SB City Council is squeezing the middle & low income.
First the Council agreed to rent control. Which has always failed.
But they voted to increase every tenant’s rent up to 10% every year. They just made renting more expense ever the masses who have been long term rentals.
Previously landlords did not bump up rent every year and they did not bump it by 10%.
SB City Council agreed to put a half cent sales tax increase on the ballot. It will raise an estimated $15,000,000. Don’t celebrate.
City is close to $12,000,000 in debt.
That extra tax goes to paying down debt.
It does not go to housing like Sneddon stated.
That is an increase tax of about $600 per household.
So they voted to increase your rent & your taxes on top of record high inflation & increasing interest rates.
While they misappropriate tax dollars on non revenue generating expenses like the State Street underpass which will cost well above $7,000,000.
A rental property’s value is based upon their Cap Rate. Which is derived from annual rents verse expenses.
In the past a property owner would only bump rents to make the property cash flow so it was not a negative every month. Annual rents do not make property owners wealthy. The wealth comes from appreciation of the property which is dependent on keeping up with current market rents.
Then a tenant would not receive rent increases or if they did it was minimal, 3% cost of living as the property owners carrying costs increased.
How many long term tenants do you know paying well below current market rent? Numerous, otherwise no one would be complaining and this would not be an issue.
So a tenant would enjoy below market rents for years, decades even, under the same property owner.
When the property sold the market value of the property was based upon current market rents, not the under market rents.
A new owner’s expenses are higher than the old owner, for example the purchase price is higher than what the previous owner paid. Therefore their monthly mortgage and property taxes are more expensive. The new landlord wants the property to break even on monthly cash flow so they raise rents to just cover the carrying costs.
Now with just cause and rent control a new landlord cannot bring the rents up to market value to cover the higher expenses within a reasonable period meaning the property is either a negative cash flow for a long period or worth less because its value is based upon under market rents that may be years behind the market.
Property owners are investors they need to break even on the property at a minimum.
If it wasn’t for investors there would be zero rentals in SB.
With rent control & just cause the property is now worth less money.
Unless the existing owner raises rents every year to protect their market value.
Do you put money into a retirement plan, the stock market or just hide it under your mattress? You want your money to grow as inflation grows, right? Same thing with the money invested to buy a rental property.
Now tenants do not get to enjoy years of low rents because that owner will raise rents the maximum every year or they will lose money.
Now a tenants rent will more than likely go up a good 10% every year regardless I order for the owner to ensure the value of the property is increasing.
The government is taking away property owners rights.
But more importantly, our local City government screwed the tenant and after a few years there will be no under market rent. Even if you’ve been somewhere for 5-10 years. Your rents will go up every year no matter what.
This is just a quick overview. Tenants do not understand that property owners have expenses they need to cover. They appear to think everything should be paid for out of someone else’s pockets.
The answer is a path to ownership by making it easier to convert apartment complexes to condos or voucher programs from the government to subsidize those in need.
There’s more details, but that is a quick overview.
Look at the Bath St property with lots of deferred maintenance.
The old owner had rents so low they could not afford to do the maintenance. The new owner wants to do the maintenance for safety, but it costs money.
Where is that money supposed to come from? The SB City Council doesn’t help, they just cause problems and create fights between landlords and tenants.
Recall Dario Pini? AKA slum lord. He provided low cost housing so low income, immigrant families had a roof. If he performed all maintenance the rents have to go up. And then all those low income families would not have a roof.
I’m saying it’s a give and take, but why should a property owner be the one to take a financial loss? Why don’t tenants share any responsibility in the maintenance of their homes?
Why doesn’t the City perform the maintenance to keep rents low instead of causing fights?
There are solutions to keep rents affordable and keep properties properly maintained. But our City has no clue, no desire, no ability to problem solve.
I read this article by Mr. Caldwell titled "Broken Promises and Budget Shortfalls"
and I quote “The represents an abysmal failure in several respects as it pertains to ethics, the economy, and the environment.”2024-25 proposed final Santa Barbara County budget"
A more accurate title should be “Failure to Protect and Failure to Serve”
The County and their So-Called-Leaders” have utterly failed in their basic responsibilities
to serve their community and in turn violated serious civil rights of the citizens in Santa Barbara.
I will again quote former FBI Executive Thomas Parker's Letter titled “Perceptions of Political Corruption Too Often the Harbingers of Stark Reality” and I quote Mr. Parker
“Perceptions are too often the harbingers of stark reality. This is especially true when it comes to questioning the ethics or illicit acts of local government officials. While spending nearly 25 years in the FBI and convicting a number of local, state, and federal officials on corruption charges, it did not take long for my colleagues and I to learn how to spot those who had crossed the bright line into unethical, and sometimes corrupt, behavior. In most cases, worrisome perceptions had run rampant in the community that something was wrong. For those of you who may not have knowingly experienced such behavior in your own community, and for purposes of this article, let me give you a quick homegrown lesson in what that malfeasance smells like.”
Read Mr. Parker's entire article as he describes the real problems here in SB and I quote again
“It normally did not take long for the FBI to quickly discover an illicit or unethical nexus between the politician’s official duties — or the neglect of same — and the community perceptions of a serious problem with the official’s fair and unbiased service to their constituents.”
The insidious tyranny to maintain "labor peace" now dominates the public agenda; not fiscal responsibility nor even voter sentiments.
Thank you for highlighting the many ways this demand for "labor peace" is internally imposed on elected officials who approve the final budgets. Which explains why no matter who gets elected to even term-limited positions, the basic pattern remain the same: tax, spend and taxpayer extortion to maintain "labor peace".
This is not a healthy place to be in our representative form of government. Only taxpayer revolt akin to Prop 13 will unclog this self-serving model for government services. Time to reconsider former supervisor Peter Adam's attempt to allocate a minimum 20% to county infrastructure. Then other county program services can allocate the remaining 80% among themselves.
But this time please no more lurid fear-mongering arguments against this rational and clear, bright-line proposal.
If only the national standard-bearer of the Republican Party could forcefully articulate the issues laid out so well in this article, so the American people could be constantly reminded what the real issues are in this crucial time in our history.
I ran a large organization in Ohio before returning to California and retiring in Montecito. I had to learn how to balance expenses with revenues Our local and federal governments have no clue about this relatively simple principle which applies to households. Stop taxing and start cutting expenses. When you can print money you don’t have to make the tough decisions - but then you go out of business. Just saying…
Ira, the problem here is how did the government get the money they are doling out? They didn't do it by "multiplication" that is for sure. They divided somebody else's wealth before they had anything to give away. Welfare is not economic stimulus. It is economic malaise.
The problem here is more fundamental than that. We are and should be our brothers (and sisters’) keeper, but people who take the position you’re taking callously believe everyone has the right to live under a bridge. That is neither good policy nor good morals.
That is a big leap in logic. First of all, most people who are living under bridges made a string of bad choices their whole lives, hence, they are not a victim of circumstances but of their poor decisions mainly having to do with drugs, alcohol and crime. Second, whereas we should be willing to help one another, you are obviously unwilling to admit that some people have been on welfare for 5 generations! They are not down and out, they have become govt dependents and your Presidents like Obama and Biden want to keep them there for the votes! At least Clinton temporarily ended welfare as we knew it. Finally, don't forget the scripture, if you don't work, you don't eat!
I don’t think the Bible is a particularly supportive source for the cruelty you prescribe. Check out Deuteronomy 15:7-11. “Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.”
Your Reaganesque vilification of poor people, condemning and punishing them for what you label their poor decisions, is unworthy of a privileged human. But not surprising, from what I’ve read of your views.
Here is the colossal mistake you and other bleeding heart liberals are making. Charity, including in the bible, is supposed to be VOLUNTARY!!! Helping the poor was never supposed to come by way of exaction. This makes a big difference. The government is completely ill equipped to determine whether someone is deserving of help vs someone who is refusing to act like a responsible citizen. I will give to people who need help but I don't like government forcing me to give to people via forced taxation who will not accept responsibility for their own choices.
......"if you do not agree with me, you are a bad person ....... that is all I am hearing from you, Ira.
We recognize this line of argument, because it has been misused now for decades to support round and rounds of failed, but sure fire vote-buying, government programs.
Oh groan Ira, here come the personal insults again as your standard back-up argument. Democrats only benefit themselves; so your argument is not coming from a good position to be scolding others. Private philanthropy has long reached out to comfort those in need.
The government is proven to be the least effective and most wasteful means of redistributing any other person's wealth for social reasons. Just look at the billions already wasted on government-run "Homeless Inc".
Redistributing tax dollars provides nothing - no growth, no productivity, and no multiplier effect. It creates only a windfall for some, and a ruse for many. Retire that specious argument, Ira. Leave the tax dollars in the hands of the maker and let them "multiply" its effects. What you are asking for - windfall handouts goes by another name. Use it. Your scheme is simply partisan vote buying using OPM.
You correctly say "[I]t is time to reconsider former supervisor Peter Adam's attempt to allocate a minimum 20% to county infrastructure." The Santa Barbara independent noted that
"[a]fter his first year in office, Adam boldly and, some said, presumptuously launched an initiative, known as Measure M. It proposed to funnel tens of millions of dollars into the repair and upkeep of county roads, parks, and public buildings."
Most posters here, including our host, opposed Measure M, and remain proud of their opposition.
Get your facts straight Lawrence. I did not oppose it, I stayed neutral because even though Peter had the right intentions, he was going about it the wrong way. His plan would have ended up gutting the budgets of all the public safety departments in order to pay down the maintenance deficit. That is, he wanted to rob public safety to pay public works. Right idea, wrong plan. The right way to do this was to increase the base each and every year until they catch up on the deficit, but the current board, including his protege, don't have the will so they won't make a way.
I think Peter's measure, if approved by voters, would have been thrown out in court because it literally would have prevented the county from filling its statutory duties (like keeping the jail open!)
SB City Council is squeezing the middle & low income.
First the Council agreed to rent control. Which has always failed.
But they voted to increase every tenant’s rent up to 10% every year. They just made renting more expense ever the masses who have been long term rentals.
Previously landlords did not bump up rent every year and they did not bump it by 10%.
SB City Council agreed to put a half cent sales tax increase on the ballot. It will raise an estimated $15,000,000. Don’t celebrate.
City is close to $12,000,000 in debt.
That extra tax goes to paying down debt.
It does not go to housing like Sneddon stated.
That is an increase tax of about $600 per household.
So they voted to increase your rent & your taxes on top of record high inflation & increasing interest rates.
While they misappropriate tax dollars on non revenue generating expenses like the State Street underpass which will cost well above $7,000,000.
Fiscally irresponsible.
A rental property’s value is based upon their Cap Rate. Which is derived from annual rents verse expenses.
In the past a property owner would only bump rents to make the property cash flow so it was not a negative every month. Annual rents do not make property owners wealthy. The wealth comes from appreciation of the property which is dependent on keeping up with current market rents.
Then a tenant would not receive rent increases or if they did it was minimal, 3% cost of living as the property owners carrying costs increased.
How many long term tenants do you know paying well below current market rent? Numerous, otherwise no one would be complaining and this would not be an issue.
So a tenant would enjoy below market rents for years, decades even, under the same property owner.
When the property sold the market value of the property was based upon current market rents, not the under market rents.
A new owner’s expenses are higher than the old owner, for example the purchase price is higher than what the previous owner paid. Therefore their monthly mortgage and property taxes are more expensive. The new landlord wants the property to break even on monthly cash flow so they raise rents to just cover the carrying costs.
Now with just cause and rent control a new landlord cannot bring the rents up to market value to cover the higher expenses within a reasonable period meaning the property is either a negative cash flow for a long period or worth less because its value is based upon under market rents that may be years behind the market.
Property owners are investors they need to break even on the property at a minimum.
If it wasn’t for investors there would be zero rentals in SB.
With rent control & just cause the property is now worth less money.
Unless the existing owner raises rents every year to protect their market value.
Do you put money into a retirement plan, the stock market or just hide it under your mattress? You want your money to grow as inflation grows, right? Same thing with the money invested to buy a rental property.
Now tenants do not get to enjoy years of low rents because that owner will raise rents the maximum every year or they will lose money.
Now a tenants rent will more than likely go up a good 10% every year regardless I order for the owner to ensure the value of the property is increasing.
The government is taking away property owners rights.
But more importantly, our local City government screwed the tenant and after a few years there will be no under market rent. Even if you’ve been somewhere for 5-10 years. Your rents will go up every year no matter what.
This is just a quick overview. Tenants do not understand that property owners have expenses they need to cover. They appear to think everything should be paid for out of someone else’s pockets.
The answer is a path to ownership by making it easier to convert apartment complexes to condos or voucher programs from the government to subsidize those in need.
There’s more details, but that is a quick overview.
Look at the Bath St property with lots of deferred maintenance.
The old owner had rents so low they could not afford to do the maintenance. The new owner wants to do the maintenance for safety, but it costs money.
Where is that money supposed to come from? The SB City Council doesn’t help, they just cause problems and create fights between landlords and tenants.
Recall Dario Pini? AKA slum lord. He provided low cost housing so low income, immigrant families had a roof. If he performed all maintenance the rents have to go up. And then all those low income families would not have a roof.
I’m saying it’s a give and take, but why should a property owner be the one to take a financial loss? Why don’t tenants share any responsibility in the maintenance of their homes?
Why doesn’t the City perform the maintenance to keep rents low instead of causing fights?
There are solutions to keep rents affordable and keep properties properly maintained. But our City has no clue, no desire, no ability to problem solve.
Get woke,go broke. There’s gotta be an end to this idiocy.
900 employees on the dole for welfare programs in Santa Barbara county! Pure insanity!!!!
We need someone like Milei and a chainsaw to pare down the bloat known as local government
And Milei used to be a tantric sex coach. Think what else he could do to pare down bloat.
I read this article by Mr. Caldwell titled "Broken Promises and Budget Shortfalls"
and I quote “The represents an abysmal failure in several respects as it pertains to ethics, the economy, and the environment.”2024-25 proposed final Santa Barbara County budget"
A more accurate title should be “Failure to Protect and Failure to Serve”
The County and their So-Called-Leaders” have utterly failed in their basic responsibilities
to serve their community and in turn violated serious civil rights of the citizens in Santa Barbara.
I will again quote former FBI Executive Thomas Parker's Letter titled “Perceptions of Political Corruption Too Often the Harbingers of Stark Reality” and I quote Mr. Parker
“Perceptions are too often the harbingers of stark reality. This is especially true when it comes to questioning the ethics or illicit acts of local government officials. While spending nearly 25 years in the FBI and convicting a number of local, state, and federal officials on corruption charges, it did not take long for my colleagues and I to learn how to spot those who had crossed the bright line into unethical, and sometimes corrupt, behavior. In most cases, worrisome perceptions had run rampant in the community that something was wrong. For those of you who may not have knowingly experienced such behavior in your own community, and for purposes of this article, let me give you a quick homegrown lesson in what that malfeasance smells like.”
Read Mr. Parker's entire article as he describes the real problems here in SB and I quote again
“It normally did not take long for the FBI to quickly discover an illicit or unethical nexus between the politician’s official duties — or the neglect of same — and the community perceptions of a serious problem with the official’s fair and unbiased service to their constituents.”
Howard Walther, member of a Military Family
The insidious tyranny to maintain "labor peace" now dominates the public agenda; not fiscal responsibility nor even voter sentiments.
Thank you for highlighting the many ways this demand for "labor peace" is internally imposed on elected officials who approve the final budgets. Which explains why no matter who gets elected to even term-limited positions, the basic pattern remain the same: tax, spend and taxpayer extortion to maintain "labor peace".
This is not a healthy place to be in our representative form of government. Only taxpayer revolt akin to Prop 13 will unclog this self-serving model for government services. Time to reconsider former supervisor Peter Adam's attempt to allocate a minimum 20% to county infrastructure. Then other county program services can allocate the remaining 80% among themselves.
But this time please no more lurid fear-mongering arguments against this rational and clear, bright-line proposal.
Clearly following an external agenda…
Anyone curios to see what pigs at a trough look and sound like, I can show you ! It’s not pretty.
Happy Father’s Day to all you dads out there !
Doc, _that_ I'd like to see!
If only the national standard-bearer of the Republican Party could forcefully articulate the issues laid out so well in this article, so the American people could be constantly reminded what the real issues are in this crucial time in our history.
I ran a large organization in Ohio before returning to California and retiring in Montecito. I had to learn how to balance expenses with revenues Our local and federal governments have no clue about this relatively simple principle which applies to households. Stop taxing and start cutting expenses. When you can print money you don’t have to make the tough decisions - but then you go out of business. Just saying…
Have you noticed the plethora of places that do car alignments? That is the best measure of the condition of our roads.
We maintain our own ranch roads with asphalt patch from Home Depot
You’d think the city could get a deal on bulk purchase
Recipients of public assistance spend that money on food, housing and transportation. The “multiplier” effect applies to that spending.
Ira, the problem here is how did the government get the money they are doling out? They didn't do it by "multiplication" that is for sure. They divided somebody else's wealth before they had anything to give away. Welfare is not economic stimulus. It is economic malaise.
The problem here is more fundamental than that. We are and should be our brothers (and sisters’) keeper, but people who take the position you’re taking callously believe everyone has the right to live under a bridge. That is neither good policy nor good morals.
That is a big leap in logic. First of all, most people who are living under bridges made a string of bad choices their whole lives, hence, they are not a victim of circumstances but of their poor decisions mainly having to do with drugs, alcohol and crime. Second, whereas we should be willing to help one another, you are obviously unwilling to admit that some people have been on welfare for 5 generations! They are not down and out, they have become govt dependents and your Presidents like Obama and Biden want to keep them there for the votes! At least Clinton temporarily ended welfare as we knew it. Finally, don't forget the scripture, if you don't work, you don't eat!
I don’t think the Bible is a particularly supportive source for the cruelty you prescribe. Check out Deuteronomy 15:7-11. “Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.”
Your Reaganesque vilification of poor people, condemning and punishing them for what you label their poor decisions, is unworthy of a privileged human. But not surprising, from what I’ve read of your views.
Here is the colossal mistake you and other bleeding heart liberals are making. Charity, including in the bible, is supposed to be VOLUNTARY!!! Helping the poor was never supposed to come by way of exaction. This makes a big difference. The government is completely ill equipped to determine whether someone is deserving of help vs someone who is refusing to act like a responsible citizen. I will give to people who need help but I don't like government forcing me to give to people via forced taxation who will not accept responsibility for their own choices.
......"if you do not agree with me, you are a bad person ....... that is all I am hearing from you, Ira.
We recognize this line of argument, because it has been misused now for decades to support round and rounds of failed, but sure fire vote-buying, government programs.
You should look into corporatism and distributism as alternatives to capitalism.
Oh groan Ira, here come the personal insults again as your standard back-up argument. Democrats only benefit themselves; so your argument is not coming from a good position to be scolding others. Private philanthropy has long reached out to comfort those in need.
The government is proven to be the least effective and most wasteful means of redistributing any other person's wealth for social reasons. Just look at the billions already wasted on government-run "Homeless Inc".
Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn’t stimulus.
Paul didn’t get everything taken from Peter the government gets their fair share
Redistributing tax dollars provides nothing - no growth, no productivity, and no multiplier effect. It creates only a windfall for some, and a ruse for many. Retire that specious argument, Ira. Leave the tax dollars in the hands of the maker and let them "multiply" its effects. What you are asking for - windfall handouts goes by another name. Use it. Your scheme is simply partisan vote buying using OPM.
Informative article. What arts of the count have the most welfare recipients.
Who qualifies?
You correctly say "[I]t is time to reconsider former supervisor Peter Adam's attempt to allocate a minimum 20% to county infrastructure." The Santa Barbara independent noted that
"[a]fter his first year in office, Adam boldly and, some said, presumptuously launched an initiative, known as Measure M. It proposed to funnel tens of millions of dollars into the repair and upkeep of county roads, parks, and public buildings."
Most posters here, including our host, opposed Measure M, and remain proud of their opposition.
They have enough funds. They unlike responsible people, don’t spend this money wisely.
Responsible people live within their means. Government has become irresponsible.
Get your facts straight Lawrence. I did not oppose it, I stayed neutral because even though Peter had the right intentions, he was going about it the wrong way. His plan would have ended up gutting the budgets of all the public safety departments in order to pay down the maintenance deficit. That is, he wanted to rob public safety to pay public works. Right idea, wrong plan. The right way to do this was to increase the base each and every year until they catch up on the deficit, but the current board, including his protege, don't have the will so they won't make a way.
I did not say you opposed Measure M. I said "our host" did. Our host is Jim Buckley.
My mistake! I thought you were referring to me as the author! But, as I stated, Peter had the right idea but the wrong plan to accomplish it.
Do you think the County is better off or worse off for having rejected Measure M?
I think Peter's measure, if approved by voters, would have been thrown out in court because it literally would have prevented the county from filling its statutory duties (like keeping the jail open!)