only to SFHs. Nt

[Blues Heron]

16. 3 or fewer- 4 or more is banned under this rule

[Bev54]

18. So if you have Mom and Dad and Grandma and grown son

then the son's girlfriend cannot move in? When is it we hold the actual people responsible for any trouble and quit trying to make rules for everyone, when it may be only one or a couple who screw up.

[dchill]

3. So, no "Friends" in KC, eh? Wow.

[spooky3]

5. "Friends" lived in apartments. This ban applies to SFH neighborhoods. Nt

[Cracklin Charlie]

6. It's racism.

In my opinion.

Many Asian families are multigenerational. Also Hispanic, and Pacific Islanders. They like living in multigenerational homes. They also take in friends who may need a helping hand.

I think it’s racist. I live in the area.

[spooky3]

8. They are related persons, so the ban wouldn't apply. Nt

[Bev54]

19. Just one who isn't related makes it illegal.

[spooky3]

22. Yes, but in the example the poster gave, there isn't likely to be an unrelated

Person.

[Bev54]

23. Yes but it is just one example.

[spooky3]

25. This is a common provision across many cities.

Prospective tenants are not being banned from apartments; this ban was enacted because SFH owners want to preserve the character of their neighborhood.

[jimfields33]

13. Please read or reread the article

[twodogsbarking]

9. I doubt this is unusual in college towns.

Our town has the three unrelated persons rule in parts of town.
Only three unrelated are allowed.

[Hoyt]

10. It doesn't ban 3 roommates, so that takes care of most cases. But still, not sure rule is needed.

And clearly it is at a bad time in terms of cost of housing.

[Phoenix61]

11. Turning single family homes into multi-unit rentals

drives up the price of single family homes. Air B&B does the same thing. Places that were intended to be somewhere to live become income generating businesses.

[Bev54]

20. I agree with Air B&B but they are not living there and it is

entirely different and can be under a different bylaw because it is more like a hotel in a residential area.

[Phoenix61]

21. I'm unsure what you mean by they aren't living there.

The article said leases were of varying lengths so some
may be short-term. Either way it inflates housing costs in the area by driving up comps.

[spooky3]

24. Do you have a cite for that?

Many potential homeowners do not want to buy in neighborhoods where rentals are common. So that reduces demand.

[Phoenix61]

29. Except it doesn't reduce demand. It just shifts the demand

to investors because single families can no longer afford the neighborhood. They end up looking in less expensive areas but since they have more disposable income they drive up the price of housing in that neighborhood. So, the larger houses end up rentals and the people who would have lived there move over to the next neighborhood. The family at the bottom gets completely squeezed out of the housing market. Meanwhile realtors and banks are raking in the dollars. Local governors are thrilled because property tax revenues go up. This is also why they are incredibly reluctant to push back against it. Areas where tourists like to visit are especially vulnerable to this. Like where I live.

[spooky3]

30. These are hypotheses. They should be tested with data. Nt

[Phoenix61]

32. What part of my post do you think is just a hypothesis?nt

[spooky3]

33. All of it--unless you have data, it is just an untested

Hypothesis.

I also live in an area where tourists visit (DC metro) and where there are developers aplenty. I could offer an anecdote based on my neighborhood that would support a hypothesis that allowing lots of tenants per SFH drives down homeowner demand and home value (and that’s why current homeowners demand zoning restrictions) and further propose that while investor demand could offset some of it, it doesn’t offset all of it (or that that could depend on several other factors). But without data, we have no way to know whether I’m right or wrong.

One factor in my neighborhood is that the rental costs for SFHs typically don’t cover even most of the ownership costs. Investors here want to build apartment complexes where zoning allows it.

In my neighborhood, several owners rent out their homes or part of them, and often this violates zoning. But as long as everyone behaves well, and there aren’t too many such houses, people look the other way.

[Phoenix61]

34. Here's some sources for you.

Investors bought a record share of homes in 2021. See where.
An analysis of 40 major metro areas revealed unequal levels of investor activity, with southern cities and Black neighborhoods disproportionately affected
“Those purchases come at a time when would-be buyers across the country are seeing wildly escalating prices, raising the question of what impact investors are having on prices for everyone else. Investors were even more aggressive in the final three months of the year, buying 15 percent of all homes that sold in the 40 markets.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/housing-market-investors/

Wall Street is buying up family homes. The rent checks are too juicy to ignore
“The coronavirus pandemic gave institutional investors all the proof they needed that single-family rentals could survive a severe economic downturn.”

“Real estate analytics firm Green Street estimates that single-family rental values in the United States are 15% above their pre-Covid level. Renting out single-family homes is expected to deliver annual returns for private investors in the next three years of 6.8%, compared with 6.1% for apartments, 6.3% for industrial properties and 6.4% for malls, Green Street said in a July report.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/02/business/family-homes-wall-street/index.html

“Young couples are now competing with more than 200 firms, from tech startups to money managers to rental platforms, to purchase houses priced at record highs. If you want as many regular people as possible to be able to afford a home and build up their wealth the way previous generations have, having investors able to spend tens of thousands of dollars above the asking price and pay in all-cash, all across the market, certainly isn’t an encouraging development.”
https://www.fatherly.com/news/investors-single-family-home-market-rentals-wealth/amp/

[spooky3]

35. Thanks, but those don't show that the cause of increases

Is zoning that allows 5 or more unrelated people to rent there.

[Phoenix61]

36. Right... nt

[DBoon]

12. makes it more expensive to live in that neighborhood

Hence maintaining the"elite" status by keeping lower income adults out

[Phoenix61]

26. It artificially inflates the price of single family housing by changing

it from a place to live to an invest property with the goal of maximizing profit. It’s quite literally operating a business in a residential neighborhood.

[Ritabert]

14. I agree with this. 4 or more people results in

....4 or more cars and they never have enough parking for them.

[Croney]

15. I just want to say thank you for posting the full title.

This is a (minor) pet peeve of mine. People post the maximum that fits, and that leaves a dangling incomplete sentence, and then you scour the article and don't find the rest of the sentence, because it was just the title.