I assume the legal ‘fact on the ground’ is that the participants of DAB were co-signatories on a lease, making significant financial contributions, with no mechanism for the designated ‘commander’ to kick people out unilaterally.
This is approximately correct—not all of us were on the lease, and not all of us were making significant financial contributions. But someone who was on the lease and was making a significant financial contribution could have made it highly difficult to evict them, even if everyone else in the house wanted them gone. If it came to unilaterally rejecting people, I have some evidence that everyone would have deferred to Duncan’s judgment.
I suspect that if there had been some pre-existing off-ramp, it would have been used voluntarily, and its existence would have enabled a safer discussion of “hey, is you being in the house actually win-win?”.
I suspect a more modest ‘Phase II’ (maybe just social norms to do communal activity, with no pretended ‘boss’) might be the best realistic iteration.
This seems likely to be what Phase II will look like.
My understanding is that the way occupancy laws tend to work (and from what I’ve heard of california, although I do not live there) is that even if someone is not on the lease and not paying and unwelcome, your legal options for removing them are extremely limited and involve a substantial waiting period.
This is approximately correct—not all of us were on the lease, and not all of us were making significant financial contributions. But someone who was on the lease and was making a significant financial contribution could have made it highly difficult to evict them, even if everyone else in the house wanted them gone. If it came to unilaterally rejecting people, I have some evidence that everyone would have deferred to Duncan’s judgment.
I suspect that if there had been some pre-existing off-ramp, it would have been used voluntarily, and its existence would have enabled a safer discussion of “hey, is you being in the house actually win-win?”.
This seems likely to be what Phase II will look like.
My understanding is that the way occupancy laws tend to work (and from what I’ve heard of california, although I do not live there) is that even if someone is not on the lease and not paying and unwelcome, your legal options for removing them are extremely limited and involve a substantial waiting period.