Does Fort Collins' U+2 roommate rule make housing more or less affordable? Things to consider
The city of Fort Collins' U+2 housing occupancy policy, which prohibits more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit, is up for review by city staff and City Council. They asked for resident input via a survey that closed Aug. 8.
Since we won't get the results of the city's input effort for some time, we wanted to gather our own and recently asked you: "What changes, if any, would you make to Fort Collins' rental occupancy regulations and what outcomes do you think those changes would produce for renters and their neighbors?"
Before we get into the various points of view on the subject, let's get on the same page about what the ordinance allows and does not allow, also laid out in detail on the city's website.
Occupancy in a residential dwelling unit (single-family, duplex, and multifamily) is restricted to either:
one family (defined below) and not more than one additional person;
one adult and their dependents (if any), a second adult and their dependents (if any), and not more than one additional person.
"Family" is defined as "any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking, and eating facilities."
According to the city, that allows for these living situations:
a family (of any size and configuration)
a family (of any size and configuration) and their nanny
a family (of any size and configuration) and an exchange student
two single parents, their kids, and a friend
two siblings and one friend
two married couples as long as a familial relationship exists linking the two couples
But not these situations:
two couples, married or not, with no familial relationship linking couple A to couple B
two siblings and two or more friends
a family (of any size), a caretaker, and an exchange student
And before we get into some more complex considerations around the ordinance, take a look at these comments from Coloradoan Conversations participants that summarize the basic pros and cons around the housing affordability aspect of U+2.
The 'keep U+2' argument
It makes it easier for family homeowners to afford a home by reducing incentives for investor homeowners.
"All that will happen (if U+2 is rescinded) is landlords will be able to charge the going per bedroom rent for more bedrooms. Families will not be able to afford houses that are rented by-the-bedroom. Houses with more than three bedrooms with be snapped up by 'investors,' again leaving families unable to afford them." — Mimi K.
"3 people (U+2) paying $500/month equals $1,500K/month. 6 people (No U+2) paying $500/month equals $3,000/month. Doubled your income overnight. The investor/landlord would be willing to pay more for a house that has more room to stuff more people in it. And that's how housing prices fly." — John M.
The 'Get rid of U+2' argument
It gives residents more affordable housing options and also increases housing stock:
"U+2 makes it more expensive to live here by removing denser living options. Not everyone would prefer living with more roommates for cheaper rent (or nicer housing), but everyone who does would free up housing for other people, and the more housing is available, the harder it is to find a buyer or renter and prices have to go down to compensate." — Brendan L.
"Picture this: Imagine that CSU admitted a hundred new students. If you could house them four to an apartment, then you would need twenty-five apartments for them. But if you suddenly mandate that only three students can live in an apartment, then how many apartments do you need? 33. You need 25% more housing for the same number of kids. That means more student housing, not less. And it means pushing families out of those extra homes to make way for those students." — Peter E.
Target unwanted behaviors, not occupancy
The arguments above don't consider the quality of life aspect, though. Residents in favor of keeping U+2 cite problems around noise, trash and crowding as potential or real problems.
But a couple commenters suggested these unwanted behaviors could be handled without bringing occupancy limits into it.
"The main purposes of U+2 are to prevent noise, litter but the law has nothing to do with that. What U+2 does is reduces housing stocks. ... Do away with U+2 and enforce the noise and litter ordinances." — Beverly & Randy R.
This does place an additional bottleneck and burden on residents affected by those behaviors, though, said Aurora H.: "Ordinances, by nature, are enforced through complaints. If you don't complain, they won't be there to enforce it since we don't have cops / code compliance officials on every block."
One U+2 modification could provide some middle ground for cars parked on residential streets, she said: Allow "1 (person) per conforming bedroom. That's probably the only logical change (to U+2)."
And her observation is that families can have just as big of an impact on parking: "Even a family of 4 in a normal 3 or 4 bedroom house will still have 3-4 cars when the kids are old enough to drive."
This isn't only about students and investors
Above we reviewed the logic of how keeping U+2 could boost housing affordability for residents who aren't students. But there are also arguments illuminating how getting rid of U+2 could provide a financial opportunity for that group:
"Although we tend to talk about students when we talk about U+2, the policy impacts all kinds of young professionals: twenty-something’s, thirty-something’s, school teachers, etc. — anyone who hasn’t been able to afford to buy a home," Peter E. said. "Picture the old TV show 'The Golden Girls.' It’s a group of elderly women who share housing and companionship in their old age. Their arrangement would be illegal in Fort Collins, because they’re not 'family.' (In fact it was illegal at the time in Miami when the show was filmed!)"
"When my husband and I bought our first house, the only way we could afford to purchase it was to have three housemates. Thankfully the community we lived in didn't have a U+2 law that would have blocked us from being able to do that," Meg D. said. She cited a example from 1920s Fort Collins history: A couple were renters of an entire house but sublet three other bedrooms. "They were able to use the subletting income to pay for the construction of the house we now live in. They wouldn't have been able to do that if U+2 had been part of Fort Collins law in the 1920s."
U+2 protects the poorest neighborhoods and vulnerable residents?
David R. contends that having the U+2 ordinance actually protects residents who can't afford to live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations, which can set rules to improve quality of life.
"For many residents, the occupancy ordinance along with other quality-of-life codes are the closest thing to a home owners association they have," David R. said. "The value of the occupancy ordinance because of this has been tangible to thousands of residents, even if they aren't always aware of its existence. U+2 has worked particularly well for those who live in our oldest and poorest neighborhoods, in ways that our more affluent neighborhoods in Fort Collins take for granted. Fort Collins should be a safe haven for residents, not for absent and invisible investors and banks."
And Jessie C. argued that with increased occupancy comes risk of unsafe and exploitative living conditions:
"I lived this 'captive audience' situation myself in college (in a different state) where landlords/slumlords rented properties by the individual bedroom, and students didn't really have much of a choice but to rent an off-campus room with several other people that were strangers. It was common for a landlord to own multiple, often older or run down, properties with 5 or more bedrooms in the neighborhoods proximal to the university, and rake in lots of money on the backs of students and other renters. So, be careful what you wish for when you talk about undoing U+2.'
So Harry S. says to keep U+2 and "require landlords to hold a permit in order to rent property. Inspect rental property. Enforce theses policies. Fund this via fees charged for the permits and fines for violations." He notes that "this will increase the cost of owning rental property. It will increase rents for single family homes. It will also reduce the frequency of property investors outbidding families for single family homes."
(The city is also looking at rental rules and standards — its survey also asked about that.)
It isn't just a single-family home issue, either
If getting rid of U+2 leades to big change in a single-family neighborhood, what will it look like in even more dense housing developments, M_E. asks:
"Much of the comment on lifting U+2 is focused on single family homes, and I worry that the impact that lifting U+2 will have on existing high density housing developments, such as condos, townhomes, duplexes, and patio homes, is largely ignored," M _E. said.
"By definition these developments have limited parking, and they were not intended to have large numbers of people living in each unit. Lifting the U+2 rule will disproportionately affect the quality of life in already crowded high density neighborhoods, and the residents in these neighborhoods will bear the burden of the rule change. ... For many low/middle income buyers, these high-density neighborhoods are the only attainable options in Fort Collins, but owner-occupants in these neighborhoods seem overlooked when it comes to policy making, as this housing is perceived as a second class option. Homeowners in these neighborhoods pay taxes and support city services just like single family homeowners, yet their concerns are typically not highlighted in discussions about U+2."
We hope this conversation has opened minds to viewpoints and impacts you may not have considered yet. Stay tuned to the Coloradoan as we report on what respondents said in the official city survey.
This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Does Fort Collins' U+2 roommate rule make housing more, less affordable?
