Shawnee, Kansas finds an unconventional (and stupid) way to battle the rising cost of rent

My business is primarily commercial real estate, but we’ve always had some business in residential rentals. I have friends in the industry who that is their only type of property. Restrictions like this are incredibly common but are likewise incredibly frequently ignored.

I have a friend who has rented out lots of homes to students on Virginia Tech’s campus, and this is a very common approach in college towns–his family got started in the business back in the 1950s with his grandmother, she owned a few 4 or 5 bedroom houses that she rented out to young men who wanted to live outside of the dorms. That’s now grown to a hundred or so properties today. A typical home they own is one they probably bought for very depressed values, typically built before 1950. It usually had a number of features that would have made the home unattractive to a single family purchaser–serious repair needs, location issues (most families these days don’t choose to live super close to a college campus due to concerns about student parties, general loudness etc), they buy the house up, make some changes necessary to pass the barest of code inspection, and then generally they start renting each bedroom out to individual students.

He has several homes he purchased in the 1980s for under $20,000 that now rent for around $500/room at 5 rooms per, meaning he’s making $30,000 in rent a year off a property he paid $20,000 for decades ago–and with the general boom in student housing districts up until 2020 the land alone is now worth many times what he paid for it.

He and landlords like him have several common strategies for bypassing zoning laws like this, it will all depend on the specifics of the law, but none are really ironclad. For example a common one is “no more than 3 unrelated adults” restriction, which is sometimes colloquially known as a “brothel restriction” because small town lore will often suggest the origin for the law was intended to prevent a bunch of unmarried women from cohabiting since that could allow them to operate a brothel. The truth is most of the time the origin of these laws is the same as you would expect today–single family homeowners simply not liking multifamily houses or neighbors. Landlords would rarely if ever support these restrictions–we generally make more money off of a multifamily building than a single family one, all other things being equal.

One common loophole around the “x number of unrelated adults” restriction is having the tenants say they are cousins. Many of these restrictions ill-define “familial relation”, and it ends up almost none of the municipalities that pass such ordinances are interested in the meat of enforcing them. It would actually be a big expense and headache to many of these towns “proving” two guys aren’t related.

Another common one is to physically subdivide a single-family home. My friend with properties in Blacksburg has several 5 or even 6 BR houses that are physically duplexed now. A common approach is to block off the top or bottom of a staircase, thus making it so you cannot travel between the main and 2nd floor any longer. Then you either build a proper entrance/egress to the 2nd floor or leverage one that already exists, and now both units are two separate addresses. It sounds a little hinky but there are entirely code-friendly ways to do this, obviously you just have to make sure the 2nd floor has the appropriate number of egresses and emergency exits down to comply with the fire code.

Yeah, here in the Boston area we have a lot of students. And you’ll find houses where bedrooms are rented individually, with kitchen and baths as common areas. These are often not ideal neighbors, and rarely are these houses well cared-for.

I don’t know what the laws are here, but I can see not wanting to encourage that sort of arrangement.

Yeah, one of my sisters had one of those across the street from her place in Grand Rapids. The dudebros fortunately did not stay very long.

Yes, according to this article (and the memorandum) the ordinance is not aimed at what we ordinarily think of as “roommates”. I’m not entirely sure why it seems that these laws set the number at three ( you could certainly have four people living as a single household) - but what they seem to be aiming at is this situation :

I own a single family house with X bedrooms. I rent the bedrooms individually to X people - I don’t rent the apartment to one person who finds roommates or rent the apartment to a group of X people as joint tenants. If the X people know each other before renting the room, it’s just happenstance. When the occupant of bedroom 1 leaves, the rent does not go up for other occupants ( as it would if I had rented the entire apartment to one or more people who were splitting the rent) which is good for them, but I as the landlord fill that empty room with whoever I want (since the occupants are each individually renting their bedroom, they have no more say regarding who rents Bedroom 1 than the tenant of Apartment 1A has as to who rents Apartment 1B ). It’s really more of an SRO or rooming house situation than a roommate situation. It’s just my guess, but I expect that people who don’t even know each other will have a lot more friction about shared spaces etc. than people who are intentionally living with people they chose.

Or sometimes to stop them from living inside of their designated area, too. When I was at Villanova in the late 90s, local zoning laws were such that it was literally impossible to legally house the entire student body. With the result that most of the student body was illegally housed, and the local government used selective enforcement as a pretext to take action against whomever they didn’t like.

In recent years, Iowa City has seen the construction of extremely high-end apartments and condos (selling for $1 million-plus, that kind of thing) and have rules that occupants are limited to number of bedrooms plus one, to allow families to live there, but not, say, 20 people sharing a 5BR house.

My parents live next door to a 3BR house that has long been a rental property, and they had one memorable incident where they found out that about 20 men were living there, all of them Hispanic men who worked in local factories, and slept in the basement in shifts. They didn’t cause trouble, but the neighborhood was not, and is not, zoned for that kind of thing.

Probably common because it’s true!

Anybody with experience in city or county government can name a series of statistics on civic problems that occur more often in multi-family or non-family housing. Some examples:

  • number of police calls to the address.
  • structural fires at the address.
  • building code violations at the address.
  • utility shutoffs at the address.
  • utility writeoffs at the address (moved out, left unpaid utility bill).
  • unpaid property taxes at the address.
  • excessive trash pickup at the address.
  • lower or no recycling at the address.
  • external appearance violations (uncut grass, junked cars, etc.) at the address.
  • more dog bite complaints at the address.

Some of these may be related to just more people being at the address, or more people in poverty, but they are still problems that the ciyh has to deal with, and especially for the neighbors living nearby.

Ahh, the Gladys Kravitz strike force…

.

I’ve got to admit, I was one of those “Cram A Buncha Dudes Into A Cheap House” graduates. And, yeah, we were not ideal neighbors… or human beings. Now, our town was well-zoned, so the Aging Animal House dwellings were still in the “student ghetto”. Only when we matured (calmed down and lived with one roommate and promised to be civilized) could we move away from campus.

In the 10 years that I’ve lived in my current apartment complex, I’ve had several neighbors that I know were evicted for (among other things) repeated police calls to their unit. People like this create hazards for the other people who live there.

So, if I’m a current owner in Shawnee, it feels like I’ve got an ex post facto/illegal takings lawsuit all teed up.