Apartment roommates, master and who pays what question?

[GAN]

Assuming the baths are roughly the same size and using average room sizes(with primary slightly larger). This is how you should calculate:

BR1 = 11 x 11(121 sqft)
BR2 = 11 x 11(121 sqft)
PBR = 14 x 14(196 sqft) …..total BR SQ.FT. is 438( all other areas are common so not in play)

121 + 121 / 438 = 55%

55% x 2715 = 1493/2 = 745 for BR1 and BR2
1225 for Primary
Other expenses are divided equally unless there is a special circumstance. Adjust for parking value as necessary(worth something but not much IMO). I don’t know your exact dimensions but you can just plug your actual numbers in.

 

[tvguy]

That's a state law but what's the city or county ordinance.

I am not aware of any city or county ordinance that differs from the state standard.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Well, I live in an area where the city, not the landlords, are trying to squeeze more people into the same space. Literally it would not be unheard of for the city to encourage 6 people to be living in that 3 bedroom apartment here. I think the term used by the city is increasing population density.

How does this even happen? How would a city be able to coerce such a thing unless the residents are somehow captive?

 

[sam_gordon]

Person A was completely correct to want the bigger space since she is the third wheel and can easily be outnumbered in the shared space, at least with the bigger space she can retreat if there is fighting and drama with the other two dating antics.
Since the other two B & C will end up dominating the shared space with work desks and just the 2 on 1 thing, person A is going to end up using common area it much less, like she'll never be able to entertain or watch TV during the day since that space will be occupied by a pair of work from home dating adults. Unless I'm missing something I almost think there should be nothing extra, but the $50 is ok to just keep the peace I guess, certainly not much more considering the probable outcome.

I understood that Bs & Cs "office space" would be in their rooms. They can't be working in the same room at the same time since they're on differing calls. So they wouldn't be taking up more of the common areas.

I agree w/PP who say if they can't figure this out they might want to consider different housing arrangements.

 

[sam_gordon]

How does this even happen? How would a city be able to coerce such a thing unless the residents are somehow captive?

I don't think that's what's happening. I think the city is setting limits on how many people can live in an structure. Sure, 1 person can buy and live by themselves in a three (or four, five, whatever) bedroom, but no more than 2x+1 (so 9 people in a four bedroom).

 

[Judique]

$2715 + 110 = $3725. Slight math problem here...
$3725 / 3 = $1241.66.

EVERYTHING else being equal...
Master bedroom : $1250
Others: $1237.50

BUT, what do the "other fees" cover? Water? Internet? Can you split the rent and "other fees" and the person in the master pay the electric or water or internet? How is it determined who gets the master? If it's up in the air, come to an agreement... all three roommates write how much they're willing to pay each month for the master (has to be more than $1241... the equal share). Whoever is willing to pay the higher amount pays that amount per month. The other two split the remainder. OR, agree everyone pay an equal share and draw lots for the master.

If no one is willing to pay more for the master, but thinks someone else should, keep looking (for either another apartment or different roommates)?

1100 for suite with bath.
1615 divided by 2 for roommates 2 and 3 - 807.50 each.
110 fees divided by 3.
Utilities divided by 3.

 

[tvguy]

How does this even happen? How would a city be able to coerce such a thing unless the residents are somehow captive?

No coercion. No captivity. Just responding to public demand. Apparently the majority of the people want cheaper housing. Or at least they want to have the option. One way to do that is to put more people in a smaller space. Not my cup of tea. The Government even pays a bonus to developers who build higher density projects.

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Co...Housing-Units-or-Tailor-My-Project-To-My-Site

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I am not aware of any city or county ordinance that differs from the state standard.

What you mentioned was a guideline that has no legal recognition at the state nor federal level (and all sources I have found have made mention to this). Another one is "California Fire Code and the California Housing Code. The Fire Code allows one person per 200 square feet of building floor area. The Uniform Housing Code outlined a standard of one person for every 50 square feet of bedroom space." These are various methods that can be used.

From what I can find because it's not written into law cities and counties can determine their own ordinances. Zoning ordinances may also come into play as different housing structures and institutions (like shelters, emergency housing, etc) all have different needs.

I have no doubt, as I think many of us have heard through the news, that CA faces housing shortage issues then again CA is not exactly safe when it comes to housing (i.e. building in high fire risk places among utility corruption and more).

But back to the topic what matters is the rules where any of us lives in terms of the questions we ask and there are enough places out there where occupancy rules are strict enough that one would want to pay attention to that before simply looking at reduction in base rent by adding more roommates.

 

[tvguy]

What you mentioned was a guideline that has no legal recognition at the state nor federal level (and all sources I have found have made mention to this). Another one is "California Fire Code and the California Housing Code. The Fire Code allows one person per 200 square feet of building floor area. The Uniform Housing Code outlined a standard of one person for every 50 square feet of bedroom space." These are various methods that can be used.

From what I can find because it's not written into law cities and counties can determine their own ordinances. Zoning ordinances may also come into play as different housing structures and institutions (like shelters, emergency housing, etc) all have different needs.

I have no doubt, as I think many of us have heard through the news, that CA faces housing shortage issues then again CA is not exactly safe when it comes to housing (i.e. building in high fire risk places among utility corruption and more).

But back to the topic what matters is the rules where any of us lives in terms of the questions we ask and there are enough places out there where occupancy rules are strict enough that one would want to pay attention to that before simply looking at reduction in base rent by adding more roommates.

No idea how they coordinate all the standards. State just passed a law banning local governments from requiring a minimum number of parking spaces for a residence. I don't get that at all.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No idea how they coordinate all the standards.

I think that's the point lol they don't

State just passed a law banning local governments from requiring a minimum number of parking spaces for a residence. I don't get that at all.

They must be thinking of space issues with respects to how much space is street available or parking lot availability but it is at odds with encouraging more dense housing...that's for sure.

When my husband lived in Long Beach (technically Naples Island) for 9 months it was dual sided (meaning both sides of the street) street parking and the parking lot for the apartment complex (which was covered) had only 9 spots. He often circled around and around the streets for a spot parking several streets away often and this complex was in the midst of a neighborhood where most houses had garages but very little space on their driveway (if they had one at all) so guests or excess drivers would be on the street too. So I can relate to their spacing issues

However his was a 1 bedroom apartment that was 470 square feet. If using the fire code only 2 people could live there. If using the uniform housing code I'm not sure because I don't remember how many square feet the bedroom area was. If using the guideline you mentioned that would be 3 allowed (2 in bedroom 1 in living room) and that would not be safe IMO nor at all realistic. There wasn't even space for an actual table to eat at he just used tv trays. Having stayed over there when I visited that would be a nightmare in trying to escape in the event we needed to as well as just space with a very small bathroom. For him as a single person it was not too bad (although it made our apartments that are more like 760 square feet here for 1 bedroom) feel downright palatial. But if I had moved with him we would have found a larger place albeit farther from his power plant site because the rent pricing.

 

[NotUrsula]

No idea how they coordinate all the standards. State just passed a law banning local governments from requiring a minimum number of parking spaces for a residence. I don't get that at all.

Oh, I get it (don't agree with it, but I get it.) The idea of limiting parking spaces is often used to encourage "family neighborhoods" in affluent areas; they want to discourage populations of unattached single adults. What they want is a maximum of two cars per household, and often prohibit street parking as well (or sometimes even "outdoor overnight parking".)

 

[tvguy]

I think that's the point lol they don't

They must be thinking of space issues with respects to how much space is street available or parking lot availability but it is at odds with encouraging more dense housing...that's for sure.

When my husband lived in Long Beach (technically Naples Island) for 9 months it was dual sided (meaning both sides of the street) street parking and the parking lot for the apartment complex (which was covered) had only 9 spots. He often circled around and around the streets for a spot parking several streets away often and this complex was in the midst of a neighborhood where most houses had garages but very little space on their driveway (if they had one at all) so guests or excess drivers would be on the street too. So I can relate to their spacing issues

However his was a 1 bedroom apartment that was 470 square feet. If using the fire code only 2 people could live there. If using the uniform housing code I'm not sure because I don't remember how many square feet the bedroom area was. If using the guideline you mentioned that would be 3 allowed (2 in bedroom 1 in living room) and that would not be safe IMO nor at all realistic. There wasn't even space for an actual table to eat at he just used tv trays. Having stayed over there when I visited that would be a nightmare in trying to escape in the event we needed to as well as just space with a very small bathroom. For him as a single person it was not too bad (although it made our apartments that are more like 760 square feet here for 1 bedroom) feel downright palatial. But if I had moved with him we would have found a larger place albeit farther from his power plant site because the rent pricing.

The parking rule governs requiring so many off street parking spots. They don't consider street parking which is what the problem is. They build multiple bedroom apartments and no parking spots. With roommates, there could be two tenants each with a car in a bedroom.
I'm not sure anyone enforces the number of people in a residential structure. There is a 1,008 square foot 2 bedroom duplex a block from here. Under the rule I listed they could legally have 5 living there. I think there have to be 7 or 8 living there.

 

[tvguy]

Oh, I get it (don't agree with it, but I get it.) The idea of limiting parking spaces is often used to encourage "family neighborhoods" in affluent areas; they want to discourage populations of unattached single adults. What they want is a maximum of two cars per household, and often prohibit street parking as well (or sometimes even "outdoor overnight parking".)

And they assume everyone will ride public transit.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Oh, I get it (don't agree with it, but I get it.) The idea of limiting parking spaces is often used to encourage "family neighborhoods" in affluent areas; they want to discourage populations of unattached single adults. What they want is a maximum of two cars per household, and often prohibit street parking as well (or sometimes even "outdoor overnight parking".)

lol that's funny because this was where my husband lived in a very affluent area where homes were $3-$4 million and all you had was street parking. I don't think that's necessarily what CA was going for.

In any case the PP only gave part of the story. The actual law was related to public transit places.

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2...in Newsom has signed,of a public transit stop

 

[Lilsia]

It’s now very offensive to refer to a room as the master bedroom. Most realtors no longer do.

I heard that. I think that it is stupid. You are the master of your own house. Seriously, what doesn't offend people now?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The parking rule governs requiring so many off street parking spots. They don't consider street parking which is what the problem is. They build multiple bedroom apartments and no parking spots.

From the article I posted an "associate professor of urban planning at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs" mentioned "the evidence that parking requirements do a tremendous amount of damage to affordability, to sustainability, to efforts to just make our transportation system more human-scaled and safe is overwhelming."

I gather the issue was with minimums in place in locations where there was other ways to get around (not necessarily ones people would exclusively use but just availability in that) is that it inhibited the ability for new development. New development helps solve the housing density issue by giving more places to live. If they are finding that by removing the pressure more housing can go up I suppose that's that.

The actual wording is "Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a new law banning California localities from requiring parking spaces for new developments built within half a mile of a public transit stop." It's narrowly defined here and not all residences.

There is a 1,008 square foot 2 bedroom duplex a block from here. Under the rule I listed they could legally have 5 living there. I think there have to be 7 or 8 living there.

We've had issues locally in my area with houses converted to basically mini apartments. They are just clear here it's not a safe idea. Affordable housing remains the main reason housing prices are the way they are here and rent is the way it is here because less homes=more pressure on rental properties, less homes=scarcity of it and plays into pricing. But the push is to make more affordable housing as the solution.

 

[tvguy]

From the article I posted an "associate professor of urban planning at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs" mentioned "the evidence that parking requirements do a tremendous amount of damage to affordability, to sustainability, to efforts to just make our transportation system more human-scaled and safe is overwhelming."

I gather the issue was with minimums in place in locations where there was other ways to get around (not necessarily ones people would exclusively use but just availability in that) is that it inhibited the ability for new development. New development helps solve the housing density issue by giving more places to live. If they are finding that by removing the pressure more housing can go up I suppose that's that.

The actual wording is "Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a new law banning California localities from requiring parking spaces for new developments built within half a mile of a public transit stop." It's narrowly defined here and not all residences.

We've had issues locally in my area with houses converted to basically mini apartments. They are just clear here it's not a safe idea. Affordable housing remains the main reason housing prices are the way they are here and rent is the way it is here because less homes=more pressure on rental properties, less homes=scarcity of it and plays into pricing. But the push is to make more affordable housing as the solution.

The parking spot rule will be a problem as there is little in-fill development, and few projects are within a half a mile of a bus stop. I'm a mile away myself to the closest bus stop.
I'm 65, lived here all my life, and have ridden public transit just twice in my life. I was 5 at the time.
It wasn't an option the year I worked a day shift because my job required me to use my personal car for business.
It wasn't an option the 25 years I worked a shift that started at 11 pm, and it wasn't an option when I worked a shift that started at 3 am because the system isn't 24 hours so the system was shutdown.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

few projects are within a half a mile of a bus stop.

I think that's the point of loosening the restriction because with a minimum it was less desirable for developers to want to build there with what space was there. There was less units they could build as well if you need to maintain space for parking spaces. Removing the restriction, while there's understandable caution to be used, as it was explained in the article allows for more flexibility on behalf of development. The way it was described is in other cities (San Diego for one) it's helping.

"San Diego provides a good example of the positive impacts of parking reform. The city abolished some parking requirements in 2019, and Manville says he’s seen an overall increase in housing developments since then, and more homes built through the city’s Density Bonus Program. This is a program where developers can take some regulatory concessions in exchange for creating more affordable housing. The following year, in 2020, San Diego’s Density Bonus Program produced six times more affordable units than it had the previous year."

This new law doesn't apply to your house due to distance. But you got me beat, the closest bus stop to my house is 3 miles away and they are few and far between because I live in the suburbs.

 

[tvguy]

I think that's the point of loosening the restriction because with a minimum it was less desirable for developers to want to build there with what space was there. There was less units they could build as well if you need to maintain space for parking spaces. Removing the restriction, while there's understandable caution to be used, as it was explained in the article allows for more flexibility on behalf of development. The way it was described is in other cities (San Diego for one) it's helping.

"San Diego provides a good example of the positive impacts of parking reform. The city abolished some parking requirements in 2019, and Manville says he’s seen an overall increase in housing developments since then, and more homes built through the city’s Density Bonus Program. This is a program where developers can take some regulatory concessions in exchange for creating more affordable housing. The following year, in 2020, San Diego’s Density Bonus Program produced six times more affordable units than it had the previous year."

This new law doesn't apply to your house due to distance. But you got me beat, the closest bus stop to my house is 3 miles away and they are few and far between because I live in the suburbs.

Lack of parking has been a huge issue for this high density apartment complex by California State University Sacramento.
https://fox40.com/news/local-news/s...ed-out-by-apartment-complexs-lack-of-parking/

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Lack of parking has been a huge issue for this high density apartment complex by California State University Sacramento.
https://fox40.com/news/local-news/s...ed-out-by-apartment-complexs-lack-of-parking/

I'm not sure you understand I'm not arguing with you. You made a statement I corrected it with the specific details. No place exists that perfectly works. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work period. You have the article if you want to read it you can I'm done quoting it here, it's available to you. I'm off to bed but appreciate the chat.