Watertown, New York Bans Roommates
Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month, written and produced by Ted Balaker:
Ted notes that banned roommates would include everyone from unmarried couples to domestic partners and soldiers sharing a home.

Watertown, New York Bans Roommates
Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month, written and produced by Ted Balaker:





WTF? So who can live in the home, a spouse and children? What happens if your children are all grown but one falls on hard times and moves home, is that a roommate situation? What is wrong with that woman that she even took this up with city government in the first place? Does she really want the gov't peering in the windows of her home and telling her what she can and can't do? And someone recall the bozos there, because clearly they need a reality check. The best part is, that old biddy of a woman can't get the roommates off her street because they are grandfathered in. Stupid effing people.
sara at March 1, 2013 5:30 AM
That's in-fucking-sane!
Little Shiva at March 1, 2013 5:49 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/watertown-new-y.html#comment-3628470">comment from Little ShivaAbsolutely.
What's next, requiring regular pedicures or you'll have to move?
Amy Alkon
at March 1, 2013 5:55 AM
*clank* Dang it, there goes another irony meter.
Sara, most such ordinances prohibit unrelated people from shacking up together. You'll find this mostly in college towns, to keep the non-student neighborhoods non-student infested.
I'm kind of surprised y'all haven't heard of this before.
I'm torn. On one hand, who should care? on the other hand, I'm going to guess that one or more of the roomies or one of their guests would have been a recipient of one of Amy's post-it notes asking why they have to be an ass. If Amy were a near neighbor, that is.
What is the rest of the story? is there more, or have we only seen a slice?
I R A Darth Aggie at March 1, 2013 6:24 AM
And upstate New York wonders why they have trouble attracting industry these days.
Cousin Dave at March 1, 2013 6:33 AM
I agree with I R A. What is the rest of the story?
For example, most households in a neighborhood might have two vehicles, one parked in a small driveway and one parked on the street in front of the house. A household shared by five singles would have five vehicles: one parked in the small driveway, one parked on the street in front, and three others parked in front of three other houses, displacing the vehicles of those residents.
Part of being a good neighbor is mitigating the negative effects of our butt-print on the community. But rude people couldn't care less.
Laws prohibiting roommates or limiting the number of vehicles per household are a bad solution. They oppress considerate people who exceed the limits without imposing on the people around them.
Ken R at March 1, 2013 12:22 PM
Reason #948 to not live in the city.
Azenogoth at March 1, 2013 3:43 PM
To quote Andrew Jackson, "They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it."
(slight misquote, but it applies)
They lack standing to infringe upon this matter, and I have no doubt it will be overturned.
Robert at March 1, 2013 5:35 PM
The day a cop shows up and asks "Who is living here?" is the day I ask "Why do you care?" and start asserting my fourth and fifth amendment rights.
If it is my owned or rented property, they can go get a search warrant.
Jim P. at March 1, 2013 7:50 PM
So basically my uncle and his grown son (which plans to buy the home from his dad before his death) could not share a house in that city. What a stupid law.
NakkiNyan at March 2, 2013 6:12 PM
Leave a comment