[taneq]

Your home isn’t split in two. You have two homes, one of which stands empty at any given time. That’s what they’re arguing against, some people owning multiple houses while others are homeless. They’re not saying it should be impossible, just more expensive.

[jasonkester]

But anybody with a spare bedroom is doing the same thing by your logic. Nobody is in the kitchen right now. You monster.

The solution isn’t to stick homeless people in every available space. It’s to build places for them to live.

In your case, if your hypothetical homeless person wants to live on my street, he can buy one of the three homes currently for sale there, for the same price mine would sell for. How about we at least wait to see if he buys one of those before you go kicking me out of mine?

[smileysteve]

You jest about the kitchen and rooms, but the 80s saw a shift away from communal boarding options while reducing mental health treatment. There's a portion of the housing market that should have a communal kitchen, bathroom.

San Francisco has started building these again as startup incubators, but that's not the only target market

[taneq]

The slope isn’t that slippery. It’s not unreasonable to consider a home as an indivisible unit.

> if your hypothetical homeless person wants to live on my street, he can buy one of the three homes currently for sale there, for the same price mine would sell for.

Haha oh those silly homeless people, they should just buy houses, right?

[alexvoda]

Exactly, the effect of such a law would be to incentivize building mansions. And the savvy owners may even go the route of forming collectives of mansion owners.

Therefore each owner only owns one massive house that friends can use part of and spends most of the time at other friends massive houses.