I was thinking that too; but then, a lot more would complain about the renters at their neighbors’ house, increased traffic, noise, problems with lower income renters, HOA violations, and the ungodly backup at the city permitting office for any minor construction.
Well then they didn’t really incentivize people to build them!
An ADU should be like renting a room in your house. Exempt from fair housing laws, and at worst a non-guaranteed lease renewal, if not a simple 30 day notice.
But the point of fair housing laws is to protect tenants. If everyone's building these and renting them with no fair housing protections, you've effectively just abolished fair housing laws without actually repealing them.
To me it feels like the sensible thing to do here is to either actually abolish the fair housing laws if tenants don't really need those protections, or have them apply to these new constructions as well since tenants do need them.
A stance in the middle makes no sense considering the intention of these laws.
A stance in the middle would apply to just these ADUs specifically, because they are somewhere in the middle between;
a) renting out a room in your house (where fair housing laws already don't apply) and,
b) renting out a fully distinct dwelling unit, where fair house laws definitely apply and serve an important function.
ADUs are always going to be a small percentage of the overall housing market, so lessening housing regulations around ADUs specifically is definitely not the same as abolishing fair housing laws entirely.
I agree! I get the sense that many more people would build ADUs and rent out units if they knew they had more control over them. I’m not saying we should get rid of all tenant protections, but could make them a little more fair for the owners.
