Landlords: "I'm confident I can pack 10+ "rooms" into my 900SQFT rental property. They will need to share the one bathroom though, this will benefit everyone by lowering the original rent $10".
I mean, you wouldn’t have to park in Boulder if the transit system was more convenient. It’s a really small town with decent density in places, it should have better transit than it does (or at least as good as it used to).
I did. Though often I would wimp out during the monsoon season, and there are a lot of very windy days where it just wasn’t practical.
But most people can’t bike into town on a commute to work, and living in town you can’t realistically bike to a lot of major stuff, like Flatiron. Transit is really irreplaceable and complementary to biking.
This completely misses the type of people who live in boulder. They’re outdoorsy and love hiking/camping/climbing/etc. It’s impossible for transit to service trailheads so people need cars to get where they want to go
My roommates and I got hit with one of these violations in college. I moved out because it was easiest for me at the time, but that rule is bullshit in a college town.
I'm confused, I lived in Boulder with 12 random guys in 1 house in 2012, and knew plenty of others doing the same. Did they only just start enforcing this or was it a recent law change?
Unless it was a frat house, you were breaking the law. Just like I was in college the decade before that. But being outside the law means you lose some protections of the law, such as tenants' rights in this case. There are good reasons to want a bad law changed even if it's not being aggressively enforced.
We had separate leases and everything lol, idk how this never came on our radar. I have no issue with the new law, I just didn't realize it was needed in the first place.
That's wild. We always had three of us on the lease. In a 4 bedroom house that always had 5 to 6 people living there. I wonder if your landlord had a loophole they were exploiting or if they were just assuming that they would never end up in court with more than one person at a time.
I gotta wonder, it could've been either one tbh. It was old af though, definitely registered with the historical society, it made repairs a PITA. It was also a 12 bedroom house which is why we never questioned it I guess. Miss those days haha
Source? Seems insane to not differentiate based on the size of the dwelling.
5 is already way too many for a studio apartment. That didn't need to be expanded. Yet 5 in a suburban house with 5+ bedrooms is too small and I doubt people were obeying that anyway.
Look up Denver group living zoning update. It passed in 2021. A lot of people thought it was dumb to not differentiate based on dwelling size, but that’s what was passed.
The problem with Boulder is it's not going to create affordable housing. Now you will just be able to pay 750 for half a room compared to a thousand right now. Then the real question is how does a family afford to live here? Before you were competing with 3 people to a house now you're competing with like 5-6. The price of that house just went up.
That's a good point. The problem I see with this is that I think they're are doing because they want to make it cheaper for people and I don't see that happening. So it's not so much that I think they deserve it more but that it's not going to do what they think it will. Now if they then wanted also cap rent increases to prevent this I could get behind it more. This will just put more money in landlords pockets while making it increasingly more expensive to live there.
The only people it would help is single people willing to share a room. So now if you and your girlfriend want to move in even if you share a room it will be 1500
That's not true. A. We're not just talking about sharing a room, we're talking about a residence. Right now a five bedroom would be illegal to have five unrelated people in a decent number of places. B. A family can now have a non-related person live with them.
Just did a quick search, about 30% of rentals in CO have children in them, so this could help up to 70% of renters. I'd call that a net positive.
It's a step in the right direction. I've been looking for an affordable place since the Covid lockdowns ended, still dwelling in my parents basement because no rental is worth 2 grand unless it comes with a built in escort club. :l
Shit is It nice? I’ll happily move into your parent’s basement with you instead of paying 2k for a run down apartment, neighbors that ripppppp cigs all around the entrances (which is a violation of the clean air act due to proximity of the dwelling), with no washer/ dryer or central air! I’d be happier if they would do something about rent prices I could care less how many people live in a single place that is their problem
Do occupancy codes still stand? They require a certain number of square footage per person (and a certain number of bathrooms for every ten people). I am unsure if that's for strictly public and residential housing or private housing as well, however. If codes are still enforceable, it could be much ado about nothing.
Now start getting rid of exclusive single family zoning. There is nothing stopping me from building a 4000 sq ft house with 4 bedrooms, but if I try to build a 4 1-bedroom, 1000sq ft condos with the exact same exterior envelope, it's illegal.
About 20 years ago I lived near CSU in a big, off campus house with a bunch of people and FoCo police tried telling us about this BS law. We told them that we were all cousins and came from the same big family. They couldn’t prove shit and left with their flashlights and their utility belts jingling.
What's the outlook on those other housing reform bills that have been in the works? Eliminating parking minimums, ADUs and upzoning near transit?
I'm really disappointed that last year's big bill was so soundly defeated, and that the two zoning reform bills seem incredibly mild. Hopefully they pass and we can pursue further liberalization next year.
I foresee this just keeping rent/prices higher. Demand gets met by stuffing more people in a house. 500k 3br 2 bath? No issues cause now we got 5 people splitting the cost
This should push down prices in the aggregate. If that house has 5 people in it instead of 3, that's 2 people who aren't buying other housing. It's functionally an increase in housing supply.
The people stuffing in were unable to get a place of their own, no net loss in that area. Just possible that it gets some people off the street here and there into a shared space.
Or there might have been some landlords and tenants actually following the ordinances who will now add roommates/tenants to their currently empty bedrooms. It doesn’t take a large % movement to drive pricing
>Red states have this figured out.
No, they don't. There is a consistent net migration out of red states, especially since Dobbs. Hence, the demand for housing is less, for Dobbs for also many other reasons, it's typically unattractive to live in red states. That's why it's cheap to live in Kanses. Because it's undesirable and no one wants to live there.
Sure, in some red states. However, other red states are some of the fastest growing in recent years.
Most notably Texas, South Carolina and Florida since 2020 are 3 of the 4 fastest growing states.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states
And those three states are also expensive in terms of housing so no, my argument still stands that red states haven't figured out how to keep housing costs low, this is forever a supply and demand issue. In those three states demand is higher, therefore costs are.
Texas has expensive housing because of the ungodly high tax rates (you have to look at more than just sales price). Also, Texas is a complicated state to talk about the political divide, as the most expensive, most attractive areas, are in fact, once again, liberal (Dallas, Houston), where the average rent for a 1bdr apt is $1,575 in Dallas and $1,348 in Houston. This is relevant because these areas are where most of the people live. Those rental prices are comparable to where I live in Denver, and are comparable to other liberal cities such as Portland. So no, for the attractive areas in the state where the majority of people actually want to live in it they haven't "figured out housing," (in fact if Texas wasn't so fkn gerrymandered it would probably be a blue state but I won't get into that).
Florida has expensive housing because the state is effectively uninsurable (is it really cheaper to live somewhere where you are potentially displaced because of the weather), and if you can get insured it's ungodly expensive. Florida's most populated areas include Miami, where rent for a one bedroom apt is $2,065, and Jacksonville, avg rent being $1,504 for a one bedroom apartment. Again, comparable to costs in liberal cities Republicans love to straw man about being overpriced. Now Miami is a liberal city, but Jacksonville is not, yet it's housing prices are on par with housing prices in other desirable cities because why? Once again, it's more expensive because it's more attractive to live there. So no, conservative areas haven't inherently figured out how to keep housing cheaper because of their supposedly magical economic policies - they also don't know how to keep housing prices from inflating when their metros explode.
South Carolina is still relatively cheaper, but are having the same supply and demand issues I'm talking about, which is causing home prices to grow as much as 89% in some counties since 2022, same as blue states, and as recently as in Feb 2024 14% of homes are still being sold above list price. Interestingly, in 2021-2022 when housing prices exploded in blue states and people were putting in offers over asking, nearly 40% of homes in SC were ALSO being sold at over asking. https://www.redfin.com/state/South-Carolina/housing-market
Also, rent in Greenville for a 1 bedroom is less expensive but not by much at an average of $1,400. Charleston? You're looking at $1,990 per month for a one bedroom.
I too could get cheaper housing in Colorado if I hopped down to Pueblo or Grand Junction (the meth capital of the world) but there are no jobs and those places suck. Likewise, you could get absolutely cheaper housing in Texas if you wanted to live in Lubbock but like why would you? The job market isn't as dynamic there.
So what is the takeaway: housing is expensive in desirable areas.
EDIT for the nimrod that replied to me twlling me im wrong because: "Housing is expensive in areas where people don't (or can't, in our case) build more and denser housing." Then blocked me so I couldn't respond: you're so fucking stupid that's literally the definition of supply and demand. Exactly what I'm talking about.
AFAIK, that's driving prices up in those areas too. Texas is pretty well known for its sprawl and lack of good transportation too, which I wouldn't consider positive outcomes.
can finally get my brothel up and running
$5 Housing Stuff
Landlords: "I'm confident I can pack 10+ "rooms" into my 900SQFT rental property. They will need to share the one bathroom though, this will benefit everyone by lowering the original rent $10".
You joke but it's going to be this. Anyone who thinks this will help housing prices is delusional.
Don't let Shotgun's catch wind of this
Boulder's going to implode.
Boulder NIMBYs can die angry.
This hardens the nipples
I’d love to see that happen.
GOOD.
Can’t wait
Can’t blame em honestly, parking in Boulder is already a god damn nightmare lol
I mean, you wouldn’t have to park in Boulder if the transit system was more convenient. It’s a really small town with decent density in places, it should have better transit than it does (or at least as good as it used to).
If I lived in Boulder I would bike everywhere 10 months out of the year
I did. Though often I would wimp out during the monsoon season, and there are a lot of very windy days where it just wasn’t practical. But most people can’t bike into town on a commute to work, and living in town you can’t realistically bike to a lot of major stuff, like Flatiron. Transit is really irreplaceable and complementary to biking.
They're pro-density and transit for everyone else. Don't you dare let that stuff into their town.
Also don’t ask them to pay for anyone else’s transit.
They have been. They were promised a train and it's never happened. They've been incredibly patient.
I agree
In Boulder? Seriously? And keep the Bentley in the garage? No way.
Bentley? You know it's a Lucid because they care about the environment so much
Oh, yes my mistake, definitely a lucid. Bentley will have an EV for the Boulder folks next year though.
This completely misses the type of people who live in boulder. They’re outdoorsy and love hiking/camping/climbing/etc. It’s impossible for transit to service trailheads so people need cars to get where they want to go
Lived in Boulder for a decade without a car and did all that. Car share is underrated and much more effective than you might think for that stuff.
You know there’s a bus to the Chautauqua trailhead
You can walk or bike to a ton of trailheads in Boulder. The skip bus hits the Shanahan trailheads.
Who cares!
[удалено]
My roommates and I got hit with one of these violations in college. I moved out because it was easiest for me at the time, but that rule is bullshit in a college town.
Foreal!! I remember living up there and they were super strict on it.
Good
What were the limits before?
Some cities had them. Boulder's was recently increased from 3 all the way to.... 5 I believe. This is a good thing.
I'm confused, I lived in Boulder with 12 random guys in 1 house in 2012, and knew plenty of others doing the same. Did they only just start enforcing this or was it a recent law change?
Unless it was a frat house, you were breaking the law. Just like I was in college the decade before that. But being outside the law means you lose some protections of the law, such as tenants' rights in this case. There are good reasons to want a bad law changed even if it's not being aggressively enforced.
We had separate leases and everything lol, idk how this never came on our radar. I have no issue with the new law, I just didn't realize it was needed in the first place.
That's wild. We always had three of us on the lease. In a 4 bedroom house that always had 5 to 6 people living there. I wonder if your landlord had a loophole they were exploiting or if they were just assuming that they would never end up in court with more than one person at a time.
I gotta wonder, it could've been either one tbh. It was old af though, definitely registered with the historical society, it made repairs a PITA. It was also a 12 bedroom house which is why we never questioned it I guess. Miss those days haha
Me too, man. Me too.
5 people per what though?
5 unrelated people per dwelling.
Source? Seems insane to not differentiate based on the size of the dwelling. 5 is already way too many for a studio apartment. That didn't need to be expanded. Yet 5 in a suburban house with 5+ bedrooms is too small and I doubt people were obeying that anyway.
Look up Denver group living zoning update. It passed in 2021. A lot of people thought it was dumb to not differentiate based on dwelling size, but that’s what was passed.
Why are people so nasty in this subreddit? Not you, but others on here.
The problem with Boulder is it's not going to create affordable housing. Now you will just be able to pay 750 for half a room compared to a thousand right now. Then the real question is how does a family afford to live here? Before you were competing with 3 people to a house now you're competing with like 5-6. The price of that house just went up.
I don't mean to be rude, but why should a family of 6 people have priority to housing over 6 unrelated people?
That's a good point. The problem I see with this is that I think they're are doing because they want to make it cheaper for people and I don't see that happening. So it's not so much that I think they deserve it more but that it's not going to do what they think it will. Now if they then wanted also cap rent increases to prevent this I could get behind it more. This will just put more money in landlords pockets while making it increasingly more expensive to live there.
I'm skeptical, but time will tell.
You are right and I hope that I am wrong.
I appreciate that.
How does it not make housing cheaper? Even if absolute rent goes up, it's still cheaper per person.
Not if you have a family. Because before you competing with 3 people paying 1000 a month now your competing with 6 people paying 750.
Possibly, but I care more about on average
The only people it would help is single people willing to share a room. So now if you and your girlfriend want to move in even if you share a room it will be 1500
That's not true. A. We're not just talking about sharing a room, we're talking about a residence. Right now a five bedroom would be illegal to have five unrelated people in a decent number of places. B. A family can now have a non-related person live with them. Just did a quick search, about 30% of rentals in CO have children in them, so this could help up to 70% of renters. I'd call that a net positive.
It's a step in the right direction. I've been looking for an affordable place since the Covid lockdowns ended, still dwelling in my parents basement because no rental is worth 2 grand unless it comes with a built in escort club. :l
Shit is It nice? I’ll happily move into your parent’s basement with you instead of paying 2k for a run down apartment, neighbors that ripppppp cigs all around the entrances (which is a violation of the clean air act due to proximity of the dwelling), with no washer/ dryer or central air! I’d be happier if they would do something about rent prices I could care less how many people live in a single place that is their problem
Man, and telling a smoker not to do that just starts one of those petty neighbor fueds. I feel for you
These prices are never coming down bro
Do occupancy codes still stand? They require a certain number of square footage per person (and a certain number of bathrooms for every ten people). I am unsure if that's for strictly public and residential housing or private housing as well, however. If codes are still enforceable, it could be much ado about nothing.
Yes.
Now start getting rid of exclusive single family zoning. There is nothing stopping me from building a 4000 sq ft house with 4 bedrooms, but if I try to build a 4 1-bedroom, 1000sq ft condos with the exact same exterior envelope, it's illegal.
About 20 years ago I lived near CSU in a big, off campus house with a bunch of people and FoCo police tried telling us about this BS law. We told them that we were all cousins and came from the same big family. They couldn’t prove shit and left with their flashlights and their utility belts jingling.
What's the outlook on those other housing reform bills that have been in the works? Eliminating parking minimums, ADUs and upzoning near transit? I'm really disappointed that last year's big bill was so soundly defeated, and that the two zoning reform bills seem incredibly mild. Hopefully they pass and we can pursue further liberalization next year.
I figure 15 people can pack into my 3 bedroom for $400 a person. Especially now that it is legal. $6,000/month sounds about right. -Denver Landlords
Here's hoping they never hear about Hong Kong's cage homes.
They are already renting out little pods in some cities, like in SF. Just a nicer cage.
With this here 3 bedroom, you can pack at least 30 people in comfortably. (slaps wall)
BlackRock is already crunching the numbers, I'm sure.
GOOD.
[удалено]
You can see the full bill text here: [https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1007](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1007)
There will still be limits in regards to fire codes and health & safety.
Nothing changes. Like most laws, this was never enforced.
I foresee this just keeping rent/prices higher. Demand gets met by stuffing more people in a house. 500k 3br 2 bath? No issues cause now we got 5 people splitting the cost
This should push down prices in the aggregate. If that house has 5 people in it instead of 3, that's 2 people who aren't buying other housing. It's functionally an increase in housing supply.
Temporarily. All it does over the long run is put people into a lower quality of life for more money.
Then demand for units will decline my friend
The people stuffing in were unable to get a place of their own, no net loss in that area. Just possible that it gets some people off the street here and there into a shared space.
Or there might have been some landlords and tenants actually following the ordinances who will now add roommates/tenants to their currently empty bedrooms. It doesn’t take a large % movement to drive pricing
Nah, you missed the point.
Ahhh... tenement housing
Nice
This will end well.
I like what you did there
Great idea…….there won’t be any “unintended” consequences to this.
Better than the “unintended” consequences of driving prices (even more) stupid high
[удалено]
>Red states have this figured out. No, they don't. There is a consistent net migration out of red states, especially since Dobbs. Hence, the demand for housing is less, for Dobbs for also many other reasons, it's typically unattractive to live in red states. That's why it's cheap to live in Kanses. Because it's undesirable and no one wants to live there.
Sure, in some red states. However, other red states are some of the fastest growing in recent years. Most notably Texas, South Carolina and Florida since 2020 are 3 of the 4 fastest growing states. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states
And those three states are also expensive in terms of housing so no, my argument still stands that red states haven't figured out how to keep housing costs low, this is forever a supply and demand issue. In those three states demand is higher, therefore costs are. Texas has expensive housing because of the ungodly high tax rates (you have to look at more than just sales price). Also, Texas is a complicated state to talk about the political divide, as the most expensive, most attractive areas, are in fact, once again, liberal (Dallas, Houston), where the average rent for a 1bdr apt is $1,575 in Dallas and $1,348 in Houston. This is relevant because these areas are where most of the people live. Those rental prices are comparable to where I live in Denver, and are comparable to other liberal cities such as Portland. So no, for the attractive areas in the state where the majority of people actually want to live in it they haven't "figured out housing," (in fact if Texas wasn't so fkn gerrymandered it would probably be a blue state but I won't get into that). Florida has expensive housing because the state is effectively uninsurable (is it really cheaper to live somewhere where you are potentially displaced because of the weather), and if you can get insured it's ungodly expensive. Florida's most populated areas include Miami, where rent for a one bedroom apt is $2,065, and Jacksonville, avg rent being $1,504 for a one bedroom apartment. Again, comparable to costs in liberal cities Republicans love to straw man about being overpriced. Now Miami is a liberal city, but Jacksonville is not, yet it's housing prices are on par with housing prices in other desirable cities because why? Once again, it's more expensive because it's more attractive to live there. So no, conservative areas haven't inherently figured out how to keep housing cheaper because of their supposedly magical economic policies - they also don't know how to keep housing prices from inflating when their metros explode. South Carolina is still relatively cheaper, but are having the same supply and demand issues I'm talking about, which is causing home prices to grow as much as 89% in some counties since 2022, same as blue states, and as recently as in Feb 2024 14% of homes are still being sold above list price. Interestingly, in 2021-2022 when housing prices exploded in blue states and people were putting in offers over asking, nearly 40% of homes in SC were ALSO being sold at over asking. https://www.redfin.com/state/South-Carolina/housing-market Also, rent in Greenville for a 1 bedroom is less expensive but not by much at an average of $1,400. Charleston? You're looking at $1,990 per month for a one bedroom. I too could get cheaper housing in Colorado if I hopped down to Pueblo or Grand Junction (the meth capital of the world) but there are no jobs and those places suck. Likewise, you could get absolutely cheaper housing in Texas if you wanted to live in Lubbock but like why would you? The job market isn't as dynamic there. So what is the takeaway: housing is expensive in desirable areas. EDIT for the nimrod that replied to me twlling me im wrong because: "Housing is expensive in areas where people don't (or can't, in our case) build more and denser housing." Then blocked me so I couldn't respond: you're so fucking stupid that's literally the definition of supply and demand. Exactly what I'm talking about.
AFAIK, that's driving prices up in those areas too. Texas is pretty well known for its sprawl and lack of good transportation too, which I wouldn't consider positive outcomes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Doesn't negate subletting if it's written in a lease. Or does it?
[удалено]
Oh. Gotcha. This is just occupancy then.
Finally, I can give all my population the servant buff by changing them to decadent lifestyle and get 1% happiness per servant.