Neighbor dislikes that I have a roommate,

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]We are likely to see a lot more roomate situations due to a confluence of events:
1. Ongoing recession
2. Overproduction of McMansions during the boom
3. Rising rents even as apt. construction is way down
Builders are already scaling back new house sizes as they try to match the new austerity tastes of today’s homebuyers.
Could the next response be houses with one first floor bedroom with its own entrance and large and private bathroom? This would enable the “roomate” and homeowner to have privacy and not even interact with each other, especially if the bedroom had a bar (wink, wink, kitchenette).[/quote]

I don’t know why this isn’t mandated as “affordable housing” in new developments. It’s more practical for most families to have their grown kids or elderly parents live near home than it is to have them far away in some apartment or nursing home. This way, instead of clustering apartments that meet the “affordable housing” requirements — often leading to congested areas with higher crime, etc. — the renters can be spread out where the landlords would be more inclined to maintain the properties better (because they live next door), and they can help friends or family members who need an affordable place to live. It would greatly reduce the creation of new “slums.”

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]I had roommates in my house in Philly and my house in WA state. Helped make the house affordable so I could afford to travel and have fun.

3 former neighbors in my current hood have rented rooms to students. It’s fine and makes financial sense.

Josh, your neibir is either an idiot or jealous of your cash stream.[/quote]

Exactly.

I’ve always had roommates, and would do so again if we had an extra room. It’s great having extra people in the house IF you get along well, IMHO.

[briansd1]

[quote=Josh]Thanks. I don’t worry about it any more. I think my neighbor is a little pissed off b/c my tenant sometimes park in “his spot”. That is a parking spot right between my driveway and his driveway and he thinks that belongs to him. My tenant is a student who leaves the house at 7am and returns at 7 pm. she is very clean, quiet and most importantly doesn’t eat at home. Yes, $600 without tax is nice.[/quote]

Does parking in front “belong” to the homeowner? That’s oftentimes a source of contention.

I would be careful if the neighbor is trigger happy. You never know what might happen to the car or worse.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]We are likely to see a lot more roomate situations due to a confluence of events:
1. Ongoing recession
2. Overproduction of McMansions during the boom
3. Rising rents even as apt. construction is way down
Builders are already scaling back new house sizes as they try to match the new austerity tastes of today’s homebuyers.
Could the next response be houses with one first floor bedroom with its own entrance and large and private bathroom? This would enable the “roomate” and homeowner to have privacy and not even interact with each other, especially if the bedroom had a bar (wink, wink, kitchenette).[/quote]

I don’t know why this isn’t mandated as “affordable housing” in new developments. It’s more practical for most families to have their grown kids or elderly parents live near home than it is to have them far away in some apartment or nursing home. This way, instead of clustering apartments that meet the “affordable housing” requirements — often leading to congested areas with higher crime, etc. — the renters can be spread out where the landlords would be more inclined to maintain the properties better (because they live next door), and they can help friends or family members who need an affordable place to live. It would greatly reduce the creation of new “slums.”[/quote]

MOst of the new developments in Carlsbad mandated casita units in a number of units to meet affordable housing guidelines. Its already being done here.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]
MOst of the new developments in Carlsbad mandated casita units in a number of units to meet affordable housing guidelines. Its already being done here.[/quote]

Awesome. I’ve seen a *few* homes with casitas (not in most developments from what I’ve seen), but they usually didn’t have kitchens or laundry facilities. Not only that, but they didn’t even have any kind of access to the main house, which makes these units truly useless — you can’t use them for living quarters, and you can’t use them as part of your house.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]
MOst of the new developments in Carlsbad mandated casita units in a number of units to meet affordable housing guidelines. Its already being done here.[/quote]

Awesome. I’ve seen a *few* homes with casitas (not in most developments from what I’ve seen), but they usually didn’t have kitchens or laundry facilities. Not only that, but they didn’t even have any kind of access to the main house, which makes these units truly useless — you can’t use them for living quarters, and you can’t use them as part of your house.[/quote]

CAR, you must know that a mere “cursory check” on the internet reveals there are plenty of opportunities for low-income tenants (and even potential homebuyers) in Carlsbad. See:

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Pages/affordable-apartments.aspx

… as to low income guidelines (as percentage of SD County median income)

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Documents/SDMedianIncome2011.pdf

as to “extremely low-income” qualified complexes

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Pages/income-qualifications.aspx

and, as to new condos for purchase under low-income guidelines (if selling less than 15 yrs out, City will have say on maximum asking price)

http://www.sandiegobythesea.com/mulberryatbressiranch_qual.htm

And none of these links even mention all the owners of SFRs in Carlsbad who will accept a Section 8 voucher.

[paramount]

The issue is that you have turned your house into a boardinghouse/dorm house.

You can’t afford to live there.

Also, legality aside in reality it is more than rude to park in front of your neighbors house generally speaking.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]
MOst of the new developments in Carlsbad mandated casita units in a number of units to meet affordable housing guidelines. Its already being done here.[/quote]

Awesome. I’ve seen a *few* homes with casitas (not in most developments from what I’ve seen), but they usually didn’t have kitchens or laundry facilities. Not only that, but they didn’t even have any kind of access to the main house, which makes these units truly useless — you can’t use them for living quarters, and you can’t use them as part of your house.[/quote]

CAR, you must know that a mere “cursory check” on the internet reveals there are plenty of opportunities for low-income tenants (and even potential homebuyers) in Carlsbad. See:

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Pages/affordable-apartments.aspx

… as to low income guidelines (as percentage of SD County median income)

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Documents/SDMedianIncome2011.pdf

as to “extremely low-income” qualified complexes

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Pages/income-qualifications.aspx

and, as to new condos for purchase under low-income guidelines (if selling less than 15 yrs out, City will have say on maximum asking price)

http://www.sandiegobythesea.com/mulberryatbressiranch_qual.htm

And none of these links even mention all the owners of SFRs in Carlsbad who will accept a Section 8 voucher.[/quote]

You’re missing my point about not concentrating all the low-income housing like that. I’m sure there are some SFH landlords in CBD who will take Section 8 tenants, but in all the years I’ve lived here, I’ve never seen one. They don’t need Section 8 because our rental market is very strong, and they can just as easily find truly qualified renters who are just about as reliable as Section 8, but who won’t damage their homes.

[scaredyclassic]

Damn I used to park in front of the nighbors all the time. We had too many cars. No wonder they hated us.

[Josh]

I wrote that the parking spot is between the two driveways. I can afford to live here, but like most young adult couples after buying a house, I don’t have a lot of cash. We can save around $10K a year after 401Ks and everything but we want to build up the rainy day cash fund a little faster. I can understand the issue of turning my house into a boarding house but a 2000 sq ft home for three people is hardly crowded. We are all very quiet people.

[quote=paramount]The issue is that you have turned your house into a boardinghouse/dorm house.

You can’t afford to live there.

Also, legality aside in reality it is more than rude to park in front of your neighbors house generally speaking.[/quote]

[scaredyclassic]

If you have a veggie garden in the front does that mean u cannot afford it? If you drink cheap gon does that mean u can’t afford it. If you don’t use a/c does that mean u can’t afford it. If u wear cheap suits off eBay made in china does that mean u can’t afford it?

Or does it mean yer just thrifty.

what’s the point of having parking spots if they’re not used.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=EconProf]We are likely to see a lot more roomate situations due to a confluence of events:
1. Ongoing recession
2. Overproduction of McMansions during the boom
3. Rising rents even as apt. construction is way down
Builders are already scaling back new house sizes as they try to match the new austerity tastes of today’s homebuyers.
Could the next response be houses with one first floor bedroom with its own entrance and large and private bathroom? This would enable the “roomate” and homeowner to have privacy and not even interact with each other, especially if the bedroom had a bar (wink, wink, kitchenette).[/quote]

EconProf, I agree that we will see more of these housing situations in the coming years, due to lack of jobs for all in SD and a higher percentage of resident senior citizens in the population.

There are already a few recent developments in South County which have a setup like this as having extended family (older adults) live with a family of children (for childcare and other reasons) is common here. These homes are typically 4-6 bdrms with 1-2 first-floor bdrm/bath combos, one with a separate entrance door leading out of the side or rear of house. Even though there may be only a bar sink (wink, wink) located in a bedroom (fmr MBR suite?), what’s to stop a family from installing minimal “Ikea-like” cabinets and a small countertop/bar sink? There is no law against putting a small frig, micro, toaster oven, coffeemaker and hotplate in a bdrm “unit” like this to make it self sufficient. I’ve even seen a garbage disposer installed under the bar sink! I recently purchased as a gift a 5/7/9 inch “induction” hotplate for a companion unit like this for just $42 (incl tax)! Why would you need a permit for a “kitchenette” since none of this is “built-in?” Many hotel rooms are set up like this. What does one young student (or a senior single or couple who cooks and eats dinner with the family in the “real” dining room) really need?? If there is no bar sink in the “companion bdrm,” one can likely be installed w/o a permit using the bathroom sink plumbing which already exists.

I see these “makeshift” illegal units in both newer and older construction. In 91910 and 91902 (91902 mostly detached), there is usually enough room on the lot to park all the vehicles. In 91911 and 92154, where these types of houses also prevail, there are often several extra residential vehicles parked on the streets. It’s legal to park on a public street as long as vehicles are not blocking driveway entrances or parked in red zones and are moved every 72 hrs. Some houses have as many as 8 regular vehicles always parked outside. As much as one might not want a neighbor’s vehicle constantly blocking their view across the street, there’s really nothing anyone can do about this as long as its regularly moved.

If your kid decided to stay home and go to college, wouldn’t you consider holing them up in your “granny flat” (legal or illegal) and giving them landscaping and other chores around your property for “rent?”

If your parent was 75+ years old and widowed or divorced or 85+ years old and they were both still alive, together and could take care of themselves, wouldn’t you feel better if you took them in if you were able to? They are allowed to drive until they can’t pass the DMV vision test anymore with corrected vision or have other medical issues which would preclude them from driving. They have to park somewhere.

These “companion rooms” and “units” serve a needed function for lot of SD County residents. I, for one, am glad the county has eased restrictions on them.

To the OP, I agree that 2000 sf can be excessive for 2 people if you don’t have a lot of personal possessions and don’t use the bdrms (i.e. study/guest room, etc). You are fortunate to have found a compatible (unrelated) roommate you can trust. From your post, it seems as if you don’t have a separate door to the outside in your roommates room and he/she has the use of your living areas and yard and thus has a key to your main home. I also agree with other posters that this setup could easily turn out to be an invasion of privacy and too aggravating to deal with for $600 mo. If you really need the $600 month and your roommate cleans up also, doesn’t make extra work for you, doesn’t bring in overnight or multiple guests and is not noisy, then I think you have probably found a good setup for now 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]You’re missing my point about not concentrating all the low-income housing like that. I’m sure there are some SFH landlords in CBD who will take Section 8 tenants, but in all the years I’ve lived here, I’ve never seen one. They don’t need Section 8 because our rental market is very strong, and they can just as easily find truly qualified renters who are just about as reliable as Section 8, but who won’t damage their homes.[/quote]

Lol, CAR, I must have been “threadskimming” yesterday and did not see your post below. I really don’t think the complexes shown on the City’s website could be considered “slums” but of course, I don’t live around there or drive by them.

I DO understand why “casitas” developers built as part of an SFR but with no separate entrance cannot be considered fulfilling their “affordable housing set-aside” requirements. Usually, these rooms are inhabited by relatives of the homeowner. They are NOT available to the general public on the basis of income. Therefore, they are not available for public consumption.

However, two things have always bothered me about public/private partnership decisions to place *new* affordable housing in particular areas.

First of all, why does a low-income or Section 8 tenant “deserve” *new* construction? What’s wrong with older construction? Many working families making $80K to $200K per year own and/or reside in older construction which actually needs repairs they cannot yet afford.

Secondly, why does a low-income or Section 8 tenant “deserve” to live in zip codes and micro-areas where the average price of a condo is currently $350K+ and the average price of an SFR is currently about $650K?? What’s wrong with 92105 or 92114?? I understand these zip codes already have a LOT of low-income housing. But I am hard-pressed to understand where the incentive is for a single parent or family to try to “earn more” and “move up” in life when if they do so, they will no longer “qualify” to rent their spacious 3-bdrm apt in Carlsbad with “full amenities” for $322 per month?

Piggs, if you happened to qualify for one of these units, wouldn’t you keep your “documented” income within guidelines forever so as not to lose this “deal of a lifetime??” WTH, don’t bother with that FT or “better” job. Just go surfing instead!

If a developer has to have a “low income set-aside” for a certain number of units in order to obtain permits to build SFRs in a desirable area, then why can’t they build those “set-aside” units in a less desirable area (ie build SFRs in 92011 and their required LI units in 92025 or 92105, overlooking I-15)? Or, at the very least, build them in the same or adjacent zip codes but under high power lines, next to an industrial area or other lesser-desirable (read: cheaper) land? Why do all these areas that upwardly mobile buyers/tenants “aspire to” have to have hundreds of low-income units located within them?

It’s not just Carlsbad, it’s also coveted areas like Pt Loma (although not *newer* apts) where this phenomenon prevails.

I was always of the mind that people should “pay their dues” in life first in order to enable them to “move-up” to the next best area.

I believe many current “low-income” residents of Section 8 and other “low-income” units have become unjustly enriched at the expense of the working middle class, due to public policies to spread these housing benefits around nearly everywhere.

As I’ve posted before, this is also true for very young “low-income” active-duty families who live in military housing areas located at Silver Strand and Loma Portal. However, the Navy has owned all of this land for more than 60 years and there is nothing anyone can do about this. They are entitled to do with it whatever they wish.

[quote=CA renter]I don’t know why this isn’t mandated as “affordable housing” in new developments. It’s more practical for most families to have their grown kids or elderly parents live near home than it is to have them far away in some apartment or nursing home. This way, instead of clustering apartments that meet the “affordable housing” requirements — often leading to congested areas with higher crime, etc. — the renters can be spread out where the landlords would be more inclined to maintain the properties better (because they live next door), and they can help friends or family members who need an affordable place to live. It would greatly reduce the creation of new “slums.”[/quote]

***************

I also disagree with making the Bressi Ranch condo complex available only to “low-income” buyers under strict guidelines and with all those restrictions. Cities of El Cajon and Santee have had similar programs for newly-built condos and there have been MANY foreclosures in these complexes.

It has been proven time and time again with CHFA, the fmr “Union Bank Economic Opportunity Mtgs,” and the “City of SD Silent Seconds” (92105, 92113 and 92114) that low-income buyers (esp 1st-time buyers) DO NOT stay in their properties for the long term, CANNOT pay back “silent seconds” for violating occupancy and length-of-ownership rules and BALK at having to sell their property to another “low-income qualifying buyer” at a pre-determined sales price out of their control. This severely limits their buying pool and often the reason they are selling is desperation. They are selling due to moving for work or family reasons or are no longer able to afford the mortgage. These agencies aren’t doing these “low-income” homeowners any favors. Many don’t even need the MID for a tax writeoff and are actually taking the EIC on their tax returns!

There is so much public hype over the concept of “affordable housing” and “homeownership for all” that potential “low-income” buyers are actually being sold a “bill of goods” when they are “selected” by lottery to participate in these programs (usually for poorly-built and badly-located new construction), IMO. They don’t realize this until months/years after they have moved in.

For a lowish-income first-timer, why not just try to qualify for an FHA loan and buy a home for your family through a “traditional sale??” Or save enough $$ until one has the necessary 3.5% down plus closing costs?

FWIW, I’m not saying here that having a “low income” is a crime or that “low income” people are somehow subhuman. Some Piggs might consider me to have a “low income,” lol. And level of income has nothing to do with honesty and integrity. I just believe everyone should be able to live within their means and nothing more. Otherwise, there is no incentive to make one’s life better … because the *better lifestyle* is already available at a very low cost to those who can’t afford it.

[NotCranky]

Don’t forget to tell the neighbor it’s too bad he can’t afford to live somewhere besides next to you and your roommate.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I see these “makeshift” illegal units in both newer and older construction. [/quote]

So why not change the zoning and allow people to build legally and make it right.

The makeshift units are not safe. They are being built without permits. Let’s change the zoning laws to allow people to turn SFRs into duplexes and triplexes if that’s what they want to do.

[Author]

Posts