Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re “either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,” good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isn’t skilled at “the spin.” The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.
I will add: Have a very clear contract between the founding members of the house about who pays rent to the landlord (every tenant directly, or one tenant who is paid by other tenants), subletting rules, who is responsible for finding the sublets or successors for their own bedrooms when they leave, and especially:
whether founders remain responsible for finding successors for their own bedrooms after the mandatory lease period with the landlord is over (adding emphasis here!), or whether the founder (or founders) who stays longest is responsible for maintaining the finances and existence of the group house on their own
edit: or option (C), whether each successor to a room is expected to find their subsequent successors in turn, rather than the founding occupant of their room continuing to find successive occupants indefinitely—and how it will be communicated and contractualized with those successors
Ideally, have this contract notarized. But definitely don’t have a verbal agreement on it, and definitely don’t make assumptions about what it means to have a joint intention to keep the house going into the future.