Good piece about the “affordable housing” con. Can I add an extra twist? Namely how preposterous (and devious) the idea that Santa Barbara — a ritzy California beach city — should be affordable. It’s as preposterous as arguing that Park Ave or Palm Beach should be affordable. These are innately desirable places, as well as innately limited — and limited and desirable always mean “relatively expensive.” It’s just a fact of life. Anyone with any sense (let alone experience of real estate) knows that you could double the amount of housing available in SB (or on Park Ave, or in Palm Beach) and it would barely budge the local prices. It’d certainly have a big impact on the vibe and quality of life, but it wouldn’t impact the prices much, if at all, because these places are just so damn desirable.
“Why would anyone pretend otherwise?” is a good question. My hunch is that that there are two groups: the devious, power-driven political people who are driving the “affordable housing” con/crusade, and the envious, dreamy, know-nothing sheep who are addicted to letting their emotions be played by the cynics. “OMG! It’s just so unfair that some people get to live in a nicer place than I can afford! It’s not just unfair, it’s unjust!!! So you owe it to me to help with my rent!”
Fwiw, in addition to the sensible folks here, a good writer to follow is Joel Kotkin. He hates Trump but he’s very reasonable on housing, as well as very knowledgeable about California. One of his main themes recently has been: Why is the “affordable housing” team forever trying to cram more people into already-established towns and neighborhoods? (Answer: class hatred, envy …) It isn’t going to create much new housing. And, given that most Americans prefer single family homes, if indeed tons of new housing is needed, why not continue doing what Americans have been doing for more than half a century and expand outwards? He points the practical virtues of sprawl.
Agree with all the above. Affordability had a reality quotient when I was in my twenties. Nearly all my Santa Barbara friends in high school and City College had to move away. They couldn’t afford to live here and there weren’t jobs. The only ones who stayed were from farm families or businesses here. Otherwise, you had to leave. Some are back here now in retirement. I went to where I could afford to live and have a future as a writer, LA and NYC, where for the first ten years of my adult life I lived in shitty apartments in so-so neighborhoods, with neighbors like the downstairs drug dealer in LA who blew up the garage while trying to turn her odometer back. And we often had incompetent landlords. (The landlord who rented to the drug dealer petty criminal was an actor whose big role was playing the Water and Power corpse in the film Chinatown.) But it was affordable.
And this makes perfect sense if you can disconnect from one reality.
Where do the workers who perform the services live?
In essence, the government serves a purpose to provide services that citizens demand. Now, businesses serve a purpose to provide services that citizens demand and make a profit.
With those two as the basis of reality, where do those workers live? Where do cops and firefighters live? Where do doctors and nurses live? Where does the waiter at Joe's live? Where does the bartender at Harry's live? Where do teachers live? Where do babysitters live?
To me, this is the crux of the issue. You obviously have people with different levels of wealth, but at the end of the day, you need a community where the people who mow the lawn can live (within reason) in the area. Because at a certain point in time, they will offer their services to someone who is closer. Sometimes, at a lower price to avoid the loss of personal time. I know because I am that example! A long time ago . . . I was offered a job a few blocks from the Moscone Center. The pay was excellent. I did not want to raise my family in a concrete jungle. I could live in Marin County, or go south, basically starting at Palo Alto and heading south. That would take 2 hours per day for round-trip travel time. I was offered a job in Palo Alto that was 95% of the salary of the other job. Why would I waste 2 hours per day sitting on a train when I could sit in a car for 30 minutes per day round trip for 95% of the salary?
Sprawl happened, and unfortunately, it lost. Density won because of jobs.
Philanthropists offer transportation plus housing ; CITY REJECTS. Moreover, employers pay, incur the cost to transport necessary, desired, wanted workers. We pay to bus employees in, or provide a tax exempt monthly auto allowance, or a company car. Otherwise, the employer provides housing for desired, essential employees.
Not everyone lives where they work. People make choices. I lived here, while working in Long Beach 121 miles each way to gain valuable work experience. My employer provided me a car.
I agree that not everyone lives where they work. However, it is not sustainable to keep workers, as you state, living 121 miles each way from their work. As you even mentioned, it was a trade-off for work experience.
A cashier, a bartender, a seamstress, a cop, a firefighter, a teacher, et al., do not need the work experience and do not need to live 121 miles away each way.
If you do not work on solving the issue, you effectively create a gated community—something that works when it is not the whole city/area.
The problem with employers/philanthropists helping is that it is exclusionary. The employer may need X position, and it is in their best interest to have it filled, but there are other positions open from other employers that are not.
Santa Barbara has the highest number of subsidized tax exempt housing units per capita in the United States! How much is enough? Where to live remains a choice except for those in the military.
To your point DB: Housing was created and rejected by teachers and local firefighters— who are presently compensated between $110,000 to $350,000 a year up to over $600K for brass. The offered housing was not to their liking. For local compensation date: Check out CaliforniaTransparent.com.
Engineers at Raytheon and elsewhere know math. They make a choice to live here. Military personnel at Space Force Lompoc have no choice. Let’s focus on them! They are our collective responsibility.
Barbers, salon workers, cashiers, cooks, etc, continue to reside here in various residency situations acceptable to them. Otherwise, they’d relocate.
Again, private sector employers provide housing, or a supplemental stipend, to those deemed essential.
Taxpayers provide government housing via multiple NPOs and GPOs. SB has an existing disproportionate number of tax exempt, below market rate housing.
This is the one and only conundrum the "affordability freaks" cannot and do not address: the working force that is required to keep the wealthy comfortable, providing the necessary services.
There is demand for housing. If we believe in private property rights then it doesn’t matter whether we think people “deserve” to have affordable housing or not. Property owners should have the right to build housing and landlords to rent out housing at a market price jn response to demand.
I'd like to reply to your great comment,and I'd add one of my favorite songs which I've mentioned below" God Bless the Child". IMHO it encapsulates the attitude of Santa Barbara. We have well educated middle class people employed at Raytheon and UCSB who must commute from Ventura and other places because they can't afford a home or even rent. I'm not talking about the laborers who mow our yards,work in hotels etc. "Affordable housing" is a joke,only a fraction of the apartments or development is " affordable" for anyone. Unfortunately the whole state is that way. So go and listen to that song,listen to the lyrics and you'll understand what I'm saying. Sure people want to live here,but if you want to exclude anyone who's not " like" you( status and wealth), you better be ready for some push back. Maybe even walk a mile in their shoes.
For sure, desirable places spike demand and squeeze supply as so prices go up. There is a good argument for more housing and even if it's luxury housing it puts downward pressure on all housing. We just need more. It's not just an SB problem it's a whole country problem. Granted if you can't afford to live here then don't, but imagine if every person who made less than $100k a year just left because they can't afford it anymore, the town would crumble. Lots of service people already commute from other cities. Besides younger generations just don't have the wealth. So sure your crummy three-bedroom one-bath house building 19 is "worth" $2.2M but in 15 years when most of the boomers are gone and you're trying to sell to a millennial who only has $500K. Well, I guess how much your home is now?
My 121-Mike commute atypical but it eventually landed me a 39 mile commute job. My mom was a seamstress who commuted 33 miles each way in L.A., after a shorter multi-bus transfer commute working in sweat shops for 13 years. People make work choices. Don’t work here if it is an unbearable struggle. What’s your life plan?
I know I need to relocate as costs from taxation and inflation soar; or find paid work sufficient to pay expenses. I’ve a choice as a free American.
Great article! It’s sad that it only takes a few people to destroy a town. Born and raised in Santa Barbara. I continue to hear story after story of the painful process to build and open businesses in this town. It takes over a year to open a business here all while paying rent while waiting for the city to approve plans at snail speed. These “leaders” are the problem and why our community is crumbling!
Thank you Don, for exposing the ongoing confidence game the local liberal left has been playing on the rest of us for years. I just read today that Hawaii is enacting the nation’s first environmental greenhouse tax, designed to “save” the environment from the rest of us. When will the madness stop? The left industrial complex has injected “climate change,” equity, diversity, race, even sexual orientation into virtually every aspect of society, to include housing.
Your article has some eerie similarities to a radio broadcast given in 1965, some 60 years ago, by the legendary Paul Harvey “If I were the Devil.” One phrase caught my eye and is germane to this discussion: “If I were the devil I’d take from those that have and give to those who want until I killed the incentive of the ambitious.”
Mr. Harvey was right then and right now and so are you.
I can just hear the collective gasps from Democrats reading your post. Paul Harvey,how dare you bring his common sense into the conversation . Thanks for reminding me of that channel on YouTube. He was the predecessor of Charlie Kirk. I imagine if he were living today, he'd be cancelled.
Hi Don, great piece, hope I’ll be reading more of you on SB Current. We are dealing with con artists and idiots who believe their lies. How can you tell a con artist? They’re always telling you how much they want to do for you. When I was growing up here in the sixties the people you had to watch out for were the Republicans because they had little concern for the environment and they unabashedly wanted to exploit Santa Barbara. At least these Republicans were dumb enough to show their hand. The Democrats have far more greed in their agendas, but they’ve learned how to manipulate through pretending to be the caring party of the people and the environment. Santa Barbarans are here to feel good. Unfortunately that goes beyond living in a beautiful city. They want to feel good about themselves. That they are “good” people. Not like those Republicans of yore! And finally feeling good about themselves overwhelms their common sense about preserving the beauty and community of Santa Barbara that initially attracted them here. Which makes them ripe for Democrat con lines like “affordable” housing. You don’t want to be like the Republicans and not care about the affordable housing the Democrats are offering, do you? Yeah, actually I do, sucker.
Thanks, Don. As one who recently ran the multi-year, $300k gauntlet to entitle a much-needed multifamily project , I can add one more impediment to your list that is used to prevent/deter/discourage new investment here: capricious NIMBY lawsuits against the City which--wait for it--the APPLICANT has to pay to defend. That's right, the City requires project applicants to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any liability or claims pertaining to ITS approval process, should an approval be challenged by lawsuit, no matter how frivolous or unfounded the complaint. Add another $50-100k in applicant expense to even get such a case dismissed. This, and many other risks like the ones you identified, is why capital--and people willing to deploy it--will continue to flow away from SB.
Why is it wrong to protect one’s investment and lifestyle?
Live where you can afford to and don’t expect anyone to appreciate your damage to those already established.
People will pay more to get the services they want. As in Beverly Hills, Hancock Park, Rancho Mirage. Service people there make incomes that don’t require taxpayer subsidies.
Our council majority care not that they are degrading a once renowned city. They’re concerned about their political future.
NIMBY law suits tend to be frivolous. The classic was the NIMBY suit against the Getty Villa project in Malibu. The Appellate court found the suit so frivolous it made the NIMBies pay all legal fees.
You probably do not realize that indemnification clauses exist in Florida and Texas as well. Amazing how they are building so many houses still . . . Oh, wait, it is because they have a LOT of undeveloped land.
Now, granted, in CA, not just SB, but in CA, it is a tighter version than in Florida and Texas, but not that much different.
If those STATES can keep building . . . well . . . I don't need to fill in the rest.
If you are talking about Houston, their zoning is different than other places in Texas. Houston basically has no zoning. If you want a chemical plant next to your school, which is next to the strip club, which is next to the church, then yeah, Houston is your place.
Heck, if you want to get into zoning, why not discuss Louisiana, where they have tons of issues with zoning and chemical plants?
This a great article about the condition of housing in Santa Barbara. I would like to add regulations and laws passed by Gavin Newsom. Specifically concerning the housing shortage and the forcing of ADU 's,and affordable housing on every city and county in the state. Housing that's proposed behind the Mission,the housing proposal of the shopping mall. All with no concern for anything,overruling any city planning. And yes being a Democrat he sells it just like you've mentioned to the people of Santa Barbara. They swallow it whole. The same could be said for other things. You should do another article," if I wanted to destroy Santa Barbara County, I would....",, and go further another article about destroying the state of California. Your article should be in every newspaper in the county ( there's not too many). And it should be posted right before every election. Unfortunately the people who need to read will ignore ,and the politicians will lie and call it every name they can while using fear mongering to defend their view. This what happens when one political party controls government,and has controlled it for generations.
It's the truth ,that Gavin signed those laws passed by the Democratic legislators. And you can't deny that there's been a majority of one party,Democrats for at least 25 years. With no chance of discussion of a compromise on anything. Now you have Prop 50 that will solidify that majority. And just so you know, I don't fully support Republicans either. I will say that politicians are in the game for themselves in most not all cases. Santa Barbara has a tunnel vision problem,and has had that problem for the thirty years I've lived here. Also it has a false memory of what used to be that denies what has happened,and a denial clouded by hypocrisy and wealth. It reminds me of the song "God Bless The Child" by Billie Holiday. Prove me wrong if you want.
Many decades ago my mentor told me that land acquisition was the way to wealth. He advised me to create a system of passive income to support me in elder years. I did manage to buy and pay off my own home, but I couldn't bring myself to follow the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" method of leveraging that home into income properties. Mostly because I didn't want to deal with risk. Or tenants.
I once went to the Garden Street Planning Department and read the file on the house I'd bought. An interesting history of inspections, fines, neighbor complaints, camper vans lived in in the driveway, people camping in tents in the yard, and an illegal childcare facility. The old lady who owned it did whatever she could to survive, and many people ratted her out.
Then, at the back of the file, was an interesting document that said in "Westwood Oaks" (now Alta Mesa) no person of color could own a home, nor could any property be rented out. All must be owner-occupied by White people.
How times change.
Grok describes the neighborhood as "It's a low-density, car-dependent residential area with home prices typically in the high $1M–$2M range, close to amenities on the Mesa." But the new laws passed for the State encourage adding rental housing, increased density without adding off-street parking, and of course street flow interruptions that cause automobile aggravation while supposedly encouraging bicycle use.
I'm deeply grateful to own my own home, to not be caught up in the politics of the adversarial tenant-landlord relationship. The places I rented when I first came here had what I considered fair rent and benevolent landlords, and I certainly left my campsite cleaner than I found it by planting extensive gardens and treating the properties as if they were my own. I never felt entitled to more, I worked and saved and moved up.
"Let us toast to animal pleasures, to escapism, to rain on the roof and instant coffee, to unemployment insurance and library cards, to absinthe and good-hearted landlords, to music and warm bodies and contraceptives... and to the "good life", whatever it is and wherever it happens to be." — Hunter S. Thompson
Please add a most potent element: extreme zoning bias against moderate income housing. The City of Santa Barbara's general plan strongly recommends an average unit size of 600 sqft for projects in the downtown core. But the actual zoning makes such projects financially ludicrous.
The problem lies with the voters,who the majority of vote for one political party,and you know what party that is. What needs to happen is DOGE of the city and county government. Then maybe Santa Barbara and the county can live with in it's means.
Texas has been used as something of a homeowners and business paradise. As a native of San Antonio, I can attest to the ongoing growing pains. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses have come online recently, causing massive traffic, leading to double decker freeways and long commutes. Property taxes of 3-4% are not uncommon. The Edwards Aquifer, which supplies San Antonio and the surrounding areas with water is drying up as urban sprawl continues and has many moving to other less crowded, congested areas.
We admittedly have something special here. This could easily turn into Orange County if we (the voters) allow it. We need manageable, reasonable growth with emphasis given to outlying areas. New cities are needed where open space is abundant. Sleepy towns such as Buellton, Los Alamos, Orcutt, Lompoc and Guadalupe need to take up the slack with new housing starts where land cost are a fraction of that near the coast.
There is NO inalienable right to live in Santa Barbara, period!
Smart workers seek ownership and will buy homes in Orcutt, Buellton, Lompoc, and cities yet created. Take a look at South Florida! New cities created within 20-30 miles of pricey Naples. Fabulous homes with golf and country club style amenities start at $250,000.
Flawless summary but the city council members who read this would just laugh, shake their heads, and push on. This is going to get much worse. I know several who are considering 1031 exchanges out of this area and who will put their investments time and effort elsewhere. And as you point out the city council will scratch their heads, wonder what went wrong, then pat themselves on the back and pass more of the same to ‘fix’ the problem they created.
Write an article on the Quality Inn affordable housing project. It would be interesting to know the politics on this one and the timing? Did it get fast tracked. Who’s making the money behind the scenes?
Also, where was the $4M ‘discovered’ for City to buy Cacique Street near Milpas homeless shelter. Moreover, how can Council override a City Charter ownership restriction without a vote of City voters? The result: more homeless living on the 101 underpasses, no enforcement, danger risks increased for Eastside residents. Shame on every Council member.
Great article and great comments. It would be very helpful if every single commentator sent their thoughts to the city council. Also attend next meeting re rent control and stabilization.
I think we should demand no new bureaucracy to deal with rental registration. Link city administrators salary increases to rent increase limit.
Also, city and county should subsidize and incentivize Clean Air Express and MTD passes and encourage more housing construction around the county.
Good piece about the “affordable housing” con. Can I add an extra twist? Namely how preposterous (and devious) the idea that Santa Barbara — a ritzy California beach city — should be affordable. It’s as preposterous as arguing that Park Ave or Palm Beach should be affordable. These are innately desirable places, as well as innately limited — and limited and desirable always mean “relatively expensive.” It’s just a fact of life. Anyone with any sense (let alone experience of real estate) knows that you could double the amount of housing available in SB (or on Park Ave, or in Palm Beach) and it would barely budge the local prices. It’d certainly have a big impact on the vibe and quality of life, but it wouldn’t impact the prices much, if at all, because these places are just so damn desirable.
“Why would anyone pretend otherwise?” is a good question. My hunch is that that there are two groups: the devious, power-driven political people who are driving the “affordable housing” con/crusade, and the envious, dreamy, know-nothing sheep who are addicted to letting their emotions be played by the cynics. “OMG! It’s just so unfair that some people get to live in a nicer place than I can afford! It’s not just unfair, it’s unjust!!! So you owe it to me to help with my rent!”
Fwiw, in addition to the sensible folks here, a good writer to follow is Joel Kotkin. He hates Trump but he’s very reasonable on housing, as well as very knowledgeable about California. One of his main themes recently has been: Why is the “affordable housing” team forever trying to cram more people into already-established towns and neighborhoods? (Answer: class hatred, envy …) It isn’t going to create much new housing. And, given that most Americans prefer single family homes, if indeed tons of new housing is needed, why not continue doing what Americans have been doing for more than half a century and expand outwards? He points the practical virtues of sprawl.
Agree with all the above. Affordability had a reality quotient when I was in my twenties. Nearly all my Santa Barbara friends in high school and City College had to move away. They couldn’t afford to live here and there weren’t jobs. The only ones who stayed were from farm families or businesses here. Otherwise, you had to leave. Some are back here now in retirement. I went to where I could afford to live and have a future as a writer, LA and NYC, where for the first ten years of my adult life I lived in shitty apartments in so-so neighborhoods, with neighbors like the downstairs drug dealer in LA who blew up the garage while trying to turn her odometer back. And we often had incompetent landlords. (The landlord who rented to the drug dealer petty criminal was an actor whose big role was playing the Water and Power corpse in the film Chinatown.) But it was affordable.
And this makes perfect sense if you can disconnect from one reality.
Where do the workers who perform the services live?
In essence, the government serves a purpose to provide services that citizens demand. Now, businesses serve a purpose to provide services that citizens demand and make a profit.
With those two as the basis of reality, where do those workers live? Where do cops and firefighters live? Where do doctors and nurses live? Where does the waiter at Joe's live? Where does the bartender at Harry's live? Where do teachers live? Where do babysitters live?
To me, this is the crux of the issue. You obviously have people with different levels of wealth, but at the end of the day, you need a community where the people who mow the lawn can live (within reason) in the area. Because at a certain point in time, they will offer their services to someone who is closer. Sometimes, at a lower price to avoid the loss of personal time. I know because I am that example! A long time ago . . . I was offered a job a few blocks from the Moscone Center. The pay was excellent. I did not want to raise my family in a concrete jungle. I could live in Marin County, or go south, basically starting at Palo Alto and heading south. That would take 2 hours per day for round-trip travel time. I was offered a job in Palo Alto that was 95% of the salary of the other job. Why would I waste 2 hours per day sitting on a train when I could sit in a car for 30 minutes per day round trip for 95% of the salary?
Sprawl happened, and unfortunately, it lost. Density won because of jobs.
Philanthropists offer transportation plus housing ; CITY REJECTS. Moreover, employers pay, incur the cost to transport necessary, desired, wanted workers. We pay to bus employees in, or provide a tax exempt monthly auto allowance, or a company car. Otherwise, the employer provides housing for desired, essential employees.
Not everyone lives where they work. People make choices. I lived here, while working in Long Beach 121 miles each way to gain valuable work experience. My employer provided me a car.
I agree that not everyone lives where they work. However, it is not sustainable to keep workers, as you state, living 121 miles each way from their work. As you even mentioned, it was a trade-off for work experience.
A cashier, a bartender, a seamstress, a cop, a firefighter, a teacher, et al., do not need the work experience and do not need to live 121 miles away each way.
If you do not work on solving the issue, you effectively create a gated community—something that works when it is not the whole city/area.
The problem with employers/philanthropists helping is that it is exclusionary. The employer may need X position, and it is in their best interest to have it filled, but there are other positions open from other employers that are not.
Santa Barbara has the highest number of subsidized tax exempt housing units per capita in the United States! How much is enough? Where to live remains a choice except for those in the military.
To your point DB: Housing was created and rejected by teachers and local firefighters— who are presently compensated between $110,000 to $350,000 a year up to over $600K for brass. The offered housing was not to their liking. For local compensation date: Check out CaliforniaTransparent.com.
Engineers at Raytheon and elsewhere know math. They make a choice to live here. Military personnel at Space Force Lompoc have no choice. Let’s focus on them! They are our collective responsibility.
Barbers, salon workers, cashiers, cooks, etc, continue to reside here in various residency situations acceptable to them. Otherwise, they’d relocate.
Again, private sector employers provide housing, or a supplemental stipend, to those deemed essential.
Taxpayers provide government housing via multiple NPOs and GPOs. SB has an existing disproportionate number of tax exempt, below market rate housing.
This is the one and only conundrum the "affordability freaks" cannot and do not address: the working force that is required to keep the wealthy comfortable, providing the necessary services.
There is demand for housing. If we believe in private property rights then it doesn’t matter whether we think people “deserve” to have affordable housing or not. Property owners should have the right to build housing and landlords to rent out housing at a market price jn response to demand.
I'd like to reply to your great comment,and I'd add one of my favorite songs which I've mentioned below" God Bless the Child". IMHO it encapsulates the attitude of Santa Barbara. We have well educated middle class people employed at Raytheon and UCSB who must commute from Ventura and other places because they can't afford a home or even rent. I'm not talking about the laborers who mow our yards,work in hotels etc. "Affordable housing" is a joke,only a fraction of the apartments or development is " affordable" for anyone. Unfortunately the whole state is that way. So go and listen to that song,listen to the lyrics and you'll understand what I'm saying. Sure people want to live here,but if you want to exclude anyone who's not " like" you( status and wealth), you better be ready for some push back. Maybe even walk a mile in their shoes.
Been in those shoes.
Me too.
For sure, desirable places spike demand and squeeze supply as so prices go up. There is a good argument for more housing and even if it's luxury housing it puts downward pressure on all housing. We just need more. It's not just an SB problem it's a whole country problem. Granted if you can't afford to live here then don't, but imagine if every person who made less than $100k a year just left because they can't afford it anymore, the town would crumble. Lots of service people already commute from other cities. Besides younger generations just don't have the wealth. So sure your crummy three-bedroom one-bath house building 19 is "worth" $2.2M but in 15 years when most of the boomers are gone and you're trying to sell to a millennial who only has $500K. Well, I guess how much your home is now?
My 121-Mike commute atypical but it eventually landed me a 39 mile commute job. My mom was a seamstress who commuted 33 miles each way in L.A., after a shorter multi-bus transfer commute working in sweat shops for 13 years. People make work choices. Don’t work here if it is an unbearable struggle. What’s your life plan?
I know I need to relocate as costs from taxation and inflation soar; or find paid work sufficient to pay expenses. I’ve a choice as a free American.
Great article! It’s sad that it only takes a few people to destroy a town. Born and raised in Santa Barbara. I continue to hear story after story of the painful process to build and open businesses in this town. It takes over a year to open a business here all while paying rent while waiting for the city to approve plans at snail speed. These “leaders” are the problem and why our community is crumbling!
Thank you Don, for exposing the ongoing confidence game the local liberal left has been playing on the rest of us for years. I just read today that Hawaii is enacting the nation’s first environmental greenhouse tax, designed to “save” the environment from the rest of us. When will the madness stop? The left industrial complex has injected “climate change,” equity, diversity, race, even sexual orientation into virtually every aspect of society, to include housing.
Your article has some eerie similarities to a radio broadcast given in 1965, some 60 years ago, by the legendary Paul Harvey “If I were the Devil.” One phrase caught my eye and is germane to this discussion: “If I were the devil I’d take from those that have and give to those who want until I killed the incentive of the ambitious.”
Mr. Harvey was right then and right now and so are you.
https://youtu.be/vdAPvzXFZI4?si=I-A251vKmbLn5Yh9
I can just hear the collective gasps from Democrats reading your post. Paul Harvey,how dare you bring his common sense into the conversation . Thanks for reminding me of that channel on YouTube. He was the predecessor of Charlie Kirk. I imagine if he were living today, he'd be cancelled.
Hi Don, great piece, hope I’ll be reading more of you on SB Current. We are dealing with con artists and idiots who believe their lies. How can you tell a con artist? They’re always telling you how much they want to do for you. When I was growing up here in the sixties the people you had to watch out for were the Republicans because they had little concern for the environment and they unabashedly wanted to exploit Santa Barbara. At least these Republicans were dumb enough to show their hand. The Democrats have far more greed in their agendas, but they’ve learned how to manipulate through pretending to be the caring party of the people and the environment. Santa Barbarans are here to feel good. Unfortunately that goes beyond living in a beautiful city. They want to feel good about themselves. That they are “good” people. Not like those Republicans of yore! And finally feeling good about themselves overwhelms their common sense about preserving the beauty and community of Santa Barbara that initially attracted them here. Which makes them ripe for Democrat con lines like “affordable” housing. You don’t want to be like the Republicans and not care about the affordable housing the Democrats are offering, do you? Yeah, actually I do, sucker.
Thanks, Don. As one who recently ran the multi-year, $300k gauntlet to entitle a much-needed multifamily project , I can add one more impediment to your list that is used to prevent/deter/discourage new investment here: capricious NIMBY lawsuits against the City which--wait for it--the APPLICANT has to pay to defend. That's right, the City requires project applicants to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any liability or claims pertaining to ITS approval process, should an approval be challenged by lawsuit, no matter how frivolous or unfounded the complaint. Add another $50-100k in applicant expense to even get such a case dismissed. This, and many other risks like the ones you identified, is why capital--and people willing to deploy it--will continue to flow away from SB.
NIMBY?
Why is it wrong to protect one’s investment and lifestyle?
Live where you can afford to and don’t expect anyone to appreciate your damage to those already established.
People will pay more to get the services they want. As in Beverly Hills, Hancock Park, Rancho Mirage. Service people there make incomes that don’t require taxpayer subsidies.
Our council majority care not that they are degrading a once renowned city. They’re concerned about their political future.
FIVE STARS MICHAEL !!!
NIMBY law suits tend to be frivolous. The classic was the NIMBY suit against the Getty Villa project in Malibu. The Appellate court found the suit so frivolous it made the NIMBies pay all legal fees.
You probably do not realize that indemnification clauses exist in Florida and Texas as well. Amazing how they are building so many houses still . . . Oh, wait, it is because they have a LOT of undeveloped land.
Now, granted, in CA, not just SB, but in CA, it is a tighter version than in Florida and Texas, but not that much different.
If those STATES can keep building . . . well . . . I don't need to fill in the rest.
I spend my time in CA and Texas. It’s not “a lot of undeveloped land” that makes TX more efficient. It’s the zoning.
If you are talking about Houston, their zoning is different than other places in Texas. Houston basically has no zoning. If you want a chemical plant next to your school, which is next to the strip club, which is next to the church, then yeah, Houston is your place.
Heck, if you want to get into zoning, why not discuss Louisiana, where they have tons of issues with zoning and chemical plants?
I love Texas - Americans live there.
Amazing, Americans live in America.
You'd be surprised at how many things I do not realize, David. Thank you for the education.
Please...fill in the rest..albeit w/o the snark.
Having lived in both TX & LA, and choosing to return to coastal CA with its bug-free, fabulous weather: Yes, DB, please fill in the blanks.
Atta girl, Pol.
This a great article about the condition of housing in Santa Barbara. I would like to add regulations and laws passed by Gavin Newsom. Specifically concerning the housing shortage and the forcing of ADU 's,and affordable housing on every city and county in the state. Housing that's proposed behind the Mission,the housing proposal of the shopping mall. All with no concern for anything,overruling any city planning. And yes being a Democrat he sells it just like you've mentioned to the people of Santa Barbara. They swallow it whole. The same could be said for other things. You should do another article," if I wanted to destroy Santa Barbara County, I would....",, and go further another article about destroying the state of California. Your article should be in every newspaper in the county ( there's not too many). And it should be posted right before every election. Unfortunately the people who need to read will ignore ,and the politicians will lie and call it every name they can while using fear mongering to defend their view. This what happens when one political party controls government,and has controlled it for generations.
It's the truth ,that Gavin signed those laws passed by the Democratic legislators. And you can't deny that there's been a majority of one party,Democrats for at least 25 years. With no chance of discussion of a compromise on anything. Now you have Prop 50 that will solidify that majority. And just so you know, I don't fully support Republicans either. I will say that politicians are in the game for themselves in most not all cases. Santa Barbara has a tunnel vision problem,and has had that problem for the thirty years I've lived here. Also it has a false memory of what used to be that denies what has happened,and a denial clouded by hypocrisy and wealth. It reminds me of the song "God Bless The Child" by Billie Holiday. Prove me wrong if you want.
Many decades ago my mentor told me that land acquisition was the way to wealth. He advised me to create a system of passive income to support me in elder years. I did manage to buy and pay off my own home, but I couldn't bring myself to follow the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" method of leveraging that home into income properties. Mostly because I didn't want to deal with risk. Or tenants.
I once went to the Garden Street Planning Department and read the file on the house I'd bought. An interesting history of inspections, fines, neighbor complaints, camper vans lived in in the driveway, people camping in tents in the yard, and an illegal childcare facility. The old lady who owned it did whatever she could to survive, and many people ratted her out.
Then, at the back of the file, was an interesting document that said in "Westwood Oaks" (now Alta Mesa) no person of color could own a home, nor could any property be rented out. All must be owner-occupied by White people.
How times change.
Grok describes the neighborhood as "It's a low-density, car-dependent residential area with home prices typically in the high $1M–$2M range, close to amenities on the Mesa." But the new laws passed for the State encourage adding rental housing, increased density without adding off-street parking, and of course street flow interruptions that cause automobile aggravation while supposedly encouraging bicycle use.
I'm deeply grateful to own my own home, to not be caught up in the politics of the adversarial tenant-landlord relationship. The places I rented when I first came here had what I considered fair rent and benevolent landlords, and I certainly left my campsite cleaner than I found it by planting extensive gardens and treating the properties as if they were my own. I never felt entitled to more, I worked and saved and moved up.
"Let us toast to animal pleasures, to escapism, to rain on the roof and instant coffee, to unemployment insurance and library cards, to absinthe and good-hearted landlords, to music and warm bodies and contraceptives... and to the "good life", whatever it is and wherever it happens to be." — Hunter S. Thompson
EVERYTHING you said it’s true. If only we could get the uninformed public to listen and THINK about what it all means.
Please add a most potent element: extreme zoning bias against moderate income housing. The City of Santa Barbara's general plan strongly recommends an average unit size of 600 sqft for projects in the downtown core. But the actual zoning makes such projects financially ludicrous.
The problem lies with the voters,who the majority of vote for one political party,and you know what party that is. What needs to happen is DOGE of the city and county government. Then maybe Santa Barbara and the county can live with in it's means.
Texas has been used as something of a homeowners and business paradise. As a native of San Antonio, I can attest to the ongoing growing pains. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses have come online recently, causing massive traffic, leading to double decker freeways and long commutes. Property taxes of 3-4% are not uncommon. The Edwards Aquifer, which supplies San Antonio and the surrounding areas with water is drying up as urban sprawl continues and has many moving to other less crowded, congested areas.
We admittedly have something special here. This could easily turn into Orange County if we (the voters) allow it. We need manageable, reasonable growth with emphasis given to outlying areas. New cities are needed where open space is abundant. Sleepy towns such as Buellton, Los Alamos, Orcutt, Lompoc and Guadalupe need to take up the slack with new housing starts where land cost are a fraction of that near the coast.
There is NO inalienable right to live in Santa Barbara, period!
How do you compel developers to build where the demand does not exist?
Smart workers seek ownership and will buy homes in Orcutt, Buellton, Lompoc, and cities yet created. Take a look at South Florida! New cities created within 20-30 miles of pricey Naples. Fabulous homes with golf and country club style amenities start at $250,000.
The Santa Barbara Quality Inn hotel was approved for converting to affordable housing. Drumroll….18 million for 32 one room units. Seriously wrong.
Flawless summary but the city council members who read this would just laugh, shake their heads, and push on. This is going to get much worse. I know several who are considering 1031 exchanges out of this area and who will put their investments time and effort elsewhere. And as you point out the city council will scratch their heads, wonder what went wrong, then pat themselves on the back and pass more of the same to ‘fix’ the problem they created.
Write an article on the Quality Inn affordable housing project. It would be interesting to know the politics on this one and the timing? Did it get fast tracked. Who’s making the money behind the scenes?
Also, where was the $4M ‘discovered’ for City to buy Cacique Street near Milpas homeless shelter. Moreover, how can Council override a City Charter ownership restriction without a vote of City voters? The result: more homeless living on the 101 underpasses, no enforcement, danger risks increased for Eastside residents. Shame on every Council member.
Thanks Don for an important summary that suggests an appropriate theme song for SB is the Taylor Swift's song "Death by a Thousand Cuts."
Certainly sounds like whats happening !!
Excellent summary of what is going on right now with the Council.
Great article and great comments. It would be very helpful if every single commentator sent their thoughts to the city council. Also attend next meeting re rent control and stabilization.
I think we should demand no new bureaucracy to deal with rental registration. Link city administrators salary increases to rent increase limit.
Also, city and county should subsidize and incentivize Clean Air Express and MTD passes and encourage more housing construction around the county.
Santa Barbara has never been affordable.