Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> local regs ban holiday lets in homes that are suitable for residential use.

Is that the same as banning holiday lets in homes entirely? What does a house or proper apartment that's not suitable for residential use look like?



sort by: page size:

Oops. I had only residential property in mind, perhaps because the title is "home ban", but my phrasing covered both kinds of property. Sloppy of me. Sorry.

It's a ban on banning apartment buildings. It's not a ban on building detached homes.

Doesn't this rule defray most of the likely causes of housing stock removing/conversion?

If only primary residences can be let within a city... I fail to see how entire apartments are short term lets.


Banning or severely taxing homes which aren't occupied by the owner means banning or severely taxing homes which are occupied by someone other than the owner... aka. rentals.

Sure, you can make rental accommodation illegal if you want your community to consist solely of homeowners -- some HOAs do exactly this -- but it's the most vulnerable who will suffer under such a policy.


How would any of those other examples be prohibited in a dwelling that you own?

Look, I get it, you prefer a detached dwelling. But all the arguments you're making aren't compelling at all. It really sounds like it comes down to a preference thing for you.


> Rowhouses are de facto banned almost everywhere in US?

They are de facto banned though. ~99% of all land in urban and suburban areas has FAR requirements and setback requirements that make it impossible to build a new rowhouse.


> You could disallow corporate ownership of dwellings of any sort

Does that mean no high density residential? I can’t see how individuals build apartment buildings.


So, also make holiday homes also illegal?

Isn't that the residential development they're talking about that is prohibited/restricted?

"Allow" doesn't mean "require", which is what "rezone all houses to be boarding houses" comes across as meaning, so I don't see those as being the same.

Exactly. Multifamily housing is banned in most parts of the US (by area).

Ah, right, indeed. Related to the thread, I don't see how banning "#5 Live/work units of ground level retail and second and third story housing" makes any sense. These can be a game-changer for local town life.

> where people want to live, there are restrictions on building adequate housing

Sadly there is a bit of the reverse effect too, i.e. people want to live in places because there are restrictions on building.


Would this mean no apartment buildings? Many people prefer to rent, and banning that seems a little selfish and short sighted.

Interesting, I get it now.

They have "area zoning", which says "only single family homes may exist here".

Thus, changing this won't ban single family dwellings. Only enable other types of dwellings.

A strange concept, but OK. Understood, thanks.


> Also in the UK

Each member country of the UK have their own different planning regulations - Scotland, England, Wales and NI. Also please cite where having a shed next to your property is illegal in any one of these jurisdictions. Under certain dimensions and heights, planning "law" doesn't apply.


Unsure I follow. The title is "banning single family zoning" means it no longer exist - which seems equivalent to "banning single family only zoning".

Direct link to bill page: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1110&Year=2023...


It’s misleading because it implies that single family homes will be banned.

Well, the focus in that particular article is on HOA bans, not apartment ones. For instance, the Hawaii law (the first one I clicked on that seemed particularly cut-and-dried) is restricted to single-family homes and townhomes.

"The purpose of this Act is to prohibit real estate contracts, agreements, and rules from precluding or rendering ineffective the use of clotheslines on the premises of [b]single-family dwellings or townhouses[/b]." [0] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB1338_CD1_....

next

Legal | privacy