More Homeowners Taking in Boarders

Source: NY Times


Katherine Ongiri in the space she rents from Barbara Terry of Baltimore, which has kept Ms. Terry from losing her home.
_________

BALTIMORE — When Barbara Terry fell behind on her mortgage payments earlier this year, she did the previously unthinkable. Through a local housing organization, she and her daughter, Imani, 9, rented part of their single-family house to a stranger.

“I had to do something,” said Miss Terry, 46, who helps formerly homeless people move into new housing. “I said, I am not going to lose this house. Thinking about having a stranger was not a pleasant thought. I have a daughter. But the positive part was that I needed extra help, and I wanted to help someone.”

With residential mortgage foreclosures still on the rise, more homeowners nationwide are considering Miss Terry’s choice: whether to take in a boarder to keep their homes. Modest but growing numbers are turning to agencies nationwide like the St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center Homesharing Program in Baltimore, which screen boarders to find appropriate matches and relieve some of the fear of strangers.

“We’re seeing greater numbers of marginal people,” said Kirby Dunn, executive director of HomeShare Vermont, one of several hundred programs around the country that have been formed since the 1980’s to help elderly or disabled homeowners exchange spare rooms for income or, more often, help around the house, but now being pressed to meet different needs.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/16share.html

---

Next thing you know, carpooling will be in vogue again.

It helps everyone concerned. I hope more people find creative ways like this to hang on to their homes during tough economic times.

Two years ago when I was looking for an apartment on Craig's list, I saw several 'roommates wanted' situations from homeowners that were really offering boarder situations: a bedroom and a sitting room + everything else shared use - for rents that I have no doubt approached up to 2/3 of the likely mortgage payment.

until you get that crack/meth pipe smell coming out of the vents :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

it's great. Cheap rent for them, financial help for us, and we can take turns pet sitting a lot of the time.

posts with this same story: "Please come and rent a room from ASAP so the bank doesn't foreclose on my home!" It's a very sad commentary on the dying American Dream. :-(

K&R for all my hurting neighbors.

I'd seriously consider it. I think I'll be able to hang onto my (700 sq. ft.) house but someday I have to retire and I'd like to be able to afford food when I do. A few hundred extra bucks a month now sure would help.

It was fun. My foreign students didn't miss their families so much and the kids learned about a different culture. Once my boarder from Portugal complained that the artichoke I served him was a weed in his opinion. LOL! We had a great time with Carlos. :)

I suggested in a post months ago, that these owners that are underwater with their ego idol mcmansions should turn them into boarding houses.

Same shit happened during the depression.

A young man, recent college graduate who lost his job after moving in, is renting one of my bedrooms. I told him he could stay till the end of July for free. It's a complicated and uncomfortable situation.

Other than the current experience, I have enjoyed having people live here and have found craigslist to be the best way to find people looking for housing. Living in a university town helps a lot.

is crazy not to think of this. Renting your basement for $500 a month can net $6,000 a year, or $120,000 before interest over 20 years. That's a good chunk towards retirement. With a large space in a city, you can sometimes get double that. And you meet some interesting people along the way.

I have four investment houses that I rent by the room. There is a noticeable dropoff in demand this year. People aren't able to afford homes and apartments, so that demand is going elsewhere, mostly I would guess to private homes.

While this looks like a great solution on the surface, when more facts come in, this strikes me as a case where the solution is one that helps homes keep their over-inflated values.

Miss Terry bought her home six years ago, in a hilly neighborhood in northeast Baltimore, for $92,000, with a government-backed mortgage and monthly payments of about $800. She had never owned a home before, and was excited to move out of subsidized housing.

After two refinance loans, like many homeowners she does not understand her current mortgage, which is an interest-only loan. What she knows is that her payments are now more than $1,000 per month, and that she cannot afford them.

Her boarder makes $6.25 an hour plus tips at the airport and pays $500 a month rent for that ugly attic. I hope she gets GREAT tips. If not, she's paying about 1/2 of her monthly income to support someone else's mistake, and will be able to build little savings over her own. I feel bad for her, she's getting a raw deal.

Which, in an urban, transit accessible area, is multifamily, mixed income housing.

Win win for the preservastionists (turn existing oversize houses into
homes with accessory apartments, just like they were when most of them
were built 60-100 years ago), urban planners (increase pop. density
near transit) and housing advocates (create a fluid market for
non-depreciated, affordable housing.)

Only the developers and homeowners associations
(whose membership excludes tenants and wants to
keep anyone below a certain income out of the
neighborhood) lose.

My husband and I bought a well-built 1930s two-family flat (large brick home with two full 1000-sq ft apartments: one upstairs, one downstairs, two entrances from the porch) in one of Detroit's border towns. It's a blue-collar community with decent home upkeep by most residents. During the housing hysteria of the 1990s, our City Hall was trying to eliminate all of these multiple-family type properties. We are owner-occupants, and so managed to thwart them with ours, but they must have torn down about 40 similar properties. You know the drill: the rental inspection said whatever the city wanted them to so they could get rid of them. They have wisely backed off such efforts considering the results so far. What they did after tearing these multi-family homes down was put up single-family homes. All of which are too expensive for the residents of the neighborhood, and are now sitting vacant with overgrown lawns. Considering there is a bit of crime in the area, they're also targets for a criminal element breaking in and messing around. My tax dollars at work.

We actually bought this home as a supplement for retirement income. With the way the economy is going, that might have been the smartest decision we ever made. We could easily rent out one of the flats with a minimum of effort if things really get difficult.

on edit: clarified something

Though your post is not completely clear on this, as I understand it you are living in the house but not renting out the other apartment, using it for yourself for now. If that is the case and you someday decide to rent out the other apartment you may find that the town will claim that you have "abandoned" the two family use and that your home is in fact legal only as a one family in conformance with your local zoning laws.

You should talk to a lawyer about this. I am a lawyer in NJ and can tell you I have seen this happen.

It's under a grandfather situation. Our attorney worked with us on it. Thanks for your advice.

She's paying $125 a week for a private space in a hopefully fairly congenial situation.

for almost 20 years.
First as a "renter" in other homes and
now, with a 4 bedroom 3 bath apartment in my name,
I rent out part of it out through Roommates dot com.
I got a way-below-market "deal" from a client in
exchange for being his part time "super" of a 4 unit building
so I actually make a little on rent.

The problem is that where there are children involved, it HAS to be very carefully entered into....and many houses are in areas now that restrict homes to FAMILY only...no "renters".. and many older homes do not have adequate wiring to accommodate the additional strains of added electrical devices.. be sure to have wiring checked out before you start renting out rooms..:scared:

It might seem better to offer to share with relatives or friends, but think twice..three..four times.. If you are doing it for monetary reasons, a friend or family memeber is MORE likley to stiff you if they have money problems..

Draw up a contract..and enforce it..

There is virtually no place in NJ where it is legal to rent out a part of your home to unrelated persons. Zoning codes usually forbid bedrooms in attics and basements. The reasons? Safety for one - how does a person escape an attic or basement in a fire when the only exit is not accessible? Secondly, why should people who pay taxes in a community pay for the children of borders to attend local schools, not to mention providing police, fire and other municipal services to borders who pay no taxes?

Probably black market income, how are you going to police and enforce?

Illegal rentals cause a severe strain on municipal resources because the buildings are not being taxed as multi-family dwellings. The result is that you have a lot more kids attending schools, a lot more police and fire fighters needed, etc. It is unfair to the law abiding taxpayers as well plus safety violations are real and dangerous.

Locally we had an incident in Palisades Park, NJ where there were 16 people living in a one family house illegally that caught fire and several were burned and injured. This is not uncommon in those situations.

extended "visits".. :eyes:

Why should my community pay taxes to allow misguided folks
(self-proclaimed "home owners") to dirty up our code books with tyrranical
laws against traditional modes of living, like in xenophobic, classist NJ?
I know all about the development laws there.

In NY State, you can't build affordable housing in parking lots in
office parks. Mixed-use is strictly prohibited outside of the Boroughs.
Different "traffic, safety and security" bullshit, same underlying fears.

Why should my community pay taxes to support a school system that
teaches folks incorrect notions that taxpayers are to be preferred
and that renters pay less taxes? They pay more, in fact.

Not that it matters to their right to live and do business where
they wish -- without reactionary townships passing laws against
sleeping in kitchens, against schools within 1000 feet of houses,

AGAINST accessory apartments (a necessary PUBLIC GOOD that ignorant
and racist fools have used zoning to eliminate, thereby creating
the artificial housing crisis -- witness the original MIT handbook
on zoning, "Control Who Lives In Your Community!")

Your "cap rates" mentality is the PROBLEM with suburban America.

I don't want my neighbors taking un unlimited numbers of strangers, either.

The thing is, if you're taking money from someone and your property is not approved for a legal apartment, you can get fined, or worse.

I don't think deregulation of all local zoning ordinances is good for anyone.

Property taxes are based on the tax assessment of a home. If a home is recognized as a legal rental property (as in a two family) it is assessed according to its income potential, as are apartment buildings where tenants do in fact pay taxes indirectly through their rent. However, if a one family home does not have legal status as a multi-residential building it is assessed as a one family with no consideration of the income potential for the building. Thus, the taxes are less and the tenants and homeowners in such illegal rental situations are not paying their fair share of real estate taxes.

It isn't a "right wing notion". It's good zoning law.

Some collegiate areas ban 3 or more unrelated people from living together (off-campus) because they don't want "Student ghettos."

In a town near me they banned it because the town fathers were upset that members of a whacko church were encouraging people outside to take up legal residence there in order to vote in the council of their choice.

There's a world of difference between illegal apartments without sufficient egress and the simple notion of renting rooms to unrelated boarders. In some municipal codes boarders are regulated differently than auxiliary apartments. Boarders don't have separate cooking or sanitary facilities and are considered renters of a sleeping space. Codes usually restrict the number of boarders in order to keep the overall occupancy level within expected levels.

I was addressing the several posts in this string that were talking about things like renting attics or basements as apartments. A border using the guest room certainly is a totally different story. I should have clarified it by not using the word "borders" but instead addressed the issue of separate apartments.

Legally, you have to get a permit from most communities I would think.

When they made it illegal?

As it is in most xenophobic small towns that supposedly believe
in "freedom" or the "free market" but associate renters mentally
with certain groups of "undeserving, unwanted undesirables"?

The comments on the article pointed out that this is how
housing is SUPPOSED to work, if zoning were not in place to
deliberately tamp down on the housing supply in order to
artificially inflate property values and keep out people
that HomeShare Vermont deems to be "marginal people."

The good little 1940s-era racists who developed this area did allow for nonwhite household help in the covenants.

That restriction is of course unenforceable now, but in my mind it's no different than zoning restrictions on "family" occupancy that require a relationship test. It's reasonable to set some limits on occupancy level and on illegally cobbled together apartments, but not on the type of people living in the house.

It pays about 1/3 of our mortgage each month, which is very nice.

We are not overburdened on our mortgage or anything, we just have 2 garage spaces that we don't use, in a house that is near a bus line, in a city where parking is scarce. So far, it's a win-win situation for everybody concerned.

It does not add any cost or services to a town to allow that situation.

What I see around here in my NJ neighborhood: four-bedroom houses with one person in them. I'll bet in my neighborhood, there are at least six to eight of these within a two-block area. The cost of heating and air conditioning a home for one person? Has to take a heavy toll on the environment.

That's why I think this is a good thing, at least from an environmental standpoint.

I think if people check references and credit carefully, they should be pretty much OK in doing something like this.

I heard on a radio program, NPR, I think, that when people don't marry and have a family, they just occupy a house by themselves. Thus, encouraging people not to have children for purposes of population control/environmental reasons, is not really effective. I do think that homeowner gets the better deal but it isn't unheard of for someone to live in that situation and then buy their own home and do the same--a poster upthread mentions this.



Cher

even though your neighbor who is renting to borders is paying the exact same real estate taxes you are though his property is income producing, thereby raising your property taxes (in NJ the cost per student is well above $10,000 per)?

Wouldn't it be more equitable if your neighbor paid additional real estate taxes to account for the added services your community is forced to provide but doesn't because he is not telling the town about the rentals?

as the childless couple who lived next door. If it's a four bedroom house it could house one family with 4 kids or two single mothers with 2 kids each. What's the difference in tax burden? There are problems in some neighborhoods where people park in the street and there are too many cars, but I don't resent neighbors who take in boarders.

You have pointed out one of them and you are right about that. But adding illegal borders to the town's burden just exacerbates the problem, adding further to the burden of the childless people (who maybe at one time did have kids in school) you speak of. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Public education is a "public good," not a private commodity. It benefits EVERYONE even the stingy and the stupid, in its effects on the overall economy and society- much the same way as another public good- "public health" benefits EVERYONE.

Those same people you cite without children (or who had kids in school) are being massively subsidized by young people that are being educated (so they can earn a decent wage and pay for your social security and medicare (which they don't use). Also, I might point out- it keeps them out of the criminal justice and prison system- which Americans seem to no problem paying big money for.

Certainly education is for the "public good" as you say, also a justification I might add for the childless people paying the same taxes as those with children. But my point was that when you add in illegal borders in a one family home you are adding to the burden of everyone else because in such situations where the one family home with borders is not taxed as a multi-family home it adds a burden to all other taxpayers (whether they have or don't have kids in school) that is not equitable.

I am not against multi-family housing. As pointed out by others here it may be a good solution in many cases. But it must be done legally or there are a myriad of problems that will arise, not only with respect to taxes but also with respect to public safety. The public safety issue is not baloney. If a home is not approved as multi-family and used that way anyway it may have inadequate wiring, not enough fire exits (such as in basements or attics), etc.

With respect to public safety issues? We're not talking about non-permitted apartments here.

As to equitable funding for school districts- that (along with single payer healthcare) is a good idea- because it eliminate disparities. But that's not how it's done. Using your arguments- I could just as easily say that that I don't want to be disadvantaged by paying for healthcare and social security for people over 65- because these are benefits I'm not likely to ever get.

And why should young people continue subsidizing them, given how they've treated youth over the past 20 years (including voting down school bond after school bond- and slashing funding for all sorts of programs, imposing zero tolerance).

The answer is that many (and in the years to come MOST) will have they SHOULDN'T. And rationally so from their perspective.

As to being illegal- well, so are a lot of things in irrational America. Clotheslines, garden instead of lawns- you name the stupid thing- and you'll find it in communities all across the states.

approving every bond request they make? In my town, when I moved here in 1973, there was a bond proposal to double the size of the high school due to claims by the school board that enrollment was skyrocketing. The bond failed. Now, 35 years later, the enrollment in the high school is less than half of what it was in 1973.

Five years ago a bond passed ($35 million) that, among other things that were necessary, also built new gymnasiums on 3 of our grammar schools, one of which has a total enrollment of about 150 kids. I voted for that bond because the other things were necessary (new heating plants, asbestos removal, new computer labs, etc), but don't kid yourself. School boards pad their bond proposals with all kinds of candy that is sometimes not needed and very costly.

Two years ago the board sought and got voter approval for $4 million and for what? A synthetic turf football field for the high school and the installation of lights for night games plus new fields for baseball and soccer. For the history of our school district grass was just fine for kids but now we need to spend $800 (plus interest on the bonds) per family (based on 5,000 households in our 17,000 pop town) because some of the parents of high school kids thought it would be cool to emulate the New York Giants. Bullshit.

I'm talking about districts that are losing art, music, school nurses and after school programs and the like due to retirees not wanting to pay for them- even though those kids end up subsidizing their own health and livelihoods.

Don't think it's not a problem in areas where retirees- or those soon to retire, are moving to.

I am not a "senior" yet, but most I do know would not want the things you are talking about to occur. My town's school budget has been approved by the voters for 11 of the past 12 years so what you are talking about is not happening here.

You talk as though seniors are just a bunch of blood suckers who have contributed nothing but are living off the fat of the land. That is not reality though because they have paid their dues a long the way just like everyone else. Suggesting you may never collect social security is like they do is just a swipe at them for something they had nothing to do with and probably unlikely in my opinion.

Take a walk around your town at night. The houses with all the lights off belong to seniors. It is the only way they can keep living in towns where schools are funded by the anachronistic and unfair property tax system where taxes go up ever year by huge amounts while fixed incomes for seniors go up by pennies.

By the time 2030 rolls around, Americans will be facing problems associated with petroleum depletion (not to mention climate change) that will dwarf Medicare and social security- which is why I seriously doubt I'll see a penny back. Others can look at official forecasts and disagree, but that's beside the point.

As to property taxes rising- it's common throughout the states to have rebates ("circuit breakers") and freezes on assessed value and supermajority rules on revenues measures. Some of these are directly targeted at fixed incomes- others cast their nets more broadly and are essentially part of the Grover Norquist type agenda.

Also, don't forget that people renting rooms aren't tax exempt. That's gross income, though it doesn't get paid to the municipality.

We probably have the highest property taxes in the nation. My taxes, on a 2,400 square foot house on a tiny 75x100 foot plot in Bergen County are $13,300 this year. Even a tiny cape cod bungalow home with about 800 square feet in my town pays about $8,000 in annual property taxes. Sure, there are rebates for seniors ($500) and some accommodation in the form of modified tax freezes for those with minimal income, but it is a serious problem for many seniors. When your taxes go up 11% (my town this year) but your income goes up 2% (just guessing at the Social Security cola), the problem is simple to understand.

I think I'll take a stab at answering.

To me, the concept of a "boarder" and boarding houses is an older concept. If you read Edith Wharton or Sherlock Holmes, people are often boarders in boarding houses or they "take lodging" in a lodging house in the British equivalent. Personally, I love the concept of boarding houses because they fill such an obvious need - shelter. In older times, a boarding house was the "extended stay" equivalent. A person could stay for a month or they could stay for years.

"Room and Board" - a person could pay for just room, i.e. shelter or room and "board" which was meals included. I love old movies that show families at a common table with their boarder included or show the boarding house in the Old West with the owner of the boarding house most often depicted as a kindly old widow known as "Ma".

Boarding houses filled a gap that existed and still exists to this day in the way Americans view housing. I think that they evolved as our society grew more and more impersonal into the Single Room Occupancy hotel concept - no more kindly landlady serving meatloaf and peas - now you're on your own and have to eat at the automat. Also contributing a role were YMCAs and YWCAs who often offered cheap dormitory type housing that has largely disappeared.

At any rate, I believe that "boarding" "boarders" and "boarding house" all connote a commercial enterprise. The landlady or landlord wants to make money and the boarder is willing to pay for shelter. There is no emotional connection or bond at the beginning of the relationship although one might develop over time independently because people are people.

"Roommates" on the other hand, in my mind are a little different in that it's usually less a commercial enterprise and more of an expense-sharing arrangement. Who hasn't had a roommate at some point in their life? Share the rent, share the expenses, and possibly share food.(Or, have the shared refrigerator with assigned shelves and endure the endless "who ate the last of the fruited Jello?!" arguments).

Of the 2 concepts, "roommates" is the more common and benign and least scary to other(home-owning)people. "Boarders" is more impersonal and immediately raises the question - "Who are these people, anyway?".

The gap that boarding houses, SRO hotels and YMCA's served to fill is: People who for whatever reason, whether it is personal or financial, who need some sort of inexpensive shelter that does not involve long-term commitments or large financial investment.

Apparently, we have come to despise people in this situation and they are now called "marginal" and "undesirable" and if you encounter any, you must drive them away from your community as they will lower property values, and overpopulate your schools with their ill-behaved offspring.

I'd like to segue into our new answer to this issue "Motel Families" but I know I have gone on long enough. If anyone had the patience to actually read this post, thanks in advance.

Most people who have kids want and maintain their own home, so I don't think this is a big issue.



Cher

Also, multi-generation and shared housing concepts are one answer to what will we do with the giant influx of boomers getting ready to go into their dotage? There are nowhere near the number of retirement home slots available.

I think shared housing situations could be great and they could be regulated at the same time.

Why shouldn't an older couple be able to put an efficiency apartment over their garage for a family member? And if no family member needed it or wasn't available, why shouldn't they be able to rent it out to someone whose rent will help them afford food and medicine and age in place in their home? They could offer a reduced rent for maintenance. But, why not do it legally, with an inspection of the unit and a certificate of occupancy? It would raise the value of the property and not lower it.

Why shouldn't any house that is large enough be able to have an in-law suite? Who cares if it is actually your mom in there or someone who answered an ad?

I don't think zoning commissions should have knee-jerk negative reactions about situations like this. Everyone always goes to the "it-will-lower- property- values -then- everyone-will-do-it-and-the-neighborhood-will-be-overrun-with -marginals(?!)place.

It won't lower values, everyone won't do it- because they don't need or want to do it- and no neighborhoods and municipalities will be overrun.

The saddest comment I ever read in a discussion along these lines is a DU'er who once said he was resistant to sharing his home because he did not want to lose his and his daughter's privacy. And then he said "But there is no privacy when you are homeless".

I was a councilman in my town and in response to the plight of seniors on fixed incomes I authored a law that allows them to turn their one family homes into two family homes provided they met all safety standards for the rest of their lives or until they sold their home. If they sell the home to another senior then it continues. If they don't then it reverts to a one family home. This does not add to the tax burden of a town mainly because seniors have no kids in the schools and require fewer town services.

But the status of such rentals has to be legal or the town meets an undue burden to provide additional services for the illegal renters without any compensation in the form of additional real estate taxes.

Must be single. Must be 5'10" or taller. You don't have to be good looking but it's a plus!

LOL!

The City is full of "borders", some who share the house with the owner and others who have in-law units in a single family home. I have a roommate who rents from me which helps pay the mortage - we each have our bedrooms and share all the other living spaces. In a town with out of control housing costs and limited stock, borders are an excellent way to manage. I am on the verge of finishing a downstairs, two room in-law which will allow me to rent out the entire upper floor of my 2 bedroom house - that will bring in an extra $500+ a month. Money like that will make a huge difference for me.

My mother and grandmother routinely took people under their wings, and roofs. This is a good thing in my book.

I rented a room from a rich lady with a mansion. It was just the two of us until the grandkids moved in with her too. The grandson and I woohoo, well another story, but we had some damn good times and made a family for an otherwise lonely ladyperson. We exchanged stories, cooking nights and sharing. I moved on for reasons I don't remember, but it was a life experience that I will never forget. :)

Love it!

Spare bedrooms and garage-conversions can be rented out for a pretty penny here. It's by no means only college students and other young people just starting out who will take a single room in a home. I have a couple of women friends, one in her 50s and another in her 60s, who each rent a room in someone else's home.

As for recession/depression times -- both sets of my grandparents took in boarders during the Great Depression. You do what you gotta do to keep your head above water.

Hekate

I really think they should ban together as much as possible in shared housing situations. They are another segment of the population that is often forced into the motel model of housing.

Speaking of the motel model - that's another one of my daydreams. If a had a zillion dollars, I would buy up some older decrepit motels and knock out every other wall and create some really nice, spacious efficiency units that I would try to rent out to mostly to seniors (but might be good to throw some younger people in too, reduce their rent in exchange for chauferring the seniors, doing chores, etc.). If I were really lucky, maybe the motel would have a little dining room attached where those who chose to could have some common meals (board) in addition to their rooms if they didn't like cooking or had vision problems or something. And the landscaping would be just terrific and the parking lot would be turned into a courtyard (would have room since a lot of the occupants wouldn't have cars) and it would be something beautiful and wwelcomed into the community.

In my dreams. The concept of "efficiency apartment" is just one more demonized segment in todays society. There HAS to be something wrong with anyone who would consider living in a small and yes, "efficient" space.