Heard it straight from a former City Attorney surrounded by nodding city staffers after one more expanding SB Housing Authority project hearing, that the city wanted to own so much housing they would control all private sector housing prices and rents, since the private sector could then no longer compete with the sheer volume of city-owned subsidized housing.
That city attorney is no longer with us, but I think we can assume this city housing department mindset still is with us. And found alive and well in city council members like Kristen Sneddon (the quarter-million tax dollars a year wonder woman) and Wendy Santa Maria (former SEIU operative). Even more galling was this $400+K former city attorney complained at the same time he was unable to afford to live in Santa Barbara.
This unelected city staff imperialism continues to shock at many levels. We have lost control of "our government". Thank you Bonnie for continuing to expose this.
I stand corrected: this was not a $400K city attorney, it was a $787,673 city attorney who "could not afford to live in Santa Barbara." I think it is the other way around - we cannot afford to have him be our city attorney.
BD, great job. When I think about what it means to be arrogant it centers on folks who believe their generally ill-informed opinion trumps well researched facts. World class UCSB economist Peter Rupert takes time each year (and sometimes before the Council) to present studies and data that date to the 1940’s showing that Rent Control just does not work (for all the reasons you mentioned). Yet (and I have this on pretty good authority) certain council members have said that they “don’t believe the data.” HUH? Rent control voter propositions have failed at the State level (and within city limits) 3X. Nice that certain council members think their opinion should trump both data and the electorate. Wrong! Sad Truth: Our vacancy rates are at an anemic 1.7% when all data shows that a healthy rate—one that will drive pricing down—is 8%. News Flash: The city pegs 24% of folks as “rent burdened.” Across 500 small US cites —some that I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy to live in—30% of the people are “Rent Burdened”. Yes it sucks that rents are so high but this is America (not just SB!) circa 2025 and Rent Control is not the magic bullet but more inventory is … in my humble opinion.
Our very low "turn-over rates" are a primary driving factor, that never gets recognition in any of these theoretical housing demand models. Hence our uniquely low "vacancy rates" used erroneously as a housing demand driver.
Once here, particularly when scoring a subsidized unit, few ever leave and perhaps pass this subsidized benefit down to their subsequent generations. Our uniquely low turnover rate is the primary driver which means we can never "build our way" out of any one size fits all housing demands.
When was the last city wide audit regarding this critical housing factor - turnover rates?
Thank you for sharing, what an inspiring article, it really tells it like it is, I wish those few council members would quit
trying to shove rent control down our throats, I have worked hard all my life to accumulate a few pieces of real estate and provide housing for some fantastic tenants at reasonable rents over the years and would hate to see rent control happen in our beautiful city, if they pushed rent control through it is going to be a complete detriment to first the tenants and second the property owners, I would likely sell all the rental units that I have if it went through..
I don't understand how anyone could purchase property in SB and rent it for an amount to break even. Back in '83 I could break even and all I cared about was the long-term investment gains. The profit sought would come at the sale of the rental property. The last tenant stayed at my property for twenty-five years. Rent was cheap and the renter was happy.
Agree. I believe they will finally push through at some point. We intend exchange our remaining real estate investments out of state...Utah or Idaho. The Sneddons and Santamarias operate on emotion and pandering with no regard for economic reality.
We have kept rinse, historically stable and the increases that did occur were usually actually below reported cost-of-living increases. This time when the leases were becoming due again, we stepped up the lease rate because the rent control issue was on the front burner at city Council. It is not an overstatement to say that the threat of rent control pushed by the likes of Sneddon and Santa Maria have actually increased rents at the end of the day. Wait until they decide the max you can charge for premium beef Jerry....
Bonnie, your weekly columns are always so informative about the running of our city and county and this weeks edition was clearly one of the best. It truly is frightening how far we have dipped our toes into corrupt government run programs that are threatening the freedoms that we used to take for granted. The speaker at the city council meeting you quoted in your column gave a grave but so true scenario of other countries that institute the same policies that our local authorities are trying to implement and the failures of them all. Not a pleasant thought to see where we are headed and have been for quite some time here in Santa Barbara.
This passage sums it all up..."This plan steers citizens to become reliant upon local politicians to enact and sustain rent suppression policies and creates a bloated bureaucracy.
Being a lifetime tenant dependent upon the government for housing is not the American dream. It is the adoption of the failed communist policies that ultimately deprive citizens of their dignity and creates a dependent class of people that rely upon politicians for their basic needs."
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, our communities, state and nation are in a battle for the liberty, freedom and God-given inalienable rights our very nation was founded upon. The dark forces of the Marxist-Communist Globalists that seek to "fundamentally transform" our way of life have made bold advances having infected many of our institutions over the past several decades. As someone who's employ puts me in a unique perspective to see this happening firsthand, their is a definitive "rush" to inject many "affordable housing" units into our communities under the guise of state mandates. These mandates strip the local communities of any resources and recourse in fending off these assaults. It's a brilliant plan and, at first glance, very difficult to overcome. The citizenry need to "awaken" and take agency against the malevolent forces that are at play. Become civically engaged. Push back on local politicians who aid and abet these concepts and ideology. Vote them out. Seek office. Rewrite policy. And seek to improve our way of life by creating a lasting civil structure that makes it difficult for this threat from ever redeveloping (pardon the pun).
Housing, like health care, is a commodity. Not a right. We will make far better future decisions when we accept this important starting point. We earn the right own/rent housing by our own efforts; not by demanding tax payers offer government handouts.
We cannot demand others provide housing for us as a right. The free market remains the best resource to provide affordable housing; not this inherently unequal selection of winner and losers by the government.
Right now nothing is more corrosive to any future housing market than this nattering gimme, gimme, gimme attitude.
Every Friday morning I thank God that Santa Barbara has Bonnie. Maybe we will survive our current local government! It does seem to me that rather than the long-term rental controls they propose the short-term rentals should be controlled instead. If it weren't for STRs, we wouldn't have the housing rental situation we have. I see in my own neighborhood how destructive short-term rentals are. Instead of families who need to rent as they get started here we have partiers who are from out of town.
They also need to control homelessness. In my neighborhood this week, a man we have all seen walking our streets and who at least once before seriously threatened other people, attacked a man and his dog with a knife. He was, as you probably read, fatally shot by the cops.
Two things: the prior incident of him attacking other people happened last May. A young man knocked on our door for help in getting the woman with him to safety. This was a very fit, very strong looking guy and he was terrified. We helped him. Then we asked the two of them to please give a description to the police. They refused, saying they were from out of town and took off. We called the cops who came in a group and searched for the man they described. But he had disappeared.
The second thing: my husband and I regularly shop at the Ralph's where the homeless man attacked a guy and his dog and was shot dead by the police. My husband had picked up paper towels just a bit earlier at that Ralph's. We often stop there and park right in the spot where the homeless man attacked — again with a knife — the man and his dog. I often wait for my husband to shop in our car with the window down. I'm still not that strong or mobile after Septic Shock. I could have been stabbed to death. And wouldn't that have been ironic: I managed to survive one of the deadliest things you can get only to be randomly stabbed by a crazy homeless man the city supposedly takes care of.
Yet, what came across in the Independent and online was sympathy for the homeless man. Not all of us responsible non-violent citizens. But the attacker, who has been a time bomb waiting to go off and hurt or kill.
I am sick and tired of this abuse by our government. What they need to get under control is their out of control spending instead of trying to control those of us who pay their fat salaries.
Try Edhat commenters if you want to see not only unilateral sympathy for the attacker, but an all-out assault against the poor law enforcement personnel drawn into this incident. Including a full hatchet job against Sheriff Brown and his "trigger happy deputies".
Proving yet again, no we cannot all get along. Proving yet again, we do need to find a better way to live together regardless. We have very toxic local media: SB Independent and EdHat.
Yep. People who criticize the police and want them defunded never lived in NYC before Giuliani. You got mugged with monotonously regularity. The cops became as bad as the criminals. Citizens took the law into their own hands. Marianne Partridge should remember this - she was at the Village Voice. But she's conveniently safe on her land grant ranch she inherited.
A few weeks ago on Montecito Community blog people were complaining about robberies and suspicious activity in Montecito neighborhoods citing where are the police? Why is it taking so long for the police to show up?
That’s what you get when you vote to defund the police was my comment
Jenn, both the Santa Barbara City Council and the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors have never voted to “defund” the city police or the county Sheriff.
In fact, no jurisdiction in the State of California has voted for any type of defunding, with the exception of the city of Vallejo.
Also, when officers left or retired early during BLM they did not rehire those positions... Santamaria suggested keeping the last frozen positions and use that money for (I THINK) aid to illegals...
Apples and oranges. There was no actual legislation or agenda item(s) to legislatively effectuate a “defunding” of law enforcement. Both agencies are now currently fully staffed.
....."Supporters claim rent control protects teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers — the essential workers we all respect". ..............
Notice these are all government employees, or government-funded beneficiaries like the huge health care sector in this community that we are asked continuously to "respect" and cater to endlessly with even more tax dollar-funded advantages and benefits.
A quick visit to Transparent California reveals we have already "respected them" with very generous compensation packages, job security and automatic increases built into their contracts, along with life time benefits few in the private sector will ever enjoy.
Yet, it is never enough. Time to drop this "first responders" union marketing ruse. There are plenty in this community we depend upon just as much, that do not get this tax dollar driven relentless publicity campaign enjoyed by "our first responders". My roofer, plumber and electrician are right up there among my own categories of necessary "first responders".
Thank you Bonnie for continuing to expose the fraud, waste and corruption by our elected officials and staff. The city coffers are running dry and what do they do? Increasing the TOT, will only chase visitors away, just as removing the welcome mat for cruise ships.
Housing is of course a complex problem, especially with limited and expensive land costs. Throw in outrageous development fees and building costs and it’s a non starter with little or no margin for developers.
Why has our elected officials not been more supportive of mass public transit to surrounding communities? High speed rail, such as Metrolink should have been implemented years ago, serving Ventura County and surrounding areas.
Many local areas are ripe for housing; Santa Paula, Ojai, Fillmore, Lompoc, Buellton, Los Alamos, Guadalupe all have an abundance of land, considerably less costly than SB.
Clearly, there is no right to live in SB, commuting should be a viable choice for those wanting to live on the Central Coast. Just as I did earlier in my career, commuting to downtown LA and living in Brea.
I often marvel at the mindset of so many in government. Delusions of grandeur … The conviction that everyday forces (incentives, supply and demand, etc) don’t apply to their projects and dreams … The belief that intransigent problems can be solved by waving a magic wand … The devotion to ideals and ideologies at the expense of common sense and experience …
Fwiw, I spent decades in NYC and witnessed the mess that excessive government interference in the housing market can, and will, make. One for instance is something that commenter Elce has touched on: once people are in public/subsidized housing, they’re often there for good … and so are their dependents.
Imagine this scenario: an aging firefighter gets lucky and wins a rent-controlled apartment for himself and his wife. A few years later he’s injured, but not on the job. It happens. He’s no longer a productive public servant, correct? So should he continue to have his housing subsidized by his neighbors, who after all he’s no longer serving? But can you just boot him and his wife out? Oh, you heartless authoritarian you. And even if you think you should be able to, he’s got lawyers, so the case is going to drag itself out. Meanwhile, one of his adult kids moves in to look after the aging parents. Finally, after much heartbreak and decay, both parents pass away. Can you justify kicking the caretaker-daughter, who’s devoted years of her life to caring for the onetime firefighter, out of the subsidized place? It’s been her home too, after all. Again: even if you think you should be able to move her along and free up the apartment for some other family, and even if the rules say you can, she’s got a lawyer (as well as a lot of local bleeding-hearts) on her side.
Meanwhile, years and years pass …
That’s a very typical scenario in NYC. Subsidized housing stays in families for generations, no matter what the income of the family’s members is. Which means that often neighbors are subsidizing the housing expenses of a family that makes more than they do. Leaves a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
If there must be subsidized housing in Santa Barbara why isn't the current crop of rich people here building that housing and maintaining it with their own money. Oh right, they're too busy flipping houses.
Seems easy to say that if we deport everyone who is here illegally and stop the short term rentals that would put a very large number of housing units back into the market and increase the hotel occupancy rate. Duh.
Market forces, in response to higher vacancies, would then control local rental/housing costs. Plus a significant cost saving no longer being forced to support rental housing industrial-complex. How many persons are now supported by taxpayers to over-see these growing numbers of government managed housing?
Meanwhile the city is panicking because it’s revenue is down and is looking for ways to increase it. I wrote the city council and told them not to panic but to be excited! They now have an opportunity to show housing providers how ‘income control’ works. Let the city revenue remain frozen. Allow all city expenses to keep rising. And demonstrate how easy and successfully the city thrives under that strategy. Once they demonstrate how well this works I told them I am sure housing providers would jump on board with the idea. Or. They could just admit in advance it is a stupid idea. They know its a stupid idea. They know they would never impose that idea on themselves. And just allow the city and housing providers to adjust income as needed to not only survive like the city but thrive! Easy!
Democrats = Big Government, Big Government Employee Unions, Big Debt, Big Brother and Big Nanny State.
GOP/Independents = Big Anathema to all of the above.
I am sure loyal opposition posters here can create a good descriptor for the GOP and Independents. Have at it, Democrats. Mutual acknowledgements may finally give us discussion and negotiation points
As people may, or may not know, the City is also facing serious budget concerns, yet our leaders are still considering this Rent Stabilization Ordinance that would create new layers of costly bureaucracy, enforcement, and legal exposure. While it may sound like a quick fix, this policy risks adding millions in administrative costs at a time when the city is already struggling financially.
We all know the negative impacts of Rent Stabilization/Rent Control and we need to keep the conversation going and ensure our community understands the full picture. You can help by:
· Sharing accurate information with your network of friends and local organizations.
· Post on social media: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, NextDoor, and YouTube
· Writing letters to the editor or opinion pieces.
· Encouraging local media (thank to to the Current!) to continue covering the financial and community impact of this proposal.
Our city deserves policies that are sustainable, fair, and fiscally responsible. Let’s make sure the public discussion reflects that reality.
Local media contact emails to send your submission to:
Gov. Newsom's recent signing of SB 79: Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act may well be a more significant threat to our community than rent control.
Once again, the state is treating cities as serfs. They supersede legitimate efforts by people who desire to preserve the integrity and character of their towns. It's not bad enough that we have to battle socialists on our City Council, such as Sneddon and Santamaria, but also the lopsided arrogant socialistic monolith in Sacramento which demands high density and the attendant lower quality of life which comes with that density. They are hell bent tearing down communities that have fought for decades to preserve the quality of life residents have achieved in no small part by willing to pay a higher price for housing, etc. For many of us, it's a trade-off and a choice well worth the expense. Otherwise we would live elsewhere.
Look for efforts down the road to defeat SB 79 via a Referendum...although as history has shown in California's Prop 187... the will of the voter is not more powerful than a left-wing judge and a complicit Governor...ie., Gray Davis.
State policies (Limon/Hart) left the back door open and supports "sanctuary"cities to retain this illegal in-migration to the state. Then tells us we have a "housing crisis" that we need to solve in our own local communities.
Once again, thank you, Bonnie, for shining the light of sanity into the dark recesses of our city government. Listening to the comments by this lady objecting to the rent control ordinance, it sounds like we may have a future potential candidate for city council.
The City owning and renting ~3500 housing units is not the role of government.
Heard it straight from a former City Attorney surrounded by nodding city staffers after one more expanding SB Housing Authority project hearing, that the city wanted to own so much housing they would control all private sector housing prices and rents, since the private sector could then no longer compete with the sheer volume of city-owned subsidized housing.
That city attorney is no longer with us, but I think we can assume this city housing department mindset still is with us. And found alive and well in city council members like Kristen Sneddon (the quarter-million tax dollars a year wonder woman) and Wendy Santa Maria (former SEIU operative). Even more galling was this $400+K former city attorney complained at the same time he was unable to afford to live in Santa Barbara.
This unelected city staff imperialism continues to shock at many levels. We have lost control of "our government". Thank you Bonnie for continuing to expose this.
I stand corrected: this was not a $400K city attorney, it was a $787,673 city attorney who "could not afford to live in Santa Barbara." I think it is the other way around - we cannot afford to have him be our city attorney.
City Attorney
--Regular pay: $278,539.00
--Overtime pay: $0.00
--Other pay: $383,185.00**
Total pay: $661,724.00
--Benefits: $44,494.00
--Pension debt: $81,455.61
Total pay & benefits: $787,673.61
**may have been a contract buy out.
Geez!
Affordable housing is 40% of our rental units
It's the role of a socialist government.
BD, great job. When I think about what it means to be arrogant it centers on folks who believe their generally ill-informed opinion trumps well researched facts. World class UCSB economist Peter Rupert takes time each year (and sometimes before the Council) to present studies and data that date to the 1940’s showing that Rent Control just does not work (for all the reasons you mentioned). Yet (and I have this on pretty good authority) certain council members have said that they “don’t believe the data.” HUH? Rent control voter propositions have failed at the State level (and within city limits) 3X. Nice that certain council members think their opinion should trump both data and the electorate. Wrong! Sad Truth: Our vacancy rates are at an anemic 1.7% when all data shows that a healthy rate—one that will drive pricing down—is 8%. News Flash: The city pegs 24% of folks as “rent burdened.” Across 500 small US cites —some that I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy to live in—30% of the people are “Rent Burdened”. Yes it sucks that rents are so high but this is America (not just SB!) circa 2025 and Rent Control is not the magic bullet but more inventory is … in my humble opinion.
Our very low "turn-over rates" are a primary driving factor, that never gets recognition in any of these theoretical housing demand models. Hence our uniquely low "vacancy rates" used erroneously as a housing demand driver.
Once here, particularly when scoring a subsidized unit, few ever leave and perhaps pass this subsidized benefit down to their subsequent generations. Our uniquely low turnover rate is the primary driver which means we can never "build our way" out of any one size fits all housing demands.
When was the last city wide audit regarding this critical housing factor - turnover rates?
Wow Bonnie !
Thank you for sharing, what an inspiring article, it really tells it like it is, I wish those few council members would quit
trying to shove rent control down our throats, I have worked hard all my life to accumulate a few pieces of real estate and provide housing for some fantastic tenants at reasonable rents over the years and would hate to see rent control happen in our beautiful city, if they pushed rent control through it is going to be a complete detriment to first the tenants and second the property owners, I would likely sell all the rental units that I have if it went through..
Thank you,
Jerry Shalhoob
Founder of the Shalhoob Meat Co.
Est. 1973
I don't understand how anyone could purchase property in SB and rent it for an amount to break even. Back in '83 I could break even and all I cared about was the long-term investment gains. The profit sought would come at the sale of the rental property. The last tenant stayed at my property for twenty-five years. Rent was cheap and the renter was happy.
Agree. I believe they will finally push through at some point. We intend exchange our remaining real estate investments out of state...Utah or Idaho. The Sneddons and Santamarias operate on emotion and pandering with no regard for economic reality.
We have kept rinse, historically stable and the increases that did occur were usually actually below reported cost-of-living increases. This time when the leases were becoming due again, we stepped up the lease rate because the rent control issue was on the front burner at city Council. It is not an overstatement to say that the threat of rent control pushed by the likes of Sneddon and Santa Maria have actually increased rents at the end of the day. Wait until they decide the max you can charge for premium beef Jerry....
Bonnie, your weekly columns are always so informative about the running of our city and county and this weeks edition was clearly one of the best. It truly is frightening how far we have dipped our toes into corrupt government run programs that are threatening the freedoms that we used to take for granted. The speaker at the city council meeting you quoted in your column gave a grave but so true scenario of other countries that institute the same policies that our local authorities are trying to implement and the failures of them all. Not a pleasant thought to see where we are headed and have been for quite some time here in Santa Barbara.
This passage sums it all up..."This plan steers citizens to become reliant upon local politicians to enact and sustain rent suppression policies and creates a bloated bureaucracy.
Being a lifetime tenant dependent upon the government for housing is not the American dream. It is the adoption of the failed communist policies that ultimately deprive citizens of their dignity and creates a dependent class of people that rely upon politicians for their basic needs."
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, our communities, state and nation are in a battle for the liberty, freedom and God-given inalienable rights our very nation was founded upon. The dark forces of the Marxist-Communist Globalists that seek to "fundamentally transform" our way of life have made bold advances having infected many of our institutions over the past several decades. As someone who's employ puts me in a unique perspective to see this happening firsthand, their is a definitive "rush" to inject many "affordable housing" units into our communities under the guise of state mandates. These mandates strip the local communities of any resources and recourse in fending off these assaults. It's a brilliant plan and, at first glance, very difficult to overcome. The citizenry need to "awaken" and take agency against the malevolent forces that are at play. Become civically engaged. Push back on local politicians who aid and abet these concepts and ideology. Vote them out. Seek office. Rewrite policy. And seek to improve our way of life by creating a lasting civil structure that makes it difficult for this threat from ever redeveloping (pardon the pun).
Housing, like health care, is a commodity. Not a right. We will make far better future decisions when we accept this important starting point. We earn the right own/rent housing by our own efforts; not by demanding tax payers offer government handouts.
We cannot demand others provide housing for us as a right. The free market remains the best resource to provide affordable housing; not this inherently unequal selection of winner and losers by the government.
Right now nothing is more corrosive to any future housing market than this nattering gimme, gimme, gimme attitude.
There is a battle between the haves and the have nots. The have nots want things without working for it.
Every Friday morning I thank God that Santa Barbara has Bonnie. Maybe we will survive our current local government! It does seem to me that rather than the long-term rental controls they propose the short-term rentals should be controlled instead. If it weren't for STRs, we wouldn't have the housing rental situation we have. I see in my own neighborhood how destructive short-term rentals are. Instead of families who need to rent as they get started here we have partiers who are from out of town.
They also need to control homelessness. In my neighborhood this week, a man we have all seen walking our streets and who at least once before seriously threatened other people, attacked a man and his dog with a knife. He was, as you probably read, fatally shot by the cops.
Two things: the prior incident of him attacking other people happened last May. A young man knocked on our door for help in getting the woman with him to safety. This was a very fit, very strong looking guy and he was terrified. We helped him. Then we asked the two of them to please give a description to the police. They refused, saying they were from out of town and took off. We called the cops who came in a group and searched for the man they described. But he had disappeared.
The second thing: my husband and I regularly shop at the Ralph's where the homeless man attacked a guy and his dog and was shot dead by the police. My husband had picked up paper towels just a bit earlier at that Ralph's. We often stop there and park right in the spot where the homeless man attacked — again with a knife — the man and his dog. I often wait for my husband to shop in our car with the window down. I'm still not that strong or mobile after Septic Shock. I could have been stabbed to death. And wouldn't that have been ironic: I managed to survive one of the deadliest things you can get only to be randomly stabbed by a crazy homeless man the city supposedly takes care of.
Yet, what came across in the Independent and online was sympathy for the homeless man. Not all of us responsible non-violent citizens. But the attacker, who has been a time bomb waiting to go off and hurt or kill.
I am sick and tired of this abuse by our government. What they need to get under control is their out of control spending instead of trying to control those of us who pay their fat salaries.
Have a great, safe weekend.
Try Edhat commenters if you want to see not only unilateral sympathy for the attacker, but an all-out assault against the poor law enforcement personnel drawn into this incident. Including a full hatchet job against Sheriff Brown and his "trigger happy deputies".
Proving yet again, no we cannot all get along. Proving yet again, we do need to find a better way to live together regardless. We have very toxic local media: SB Independent and EdHat.
Yep. People who criticize the police and want them defunded never lived in NYC before Giuliani. You got mugged with monotonously regularity. The cops became as bad as the criminals. Citizens took the law into their own hands. Marianne Partridge should remember this - she was at the Village Voice. But she's conveniently safe on her land grant ranch she inherited.
A few weeks ago on Montecito Community blog people were complaining about robberies and suspicious activity in Montecito neighborhoods citing where are the police? Why is it taking so long for the police to show up?
That’s what you get when you vote to defund the police was my comment
Crickets was the response
Good for you, Jenn!
Jenn, both the Santa Barbara City Council and the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors have never voted to “defund” the city police or the county Sheriff.
In fact, no jurisdiction in the State of California has voted for any type of defunding, with the exception of the city of Vallejo.
City did defund the police, in that they used the money to add social workers to the police response team, instead hiring more uniformed officers.
Also, when officers left or retired early during BLM they did not rehire those positions... Santamaria suggested keeping the last frozen positions and use that money for (I THINK) aid to illegals...
Apples and oranges. There was no actual legislation or agenda item(s) to legislatively effectuate a “defunding” of law enforcement. Both agencies are now currently fully staffed.
....."Supporters claim rent control protects teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers — the essential workers we all respect". ..............
Notice these are all government employees, or government-funded beneficiaries like the huge health care sector in this community that we are asked continuously to "respect" and cater to endlessly with even more tax dollar-funded advantages and benefits.
A quick visit to Transparent California reveals we have already "respected them" with very generous compensation packages, job security and automatic increases built into their contracts, along with life time benefits few in the private sector will ever enjoy.
Yet, it is never enough. Time to drop this "first responders" union marketing ruse. There are plenty in this community we depend upon just as much, that do not get this tax dollar driven relentless publicity campaign enjoyed by "our first responders". My roofer, plumber and electrician are right up there among my own categories of necessary "first responders".
They have rich compensation but always ruse otherwise. BMW’s with firehat stickers.
Honoring our "first responders" - fire personnel. Who claim to need "rent control" https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=santa-barbara&q=fire&y=2024
Thank you Bonnie for continuing to expose the fraud, waste and corruption by our elected officials and staff. The city coffers are running dry and what do they do? Increasing the TOT, will only chase visitors away, just as removing the welcome mat for cruise ships.
Housing is of course a complex problem, especially with limited and expensive land costs. Throw in outrageous development fees and building costs and it’s a non starter with little or no margin for developers.
Why has our elected officials not been more supportive of mass public transit to surrounding communities? High speed rail, such as Metrolink should have been implemented years ago, serving Ventura County and surrounding areas.
Many local areas are ripe for housing; Santa Paula, Ojai, Fillmore, Lompoc, Buellton, Los Alamos, Guadalupe all have an abundance of land, considerably less costly than SB.
Clearly, there is no right to live in SB, commuting should be a viable choice for those wanting to live on the Central Coast. Just as I did earlier in my career, commuting to downtown LA and living in Brea.
Here is what a lovely coastal commute to Santa Paula now offers home buyers:
https://harvestatlimoneira.com
They could build homes all the way to IH 5 on the 126 corridor. Easy 30 minute commute to SB.
Excellence from Bonnie!
I often marvel at the mindset of so many in government. Delusions of grandeur … The conviction that everyday forces (incentives, supply and demand, etc) don’t apply to their projects and dreams … The belief that intransigent problems can be solved by waving a magic wand … The devotion to ideals and ideologies at the expense of common sense and experience …
Fwiw, I spent decades in NYC and witnessed the mess that excessive government interference in the housing market can, and will, make. One for instance is something that commenter Elce has touched on: once people are in public/subsidized housing, they’re often there for good … and so are their dependents.
Imagine this scenario: an aging firefighter gets lucky and wins a rent-controlled apartment for himself and his wife. A few years later he’s injured, but not on the job. It happens. He’s no longer a productive public servant, correct? So should he continue to have his housing subsidized by his neighbors, who after all he’s no longer serving? But can you just boot him and his wife out? Oh, you heartless authoritarian you. And even if you think you should be able to, he’s got lawyers, so the case is going to drag itself out. Meanwhile, one of his adult kids moves in to look after the aging parents. Finally, after much heartbreak and decay, both parents pass away. Can you justify kicking the caretaker-daughter, who’s devoted years of her life to caring for the onetime firefighter, out of the subsidized place? It’s been her home too, after all. Again: even if you think you should be able to move her along and free up the apartment for some other family, and even if the rules say you can, she’s got a lawyer (as well as a lot of local bleeding-hearts) on her side.
Meanwhile, years and years pass …
That’s a very typical scenario in NYC. Subsidized housing stays in families for generations, no matter what the income of the family’s members is. Which means that often neighbors are subsidizing the housing expenses of a family that makes more than they do. Leaves a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
Excellent description.
If there must be subsidized housing in Santa Barbara why isn't the current crop of rich people here building that housing and maintaining it with their own money. Oh right, they're too busy flipping houses.
Bring back maids quarters and gardener's cottages, which is how "affordable housing" was offered in the past.
Montecito/Hope Ranch is not doing their "fair share" if their estate service employees demand "affordable housing" in some another community.
Data please.
Seems easy to say that if we deport everyone who is here illegally and stop the short term rentals that would put a very large number of housing units back into the market and increase the hotel occupancy rate. Duh.
Market forces, in response to higher vacancies, would then control local rental/housing costs. Plus a significant cost saving no longer being forced to support rental housing industrial-complex. How many persons are now supported by taxpayers to over-see these growing numbers of government managed housing?
Meanwhile the city is panicking because it’s revenue is down and is looking for ways to increase it. I wrote the city council and told them not to panic but to be excited! They now have an opportunity to show housing providers how ‘income control’ works. Let the city revenue remain frozen. Allow all city expenses to keep rising. And demonstrate how easy and successfully the city thrives under that strategy. Once they demonstrate how well this works I told them I am sure housing providers would jump on board with the idea. Or. They could just admit in advance it is a stupid idea. They know its a stupid idea. They know they would never impose that idea on themselves. And just allow the city and housing providers to adjust income as needed to not only survive like the city but thrive! Easy!
Democrats = Big Government, Big Government Employee Unions, Big Debt, Big Brother and Big Nanny State.
GOP/Independents = Big Anathema to all of the above.
I am sure loyal opposition posters here can create a good descriptor for the GOP and Independents. Have at it, Democrats. Mutual acknowledgements may finally give us discussion and negotiation points
Bonnie, Excellent article. I'd like to add:
As people may, or may not know, the City is also facing serious budget concerns, yet our leaders are still considering this Rent Stabilization Ordinance that would create new layers of costly bureaucracy, enforcement, and legal exposure. While it may sound like a quick fix, this policy risks adding millions in administrative costs at a time when the city is already struggling financially.
We all know the negative impacts of Rent Stabilization/Rent Control and we need to keep the conversation going and ensure our community understands the full picture. You can help by:
· Sharing accurate information with your network of friends and local organizations.
· Post on social media: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, NextDoor, and YouTube
· Writing letters to the editor or opinion pieces.
· Encouraging local media (thank to to the Current!) to continue covering the financial and community impact of this proposal.
Our city deserves policies that are sustainable, fair, and fiscally responsible. Let’s make sure the public discussion reflects that reality.
Local media contact emails to send your submission to:
Noozhawk: https://www.noozhawk.com/contribute/
Santa Barbara Independent: https://www.independent.com/submit-a-letter/
Montecito Journal: letters@montecitojournal.net
Santa Barbara Current: JamesFenkner@gmail.com
And Jim@montecitojournal.net
City Council email addresses:
Mayor Randy Rowse. rrowse@santabarbaraca.gov
Kristen Sneddon KSneddon@santabarbaraca.gov
Wendy Santamaria WSantamaria@santabarbaraca.gov
Eric Friedman EFriedman@santabarbaraca.gov
Meagan Harmon mharmon@santabarbaraca.gov
Mike Jordan mjordan@santabarbaraca.gov
Oscar Gutierrez ogutierrez@santabarbaraca.gov
Gov. Newsom's recent signing of SB 79: Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act may well be a more significant threat to our community than rent control.
Once again, the state is treating cities as serfs. They supersede legitimate efforts by people who desire to preserve the integrity and character of their towns. It's not bad enough that we have to battle socialists on our City Council, such as Sneddon and Santamaria, but also the lopsided arrogant socialistic monolith in Sacramento which demands high density and the attendant lower quality of life which comes with that density. They are hell bent tearing down communities that have fought for decades to preserve the quality of life residents have achieved in no small part by willing to pay a higher price for housing, etc. For many of us, it's a trade-off and a choice well worth the expense. Otherwise we would live elsewhere.
Look for efforts down the road to defeat SB 79 via a Referendum...although as history has shown in California's Prop 187... the will of the voter is not more powerful than a left-wing judge and a complicit Governor...ie., Gray Davis.
State policies (Limon/Hart) left the back door open and supports "sanctuary"cities to retain this illegal in-migration to the state. Then tells us we have a "housing crisis" that we need to solve in our own local communities.
So true! Current state of one party
Control mirrors CCP of Red China.
If Newscum can dictate an eight story
Monster adjacent to iconic Mission
Santa Barbara and denounce 'small
GOP. cities zoning laws' that's as authoritarian as you can get.
Vote NO ON 50 early and often!
Once again, thank you, Bonnie, for shining the light of sanity into the dark recesses of our city government. Listening to the comments by this lady objecting to the rent control ordinance, it sounds like we may have a future potential candidate for city council.
If I were eligible to vote in the City, she would be first for me to vote for!