Brian- This is a succinct summary of the argument against rent control. I do not have any confidence that our progressive council, supervisors or state legislatures will accept your cogent argument. I have sold my California rental property and reinvested in red states where the landlord tenant laws are reasonably fair.
The foundation of a free society is property rights. Rent control is an usurpation of property. It is theft; it is foolish and dishonest to think otherwise.
You do not understand the words you write. By definition, a free society would not have property ownership. You know . . . that whole FREE word that you attached to society.
He and everyone who reads those words understands exactly what he wrote.
You on the other hand have chosen to redefine them and distort his point with 1st grade nonsense.
You will own nothing and be happy ain't reality bud. And if it were, you would not be free (and you definitely would not be living in SB). Move along with your disingenuous word games.
Or better yet, post your ideas on how to better society.
As someone who owns property in San Francisco, I can tell you firsthand that rent control is not the solution. It ultimately punishes property owners to the point where maintaining profitability becomes nearly impossible.
When you combine rent control with ever-increasing city and state taxes, along with layers of regulations and requirements, it creates a burdensome environment for landlords. And through it all, we’re still responsible for maintaining and repairing the property — often without the revenue needed to do so sustainably.
Thanks again for bringing attention to this important issue.
Thank you for this article. I've stopped renting out my studio apartment here in SB due to unfair "tenant rights" laws. The risks are just too high. I forego the income because the risk of loss is greater from unscrupulous tenants. I've already been subject to this, tenants that won't pay and won't move out. Law enforcement response to a non-paying tenant was that I should steer clear of them and "hope" that they move out eventually. What about property rights? Landlords provide a service and deserve to be fairly compensated for that. Let the market dictate the appropriate prices. Rent control leads to run-down rental properties and more scarcity.
This is exactly the sentiment I was detailing in another post here. That is how property owners need to voice their opinions choose to not rent or choose to not rent to higher risk tenants.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe one of our city council members and biggest drum beater for rent control is a long term resentful renter.
I was sorry to see Alejandra Gutierrez had to step away from her seat on the council: ‘Rent Control is not the solution’. And as an aside, I really dislike these district elections forced on us, much preferring the At Large elections.
This is a reason many of us have units available, or rooms in our homes, but will no longer rent them out... Of course, this adds to the housing shortage.
Excellent letter. I contacted one council member, and the attitude was pretty much 'you rich property owners can stick it'. They are pandering for votes, and they know there are more voters who are renters than property owners. I expect them to act accordingly and ignore all the excellent points in your letter. I used to allow my renters NO RENT INCREASE year after year if they were good tenants. However now due to rent control guidelines and restrictions I raise my rent EVERY YEAR so as not to get penalized years later if a low rent tenant moves out and I need to adjust to current market rates. This is the exact opposite of what they intended. What other business, and being a housing provider is a business, has the city tell them how much profit they can make? Why doesn't the city apply the same rules to themselves, i.e. cap your income while allowing all your expenses to grow unbridled, including city water and trash, and property taxes? This selective application of limiting profits while allowing expenses to soar should be illegal, I am surprised housing providers have not filed a class action lawsuit of some sort, perhaps they will.
Raising rents annually using these now mandated limits, may be the only factor that will open up new housing vacancies so others coming here do not find the no vacancy "crisis" they keep talking about.
The vacancy crisis is only exacerbated when renters feel have locked in a good deal, and regulations made it too onerous for the property owner to ever terminate the contract. This leads eventually to zero property turnover, and closes the door for anyone new to come here.
Except for seniors-only rental properties, when turnover is built into the system with the help of the long arm of God.
Converting the choice to be a renter into a defacto perpetual right to someone else's property by legislative mandate is a fundamental abomination and an unconstitutional "taking" by operation of government.
There is no housing crisis. That is an artificial label imposed by out of touch legislators and unelected polity makers, in order to cram though politically appealing demands for their own favored voting blocks. And suspiciously punish those they chronically deem to be their enemies in the first place.
The role of short-term rentals, many operating off the books, must also be included for its impacts on local housing availability.
Additionally, the virtual failure of any vacancy turn-overs in this area is another huge factor that impacts availability and needs to be factored into any analysis of this alleged housing "crisis".
Once here, few want to leave. One cannot measure housing policy by normal standards for this area. It is unique and shall remain unique. Until enough irresponsible politicians finally ruin it for everyone forever. Demand rent control, keep the prices fixed, make rental contract termination prohibitive, and even fewer will ever chose to leave and create normal vacancy turn-over rates.
Picture an escalator going up to an enclosed space, and a conveyor belt dumping endless numbers of persons at the bottom of the escalator who decide they want to only live in Santa Barbara and never want to leave once they get here. That is not a crisis; that is a reality check for disaster.
Two choices:(1) the door is closed or (2) the door is endlessly kept open. At some point the NO VACANCY sign must be posted for all to see and accept. Throw out the bums in Sacramento who keep imposing one size fits all mandates from the top down, and we destroy ourselves just so they can pander for votes for their own reelections. This build, build, build, according to some "state" imposed mandate, is insane. There are limits to all human activity.
The state for our local purpose are those we elect: Monique Limon and Gregg Hart. Keep voting for them, or their machine endorsed replacements, and there can be no sympathy for the outcomes of their over-development demands made on our local community.
There is no middle ground between Limon and Hart's support for open borders, and ruinous housing demands placed on our unique local community. Hart and Limon DO NOT represent us as small unique community in need of special protections. Who in fact do they represent?
Hart & Limone represent those who want and get an envisioned lifestyle paid for in part by others. If we don’t end the CA ‘tax to gift money faucet’, re-distribution to those who “want, demand, and get”, we eventually will lose our middle and professional classes in Santa Barbara. The year is coming when only the government employed and tax supported or subsidized (County, Cities, UCSB, SBCC, Cottage, Raytheon, etc) will reside here with the 1%.
Right you are Monte, SB is already a “company town,” much like West Virginia and the coal mining cities of long ago. Yes, SB is tied to the huge NFP’s, NGO’s all paying ZERO in local taxes and with massive support of the minions of SEIU and other public unions. All while members giving cover to those elected officials which tow the line.
The immigrants should be called illegals, not anything else. We need to call them what they are, not undocumented, not immigrants, not poor people or other adjectives.
You nailed it Brian. Some 60,000 housed in South County who either are not contributing economically (students). Plus, an estimated 14,000 or more residing unlawfully in Santa Barbara. Added to this problematic reality are 4 City Council Reps who fail to accept Council is not suppose to be in the real estate business. I bet none of these four has read the City Charter!
First, Council votes 4-3 to shift the cost burden onto ALL property owners paying property taxes — not just landlords— by building more and more PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT housing via the Housing Authority and other non profits; 2) diverting to housing construction, city tax revenues intended to maintain infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, trash, etc), and essential services (police, fire, safety inspections). Sneddon wants $5M more!
SOLUTIONS to consider: every student enrolling who did not graduate from any SB County based high school must pay the Cities of their residences $1000 cost sharing for these essential municipal services prior to being allowed to enroll for classes (other cities do this); 2) end City’s participation in the residential real estate new construction business beyond enforcement of compliance with housing safety and building regulations; 3) stop giving away land we the public own and our publicly owned streets to solidify the overly ambitious political careers of wanna be social worker representatives like dangerous Kristen Sneddon, Oscar Gutierrez, Wendy Santa Maria, and Meagan Harmon; 4) property taxpayers unite to push back. Organize if you own your housing!
Remember school bonds can now be passed to build more housing, too. Your property tax burden is endless as a property owner.
Thank you for naming the names of those who are doing this to us in the city of Santa Barbara: Wendy Santa Maria; Meghan Harmon; Kristen Sneddon; Oscar Gutierrez.
This is what district elections, population-based voting districts and ballot-harvesting looks like today. Term limits do not protect us from bad judgement; the local machine just replaces them with even more extreme partisan ideologues.
Just look at the evolution of District One (Eastside) from the independent Jason Dominguez, to moderate Alessandra Gutierrez, to now radical, former SEIU operative, Wendy Santa Maria.
In a voting district that only takes a few hundred votes to capture one entire voting seat on our city council, which is now the final 4:3 voting slate majority for any and all future radical city decisions.
I completely agree with you. Either you or someone else mentioned in a comment a while back that encouraged weighted votes. If you only need 100 votes to win, you should have a very small percentage of a vote on the board. That person's voice should not carry the same weight as someone else's voice that speaks for thousands in our community.
Brian thank you for this very thoughtful and equally controversial article. I don’t see how any honest person can deny the truth of what you have shared.
I totally agree that the approach used by the city is dishonest, unfair, will create bigger problems and is not sustainable.
It is also as you have said really bad governance,
The issues about illegal immigration are complex, multi dimensional and mired down in political polarization and massive denial of the Facts about why so many illegal immigrants are in this city. For example look at the fallout from the recent immigration crackdown here.
Your article offers us yet another opportunity to come together as one community and not as adversaries for the purpose of courageous and honest dialogue between landlords, city officials, community leaders and tenants and create a model that is a win/ win situation for everyone.
I would love to help organize and co create such an event with other community members
Audrey A.W.: what could that “win/win” model possibly be? Either we — as individuals who comprise community — support private property rights giving government only safety and construction regulatory authority, or alternatively we support government control of private property. I support private ownership rights. Period. I own it, I’m fully liable. In CA, our powerful government entititied escapes liability despite construction approval and safety inspection authority. Please share what you envision as a possible “win-win”.
Say all that to certain individuals, and with one who told me Ste had no answered but ‘should be able to find an apartment for $2000.00’. She was not inarticulate, either.
Years ago, I coasted for years in LA on a rent controlled apt. Let me tell you - no one moves.
I wanted to add that one ‘working guy’ told me regarding high rents: ‘yea-sure- you got yours’ which reeks of entitlement on his part.
SB has always always been a challenge to live here. We’ve never been a build out city accept, of course, Newsom is changing all that.
Once upon a time, ( up to the early eighties) the lower east side had a robust African American community. It’s now dominated by those who unlawfully trek here from across the border. It’s a terrible disservice to blacks not just here but throughout the state. They’ve been pushed out of places like Compton. The one tragedy from the Eaton Fire is where because of redlining, many blacks moved to Altadena to make a pretty great middle - upper middle class thriving city. I lived next door for a bit in Sierra Madre Now they’ve lost their generational wealth. Where are all the bleeding hearts on this stuff?
My question is where are people going to work when these massive units in both SB and Goleta are built? Where’s the industry- outside of our Silicon Valley by the beach?
My syntax is sloppy, sorry. It’s an emotional issue.
Thank you for your sentiments Audrey,, but there is no "win-win" solution for this situation. To require a win-win solution up front is a recipe for failure. Living within limits can be the only starting point. Which means from the very beginning, there will be some winners and some losers.
I'd like to comment on the impact that City College places on available rentals, displacing lower and moderate income families for students whose parents will pay far more. Also, SBCC encroaches on UCSB, as well. How many Isla Vista residents attend our local community college? The California 2-year college was never intended to support out-of-area students. The whole point, to create a network of COMMUTER schools, close enough for students to drive to, work locally, and continue to live at home. Most of my friends from Chatsworth High attended Pierce Jr. College after our 1970 graduation. We lived at home. I'll close with one soecific example of harm done: the large apartment complex on the southwest side of Cliff and Loma Alta. The tenants were displaced in order to turn the complex into a student dormitory. Among those displaced, SBCC faculty who no longer could walk to work. Lost also, the college's focus on the needs of its local students:,academic, tech, vocational, and continuing ed. Instead, the shift to out of state and international.
Interesting article, as housing affects many facets of our society. Immigration, taxes, homelessness, local economic development all intersect with housing.
Of special note, is the number of illegal migrants in our county which equates to the size an entire city based on sheer numbers alone. This, coupled with the number of college students makes housing affordability much more challenging. The main difference between migrants and students is, students are allowed to vote and do so usually favoring uber liberal candidates who favor rent controls and massive bond issues subsidizing public housing.
Property owners in general, are already out numbered by renters by some 20% in our community and it shows at the ballot box. Just look at who occupies the SB City Council and the anti- business, pro-tenant, anti-landlord and pro-public housing policies they support, putting their thumbs on the scale of free enterprise.
Does all who want to live in SB have a right to live here and be subsidized? Of course not, development should be focused on areas more conducive to new housing based on less expensive land costs, most of which would be in North County.
Landlords need to be treated fairly and respectfully by our local authorities for being the entrepreneurs, taxpayers, job creators and risk takers they are, all while providing a community service by virtue of supplying places to live for many.
There is a common theme through the CA government that we need illegal labor to perform the jobs Americans will not do for less money. We’ve heard this from DC & news media and a local congressional candidate who supports illegal labor for agriculture.
Meanwhile it costs CA taxpayers alone nearly $31 billion a year, according to a newly-released cost analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This is one more example why our taxes are the highest in the nation.
That is not cheap labor when tax payers are subsidizing them.
44% of CA agriculture is sold outside CA.
Businesses benefit, not the CA tax payers.
It has been said we need young college age people to work the entry level jobs at a low wage. So they grew the public colleges. Consuming housing as they did.
And yet how many businesses have a hard time finding employees? Restaurants, offices, etc….
Meanwhile housing is occupied by these groups that do not ad economic value but increase the cost of housing.
Our government has created this burden and now expects others to suffer for their ineptitude. They are trying to look like the good guy by “protecting” renters. The reality is they just signed a mandatory annual rent increase for every tenant and now property owners are less likely to give a chance to certain groups, such as rent to someone with poor credit history for fear of not being able to reasonably remove them if the renter defaults or becomes a nuisance to other tenants.
Gotta love how the government creates the problems and then says they’ll fix it.
The scariest words you will ever hear, “ I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. Raegan
Student "loans" eliminated the need for many students to seek low-skill temporary and flexible hour jobs during their college years.
Our local tourism industry at one time depended on this transitory group of employees. Student "loans" dried up that supply, yet the community continued to absorb huge growths in the tourism/hospitality industry at the same time.
Count me as one among many who "worked their way through college" back in the 1960s. How many can or even need to say that today?
How many students look at college costs to then research how will I pay this cost? Data is easily available how much a graduate can expect to earn. Some universities even differentiate by major(s) of former graduates.
I’m against the ‘SBCC Promise free tuition’ tax and donor paid, no strings attached program for the same reason. SBCC Enrollment is too often a way to delay working to earn, and to access at no cost something of value. Why not limit Promise Program eligibility to those with a minimum of 60 hours a semester paid work?
How many enroll only to drop at week six attendance?
From observation, as both a parent of former students, the Promise Program can be a waste of money. SBCC Teachers get the same pay for a class of 6 or 36 students.
Back when UC tuition was free in the early-mid 1960s for in-state residents?? How much "work" was necessary to pay for that free tuition? Or were you there after 1968 when the in-state tuition was jacked up to 300 bucks a year?
College costs are nuts today compared to way over 1/2 a century ago. Waiting tables might help for City College but it's not going to put much of a dent in a full price UC cost of 40K ish per year, including room/board/tuition. S
It was back when I was getting paid $1.16 an hour. And teaching was a known and chosen ticket to a lifetime of genteel property. UC tuition was never free, nor were books, housing or meals. What changed after 1962? Oh that's right, JFK allowed government employees to unionize.
Sadly, I do not see students today get a better education for the extra money charged,than I got back in the days of educational genteel professorial impoverishment. That is the real tragedy. Plus half my real education came from "working my way through college" and paying my own bills.
“Sheriff’s detectives have arrested a Goleta man for several felony child sex crimes and are reaching out to the public to identify additional survivors and provide safety information for parents monitoring children’s social media.” AND “This is at least the third arrest in Goleta this year by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office involving alleged sex crimes against minors”
Facts for SB Currentors. The SB Sheriffs did not find or investigate these sexual abuse cases.
So who did? THE FBI who is making it THIER MISSION to CATCH and PROSECUTE
ANYONE WHO SEXUALLY ABUSES ANOTHER. See FBI Director Kash Patel below
(18) JOSH DUNLAP on X: "Kash Patel : "Harm our children, you will be given no sanctuary. There is no place we won’t hunt you down.. And there is no cage we will not put you in should you do harm to our children." https://t.co/ArDq5d25fA" / X
I call out Sheriff Brown here and now. Did your SB Sheriff Deputies Respond to a Call of Sexual Abuse and Interview the Female Victim who stated directly to the two Deputies that she was repeatedly Sexually Abused and named the Abuser? Sheriff Brown did your two Deputies then CONCEAL THE SEXUAL ABUSE, CONCEAL THE REPORT and CONCEAL THAT SEXUAL ABUSE FROM THE FAMILY? THE ANSWER IS YES YOU DID SHERIFF BROWN. WHY CONCEAL? $$$$$$$$$$$$
Director Patel “There is no place we will not hunt you down, there is no place we will not look for you” THANK GOD Someone is doing his DUTY for the thousands of Victims of Sexual Abuse.
Excellent and commonsensical article. Also appreciate that it is concise and to the point. It is time to change our governance in Santa Barbara!! Thank you. Ann.
Ten thousand illegals living in SB city alone. And how many of those are receiving section 8 and other government welfare to live in the most expensive city on the coast? Maybe a lot.
My theory says the city works with the county, to fill every available rental filled with illegals with children. Because every ‘student’ means $25k in education dollars to the education departments. With 10,000 illegals. At least one quarter are women, with at two children each. So that’s 2,500 mothers X 2 kids = 5,000 school kids x $25,000 education money to Ed district = Drum roll
$125,000,000 to the school district every year. So illegals do bring in state education money. And it all goes to the education machine.
How are you calculating that $25,000 per pupil? Are you speaking about SBUSD? My understanding is that they are a community funded/basic aid district and the majority of their funding is based on property taxes, not enrollment. More kids doesn’t equal more money, it actually means less money per pupil. Or has the status of the district changed (I know they have fluctuated status in the past)?
Thomas, you are so far off in this. You have so many false assumptions.
Let's start with breaking up your misinformed theory.
First, Section 8 is NOT available to an immigrant that does not have legal status.
Secondly, just using SB Unified, their total annual budget is 221mm. They have about 12k students. What you are saying is that almost 1/2 of them are from 'illegals' That makes no sense.
- Section 8 is available to mixed households, if one person is here legally then they all get section 8
- CAPI is a state-funded program that provides monthly cash pmts to immigrants who are not eligible for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) due to their immigration status. - There is also the GR program which also offers cash to illegals.
- CA Dream Act pays illegals attending colleges and universities
- WIC pays illegals
*
25 BILLION EACH YEAR IN CA ALONE goes to people who break our laws to come here.
Not one person here was upset in 1996 when Bill Clinton changed the law the fast track deportation. He deported 12 million.
Not one person complained when Obama used those laws to deport over 5 million
But you now complain when a Republican uses Democrat deportation methods.
David, thank you. You confirmed 44,000 illegals in SB County.
So what “crap” are you talking about?
Let’s be honest. You had no issues with Democrat presidents deporting over 17 million illegals.
You had no problems with the Democrat laws fast tracking deportation.
You now have a problem with a Republican doing what Democrats did going back to 1996.
Or do you just have a problem with the peoples choice Trump.
You might need seek to help for the TDS. It can put blinders on you to see that Democrat policy is what this President is using.
Do you need a referral to someone to help you, or help you do a google search to see what Obama & Clinton did. I did provide you links since yiu were not able to use google yourself apparently.
Please research before you comment and please don’t be so angry.
Let’s work together to fix this country and deliver it back to the foundation of the US CONSTITUTION. “We the people of the United States”
Brian- This is a succinct summary of the argument against rent control. I do not have any confidence that our progressive council, supervisors or state legislatures will accept your cogent argument. I have sold my California rental property and reinvested in red states where the landlord tenant laws are reasonably fair.
The foundation of a free society is property rights. Rent control is an usurpation of property. It is theft; it is foolish and dishonest to think otherwise.
Exactly right, Gerald Rounds! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
You do not understand the words you write. By definition, a free society would not have property ownership. You know . . . that whole FREE word that you attached to society.
He and everyone who reads those words understands exactly what he wrote.
You on the other hand have chosen to redefine them and distort his point with 1st grade nonsense.
You will own nothing and be happy ain't reality bud. And if it were, you would not be free (and you definitely would not be living in SB). Move along with your disingenuous word games.
Or better yet, post your ideas on how to better society.
https://davidbergerson.substack.com/
Sh*tposting aint't it.
Great article, Brian — I’m in complete agreement.
As someone who owns property in San Francisco, I can tell you firsthand that rent control is not the solution. It ultimately punishes property owners to the point where maintaining profitability becomes nearly impossible.
When you combine rent control with ever-increasing city and state taxes, along with layers of regulations and requirements, it creates a burdensome environment for landlords. And through it all, we’re still responsible for maintaining and repairing the property — often without the revenue needed to do so sustainably.
Thanks again for bringing attention to this important issue.
Thank you for this article. I've stopped renting out my studio apartment here in SB due to unfair "tenant rights" laws. The risks are just too high. I forego the income because the risk of loss is greater from unscrupulous tenants. I've already been subject to this, tenants that won't pay and won't move out. Law enforcement response to a non-paying tenant was that I should steer clear of them and "hope" that they move out eventually. What about property rights? Landlords provide a service and deserve to be fairly compensated for that. Let the market dictate the appropriate prices. Rent control leads to run-down rental properties and more scarcity.
This is exactly the sentiment I was detailing in another post here. That is how property owners need to voice their opinions choose to not rent or choose to not rent to higher risk tenants.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe one of our city council members and biggest drum beater for rent control is a long term resentful renter.
I was sorry to see Alejandra Gutierrez had to step away from her seat on the council: ‘Rent Control is not the solution’. And as an aside, I really dislike these district elections forced on us, much preferring the At Large elections.
Alejandra was forced out because she was meeting with property owners trying to find common ground between renters and owners.
The DNC chose to endorse another person. Then she started receiving death threats and having her car tires slashed and slander pointed about her.
She was born and raised in her neighborhood and has fine many great things there.
But a more radical voice is what the Democrat leaders wanted. And here we are.
This is a reason many of us have units available, or rooms in our homes, but will no longer rent them out... Of course, this adds to the housing shortage.
Excellent letter. I contacted one council member, and the attitude was pretty much 'you rich property owners can stick it'. They are pandering for votes, and they know there are more voters who are renters than property owners. I expect them to act accordingly and ignore all the excellent points in your letter. I used to allow my renters NO RENT INCREASE year after year if they were good tenants. However now due to rent control guidelines and restrictions I raise my rent EVERY YEAR so as not to get penalized years later if a low rent tenant moves out and I need to adjust to current market rates. This is the exact opposite of what they intended. What other business, and being a housing provider is a business, has the city tell them how much profit they can make? Why doesn't the city apply the same rules to themselves, i.e. cap your income while allowing all your expenses to grow unbridled, including city water and trash, and property taxes? This selective application of limiting profits while allowing expenses to soar should be illegal, I am surprised housing providers have not filed a class action lawsuit of some sort, perhaps they will.
Renters think these policies do not affect them financially. They are wrong. As you pointed out you used to never raise rents.
Now to protect your property value you have to raise rents by the maximum each year.
Raising rents annually using these now mandated limits, may be the only factor that will open up new housing vacancies so others coming here do not find the no vacancy "crisis" they keep talking about.
The vacancy crisis is only exacerbated when renters feel have locked in a good deal, and regulations made it too onerous for the property owner to ever terminate the contract. This leads eventually to zero property turnover, and closes the door for anyone new to come here.
Except for seniors-only rental properties, when turnover is built into the system with the help of the long arm of God.
Converting the choice to be a renter into a defacto perpetual right to someone else's property by legislative mandate is a fundamental abomination and an unconstitutional "taking" by operation of government.
100%
Exactly true
There is no housing crisis. That is an artificial label imposed by out of touch legislators and unelected polity makers, in order to cram though politically appealing demands for their own favored voting blocks. And suspiciously punish those they chronically deem to be their enemies in the first place.
The role of short-term rentals, many operating off the books, must also be included for its impacts on local housing availability.
Additionally, the virtual failure of any vacancy turn-overs in this area is another huge factor that impacts availability and needs to be factored into any analysis of this alleged housing "crisis".
Once here, few want to leave. One cannot measure housing policy by normal standards for this area. It is unique and shall remain unique. Until enough irresponsible politicians finally ruin it for everyone forever. Demand rent control, keep the prices fixed, make rental contract termination prohibitive, and even fewer will ever chose to leave and create normal vacancy turn-over rates.
Picture an escalator going up to an enclosed space, and a conveyor belt dumping endless numbers of persons at the bottom of the escalator who decide they want to only live in Santa Barbara and never want to leave once they get here. That is not a crisis; that is a reality check for disaster.
Two choices:(1) the door is closed or (2) the door is endlessly kept open. At some point the NO VACANCY sign must be posted for all to see and accept. Throw out the bums in Sacramento who keep imposing one size fits all mandates from the top down, and we destroy ourselves just so they can pander for votes for their own reelections. This build, build, build, according to some "state" imposed mandate, is insane. There are limits to all human activity.
The state for our local purpose are those we elect: Monique Limon and Gregg Hart. Keep voting for them, or their machine endorsed replacements, and there can be no sympathy for the outcomes of their over-development demands made on our local community.
There is no middle ground between Limon and Hart's support for open borders, and ruinous housing demands placed on our unique local community. Hart and Limon DO NOT represent us as small unique community in need of special protections. Who in fact do they represent?
Hart & Limone represent those who want and get an envisioned lifestyle paid for in part by others. If we don’t end the CA ‘tax to gift money faucet’, re-distribution to those who “want, demand, and get”, we eventually will lose our middle and professional classes in Santa Barbara. The year is coming when only the government employed and tax supported or subsidized (County, Cities, UCSB, SBCC, Cottage, Raytheon, etc) will reside here with the 1%.
Right you are Monte, SB is already a “company town,” much like West Virginia and the coal mining cities of long ago. Yes, SB is tied to the huge NFP’s, NGO’s all paying ZERO in local taxes and with massive support of the minions of SEIU and other public unions. All while members giving cover to those elected officials which tow the line.
The immigrants should be called illegals, not anything else. We need to call them what they are, not undocumented, not immigrants, not poor people or other adjectives.
They are what they are, not what you want them to be. You do not get to dictate what words mean.
You nailed it Brian. Some 60,000 housed in South County who either are not contributing economically (students). Plus, an estimated 14,000 or more residing unlawfully in Santa Barbara. Added to this problematic reality are 4 City Council Reps who fail to accept Council is not suppose to be in the real estate business. I bet none of these four has read the City Charter!
First, Council votes 4-3 to shift the cost burden onto ALL property owners paying property taxes — not just landlords— by building more and more PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT housing via the Housing Authority and other non profits; 2) diverting to housing construction, city tax revenues intended to maintain infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, trash, etc), and essential services (police, fire, safety inspections). Sneddon wants $5M more!
SOLUTIONS to consider: every student enrolling who did not graduate from any SB County based high school must pay the Cities of their residences $1000 cost sharing for these essential municipal services prior to being allowed to enroll for classes (other cities do this); 2) end City’s participation in the residential real estate new construction business beyond enforcement of compliance with housing safety and building regulations; 3) stop giving away land we the public own and our publicly owned streets to solidify the overly ambitious political careers of wanna be social worker representatives like dangerous Kristen Sneddon, Oscar Gutierrez, Wendy Santa Maria, and Meagan Harmon; 4) property taxpayers unite to push back. Organize if you own your housing!
Remember school bonds can now be passed to build more housing, too. Your property tax burden is endless as a property owner.
Thank you for naming the names of those who are doing this to us in the city of Santa Barbara: Wendy Santa Maria; Meghan Harmon; Kristen Sneddon; Oscar Gutierrez.
This is what district elections, population-based voting districts and ballot-harvesting looks like today. Term limits do not protect us from bad judgement; the local machine just replaces them with even more extreme partisan ideologues.
Just look at the evolution of District One (Eastside) from the independent Jason Dominguez, to moderate Alessandra Gutierrez, to now radical, former SEIU operative, Wendy Santa Maria.
In a voting district that only takes a few hundred votes to capture one entire voting seat on our city council, which is now the final 4:3 voting slate majority for any and all future radical city decisions.
I completely agree with you. Either you or someone else mentioned in a comment a while back that encouraged weighted votes. If you only need 100 votes to win, you should have a very small percentage of a vote on the board. That person's voice should not carry the same weight as someone else's voice that speaks for thousands in our community.
I agree with anything that gets Oscar out of office. The "man" (not that he acts like a man) is a leech, a roach, and a greedy narcissistic pig.
Brian thank you for this very thoughtful and equally controversial article. I don’t see how any honest person can deny the truth of what you have shared.
I totally agree that the approach used by the city is dishonest, unfair, will create bigger problems and is not sustainable.
It is also as you have said really bad governance,
The issues about illegal immigration are complex, multi dimensional and mired down in political polarization and massive denial of the Facts about why so many illegal immigrants are in this city. For example look at the fallout from the recent immigration crackdown here.
Your article offers us yet another opportunity to come together as one community and not as adversaries for the purpose of courageous and honest dialogue between landlords, city officials, community leaders and tenants and create a model that is a win/ win situation for everyone.
I would love to help organize and co create such an event with other community members
healingsoulofamerica@gmail.com
Audrey A.W.: what could that “win/win” model possibly be? Either we — as individuals who comprise community — support private property rights giving government only safety and construction regulatory authority, or alternatively we support government control of private property. I support private ownership rights. Period. I own it, I’m fully liable. In CA, our powerful government entititied escapes liability despite construction approval and safety inspection authority. Please share what you envision as a possible “win-win”.
Say all that to certain individuals, and with one who told me Ste had no answered but ‘should be able to find an apartment for $2000.00’. She was not inarticulate, either.
Years ago, I coasted for years in LA on a rent controlled apt. Let me tell you - no one moves.
(sorry- I accidentally hit the ‘go’ button).
I wanted to add that one ‘working guy’ told me regarding high rents: ‘yea-sure- you got yours’ which reeks of entitlement on his part.
SB has always always been a challenge to live here. We’ve never been a build out city accept, of course, Newsom is changing all that.
Once upon a time, ( up to the early eighties) the lower east side had a robust African American community. It’s now dominated by those who unlawfully trek here from across the border. It’s a terrible disservice to blacks not just here but throughout the state. They’ve been pushed out of places like Compton. The one tragedy from the Eaton Fire is where because of redlining, many blacks moved to Altadena to make a pretty great middle - upper middle class thriving city. I lived next door for a bit in Sierra Madre Now they’ve lost their generational wealth. Where are all the bleeding hearts on this stuff?
My question is where are people going to work when these massive units in both SB and Goleta are built? Where’s the industry- outside of our Silicon Valley by the beach?
My syntax is sloppy, sorry. It’s an emotional issue.
Thank you for your sentiments Audrey,, but there is no "win-win" solution for this situation. To require a win-win solution up front is a recipe for failure. Living within limits can be the only starting point. Which means from the very beginning, there will be some winners and some losers.
I'd like to comment on the impact that City College places on available rentals, displacing lower and moderate income families for students whose parents will pay far more. Also, SBCC encroaches on UCSB, as well. How many Isla Vista residents attend our local community college? The California 2-year college was never intended to support out-of-area students. The whole point, to create a network of COMMUTER schools, close enough for students to drive to, work locally, and continue to live at home. Most of my friends from Chatsworth High attended Pierce Jr. College after our 1970 graduation. We lived at home. I'll close with one soecific example of harm done: the large apartment complex on the southwest side of Cliff and Loma Alta. The tenants were displaced in order to turn the complex into a student dormitory. Among those displaced, SBCC faculty who no longer could walk to work. Lost also, the college's focus on the needs of its local students:,academic, tech, vocational, and continuing ed. Instead, the shift to out of state and international.
Interesting article, as housing affects many facets of our society. Immigration, taxes, homelessness, local economic development all intersect with housing.
Of special note, is the number of illegal migrants in our county which equates to the size an entire city based on sheer numbers alone. This, coupled with the number of college students makes housing affordability much more challenging. The main difference between migrants and students is, students are allowed to vote and do so usually favoring uber liberal candidates who favor rent controls and massive bond issues subsidizing public housing.
Property owners in general, are already out numbered by renters by some 20% in our community and it shows at the ballot box. Just look at who occupies the SB City Council and the anti- business, pro-tenant, anti-landlord and pro-public housing policies they support, putting their thumbs on the scale of free enterprise.
Does all who want to live in SB have a right to live here and be subsidized? Of course not, development should be focused on areas more conducive to new housing based on less expensive land costs, most of which would be in North County.
Landlords need to be treated fairly and respectfully by our local authorities for being the entrepreneurs, taxpayers, job creators and risk takers they are, all while providing a community service by virtue of supplying places to live for many.
There is a common theme through the CA government that we need illegal labor to perform the jobs Americans will not do for less money. We’ve heard this from DC & news media and a local congressional candidate who supports illegal labor for agriculture.
Meanwhile it costs CA taxpayers alone nearly $31 billion a year, according to a newly-released cost analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This is one more example why our taxes are the highest in the nation.
That is not cheap labor when tax payers are subsidizing them.
44% of CA agriculture is sold outside CA.
Businesses benefit, not the CA tax payers.
It has been said we need young college age people to work the entry level jobs at a low wage. So they grew the public colleges. Consuming housing as they did.
And yet how many businesses have a hard time finding employees? Restaurants, offices, etc….
Meanwhile housing is occupied by these groups that do not ad economic value but increase the cost of housing.
Our government has created this burden and now expects others to suffer for their ineptitude. They are trying to look like the good guy by “protecting” renters. The reality is they just signed a mandatory annual rent increase for every tenant and now property owners are less likely to give a chance to certain groups, such as rent to someone with poor credit history for fear of not being able to reasonably remove them if the renter defaults or becomes a nuisance to other tenants.
Gotta love how the government creates the problems and then says they’ll fix it.
The scariest words you will ever hear, “ I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. Raegan
Student "loans" eliminated the need for many students to seek low-skill temporary and flexible hour jobs during their college years.
Our local tourism industry at one time depended on this transitory group of employees. Student "loans" dried up that supply, yet the community continued to absorb huge growths in the tourism/hospitality industry at the same time.
Count me as one among many who "worked their way through college" back in the 1960s. How many can or even need to say that today?
How many students look at college costs to then research how will I pay this cost? Data is easily available how much a graduate can expect to earn. Some universities even differentiate by major(s) of former graduates.
I’m against the ‘SBCC Promise free tuition’ tax and donor paid, no strings attached program for the same reason. SBCC Enrollment is too often a way to delay working to earn, and to access at no cost something of value. Why not limit Promise Program eligibility to those with a minimum of 60 hours a semester paid work?
How many enroll only to drop at week six attendance?
From observation, as both a parent of former students, the Promise Program can be a waste of money. SBCC Teachers get the same pay for a class of 6 or 36 students.
Union Rep paid the most! 2182 SBCC employment records FIR 2023. https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2023/santa-barbara-city-college/. Donate now for 2024 data collection by California Transparent.
Back when UC tuition was free in the early-mid 1960s for in-state residents?? How much "work" was necessary to pay for that free tuition? Or were you there after 1968 when the in-state tuition was jacked up to 300 bucks a year?
College costs are nuts today compared to way over 1/2 a century ago. Waiting tables might help for City College but it's not going to put much of a dent in a full price UC cost of 40K ish per year, including room/board/tuition. S
It was back when I was getting paid $1.16 an hour. And teaching was a known and chosen ticket to a lifetime of genteel property. UC tuition was never free, nor were books, housing or meals. What changed after 1962? Oh that's right, JFK allowed government employees to unionize.
Transparent California shows what "genteel poverty" in higher education looks like today in the UC system. https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2023/university-of-california/
Sadly, I do not see students today get a better education for the extra money charged,than I got back in the days of educational genteel professorial impoverishment. That is the real tragedy. Plus half my real education came from "working my way through college" and paying my own bills.
I read this article titled “Rent Control and Tenant Rights By Brian Campbell”
I will depart from the Topic of SB Current today because of the importance
of recent major events unfolding in Santa Barbara County which is the
utter failure of SB So-Called-Leaders to PROTECT the Citizens of this Community.
Yet again another alleged pedophile has been arrested for the Sexual Abuse of
their victims, this time children. The SB Sheriffs Dept provides the details
on their website and News Release "5/12/25" below and I quote from same>
https://www.sbsheriff.org/goleta-man-arrested-for-child-sex-crimes-additional-survivors-sought/
“Sheriff’s detectives have arrested a Goleta man for several felony child sex crimes and are reaching out to the public to identify additional survivors and provide safety information for parents monitoring children’s social media.” AND “This is at least the third arrest in Goleta this year by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office involving alleged sex crimes against minors”
Facts for SB Currentors. The SB Sheriffs did not find or investigate these sexual abuse cases.
So who did? THE FBI who is making it THIER MISSION to CATCH and PROSECUTE
ANYONE WHO SEXUALLY ABUSES ANOTHER. See FBI Director Kash Patel below
(18) JOSH DUNLAP on X: "Kash Patel : "Harm our children, you will be given no sanctuary. There is no place we won’t hunt you down.. And there is no cage we will not put you in should you do harm to our children." https://t.co/ArDq5d25fA" / X
I call out Sheriff Brown here and now. Did your SB Sheriff Deputies Respond to a Call of Sexual Abuse and Interview the Female Victim who stated directly to the two Deputies that she was repeatedly Sexually Abused and named the Abuser? Sheriff Brown did your two Deputies then CONCEAL THE SEXUAL ABUSE, CONCEAL THE REPORT and CONCEAL THAT SEXUAL ABUSE FROM THE FAMILY? THE ANSWER IS YES YOU DID SHERIFF BROWN. WHY CONCEAL? $$$$$$$$$$$$
Director Patel “There is no place we will not hunt you down, there is no place we will not look for you” THANK GOD Someone is doing his DUTY for the thousands of Victims of Sexual Abuse.
Thank You Kash, Dan and Pam.
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
Excellent and commonsensical article. Also appreciate that it is concise and to the point. It is time to change our governance in Santa Barbara!! Thank you. Ann.
Ten thousand illegals living in SB city alone. And how many of those are receiving section 8 and other government welfare to live in the most expensive city on the coast? Maybe a lot.
My theory says the city works with the county, to fill every available rental filled with illegals with children. Because every ‘student’ means $25k in education dollars to the education departments. With 10,000 illegals. At least one quarter are women, with at two children each. So that’s 2,500 mothers X 2 kids = 5,000 school kids x $25,000 education money to Ed district = Drum roll
$125,000,000 to the school district every year. So illegals do bring in state education money. And it all goes to the education machine.
How are you calculating that $25,000 per pupil? Are you speaking about SBUSD? My understanding is that they are a community funded/basic aid district and the majority of their funding is based on property taxes, not enrollment. More kids doesn’t equal more money, it actually means less money per pupil. Or has the status of the district changed (I know they have fluctuated status in the past)?
Thomas, you are so far off in this. You have so many false assumptions.
Let's start with breaking up your misinformed theory.
First, Section 8 is NOT available to an immigrant that does not have legal status.
Secondly, just using SB Unified, their total annual budget is 221mm. They have about 12k students. What you are saying is that almost 1/2 of them are from 'illegals' That makes no sense.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1722992632/sbunifiedorg/ncjysccfkqglcevajp1p/24-25FastFiscalFactsAdoptedBudgetReport2.pdf Never let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
- Section 8 is available to mixed households, if one person is here legally then they all get section 8
- CAPI is a state-funded program that provides monthly cash pmts to immigrants who are not eligible for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) due to their immigration status. - There is also the GR program which also offers cash to illegals.
- CA Dream Act pays illegals attending colleges and universities
- WIC pays illegals
*
25 BILLION EACH YEAR IN CA ALONE goes to people who break our laws to come here.
Not one person here was upset in 1996 when Bill Clinton changed the law the fast track deportation. He deported 12 million.
Not one person complained when Obama used those laws to deport over 5 million
But you now complain when a Republican uses Democrat deportation methods.
Why?
Yes I’m saying half are illegals.
Then you are in need of glasses that work, or the ability to count. Using the crap that Emmet mentioned, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/county/6083 in the whole county it is 8k students. To have 6k just be in SB Unified does not work mathematically.
David, thank you. You confirmed 44,000 illegals in SB County.
So what “crap” are you talking about?
Let’s be honest. You had no issues with Democrat presidents deporting over 17 million illegals.
You had no problems with the Democrat laws fast tracking deportation.
You now have a problem with a Republican doing what Democrats did going back to 1996.
Or do you just have a problem with the peoples choice Trump.
You might need seek to help for the TDS. It can put blinders on you to see that Democrat policy is what this President is using.
Do you need a referral to someone to help you, or help you do a google search to see what Obama & Clinton did. I did provide you links since yiu were not able to use google yourself apparently.
Please research before you comment and please don’t be so angry.
Let’s work together to fix this country and deliver it back to the foundation of the US CONSTITUTION. “We the people of the United States”
Please read it.
Excellent piece Brian. Good work! Thank you. Now if only our city council will listen to your logic!