Santa Barbara’s affordability crisis isn’t caused by landlords—it’s created by the City’s own policies.
Why can the City, County, and State increase fees, taxes, and utility rates on us—then tell us we can’t adjust rents to cover those same increases?
That question came into sharp focus this week during SB Current’s Second Anniversary and Christmas party at Moby Dick’s out on the wharf. The goal was simple: enjoy the sunset, share a good meal, and spend time with friends and supporters. By every measure, it was a success—relaxed, welcoming, and genuinely enjoyable.
That is, until everyone left.
As guests headed back to their cars, each was met with an $8.00 charge just to exit the wharf.
For decades, eating or shopping on the wharf meant your parking ticket was validated when you supported the businesses there. That practice is gone. Parking that once cost $2.00 per hour now costs $4.00 per hour.
That’s a 100 percent increase.
Is that reflected in anyone’s Cost of Living Adjustment? CPI?
This isn’t about eight dollars. It’s about a pattern Santa Barbara residents know all too well. Parking fees rise. Utility rates increase. New assessments appear. Each increase is described as necessary, modest, or unavoidable. And each one, on its own, may seem manageable.
Taken together, they are anything but.
Yet when landlords respond to those same cost increases, the conversation abruptly changes.
On Tuesday, December 16th, the City Council will again focus on landlords with a proposed rental registry and another discussion centered on rents. We’re told this is about transparency and tenant protections. (The Council will be reviewing the timeline and process for preparing and considering a rent stabilization ordinance and providing initial guidance on key policy questions.)
City Deficit is Climbing
But registries don’t run themselves. They require staffing, administration, and enforcement—adding employees, operational costs, and more pressure on an already strained budget. Those costs don’t vanish; they fall on taxpayers.
Another layer of bureaucracy, more expense, and still no progress on the actual affordability crisis. The government wants more from the people providing the housing, while taking no responsibility for the costs it creates.
City leaders often ask why rents have risen so sharply in Santa Barbara. The answer may be closer than they think. Year after year, new rules, fees, and regulations are placed on housing providers. Each one adds cost. Each one reduces flexibility.
Could rising rents be connected to the cumulative impact of these policies?
Of course they could.
And the clearest example is hiding in plain sight: the City’s own utility bills.
Sewer rates for multi-family housing have more than doubled—with the fixed monthly charge per unit rising from about $18.50 to over $39, and the volumetric rate per HCF climbing nearly 85%. Water rates have climbed every year as well, through tier adjustments and base-charge increases that steadily inflate every bill. And trash? We still don’t have the numbers—but based on the pattern, would anyone be surprised if those increases doubled too?
There’s much more work to do, but here’s something that anyone can understand.
The attached spreadsheet shows the change over the past ten years in three items:
The per HCF water charge for the cheapest connection (5/8”) for the lowest tier (first 4 HCF) to a single-family residence.
The per 5/8” hookup monthly water service fee.
California CPI.
As the chart shows, in the past ten years,
The per HCF water charge increased roughly 44%.
The monthly service charge increased 70%.
(California CPI * 60%) increased 25%.
Will City Council pledge to keep all future city rate increases to 60% of CPI, and if not, why not?
Before I go any further, I want to pause and give credit where it’s due.
Thank you, Dale Francisco, for your tireless help with the data. Your clarity, precision, and patience made this work possible, and I’m deeply grateful.
Two caveats: Dale couldn’t find the water numbers for 2020 (in bold in the chart) so he just repeated the 2019 numbers.
The final CCPI numbers for 2025 are not yet available; the number given is as of August 2025.
“The City never limits its own price hikes—but it’s eager to limit yours.”
For many landlords, this is no longer theoretical. Nearly all have been forced to raise rents to the maximum allowed—not by choice, but by necessity. For years, rents often stayed flat until a tenant moved out. That model no longer works when costs rise annually but rent increases are restricted.
Failing to adjust rent incrementally means those costs are never recovered.
On October 6th, I submitted a Public Records Act Request (PRAR) seeking documentation of all city-approved increases over the past ten years. So far, the only data received involves water bills, including water rates, and sewer.
And here’s where the double standard becomes impossible to ignore.
The City of Santa Barbara contracts with MarBorg Industries for trash collection. When MarBorg’s costs increase, those increases are passed directly on to users. There is no debate about whether the company should absorb the expense. The rate is approved, and the higher bill arrives.
If landlords are told they cannot adjust rents to cover government-imposed fees and increases, then why is the City allowing its own contracted vendor to do exactly that?
If the principle is that housing providers should absorb rising costs “for the greater good,” shouldn’t that same principle apply to MarBorg? Shouldn’t the City step in and prevent those increases from being passed on to residents?
That argument is never made—because everyone understands the reality: when costs rise, someone pays.
The City passes along increases. The State passes along increases. Contracted vendors pass along increases. Only landlords are told they should not.
Many landlords include water, sewer, and trash, in rent because properties often have a single meter. Others also include internet, gas, and electric. These are essential services with steadily rising costs—not optional extras. And that’s before property tax, insurance, and maintenance.
After years of holding rents steady, landlords have been forced to change course to comply with new state, county, and city laws. If rent isn’t adjusted each year, there is no way to keep up.
Ironically, this is the same logic the government uses to justify raising fees and taxes on residents—to keep up with rising wages and operating costs.
Which leads to an often-overlooked question:
Government-owned housing does not pay property taxes. Private property owners do. Yet both operate in the same housing market, and only one group is told to absorb every cost increase quietly.
If transparency and accountability are the goals, then both should apply in every direction—government as well as housing providers. Because the costs of running a property, like the costs of running a city, do not disappear because someone wishes they would. The rules should be consistent. The burdens should be shared. And the realities should be acknowledged—no matter who is paying them.
“Costs are real. Consequences are real. And it’s time City Hall recognized both.”
If the City wants transparency and accountability, then it’s time to apply those standards to itself. Government housing doesn’t pay property taxes. Private owners do. If transparency and accountability are the goals, then it’s time for a full accounting of government housing—its income, its expenses, and the obligations it does not carry. Government raises its rates every year. Private owners are told they shouldn’t. The math doesn’t lie: Santa Barbara cannot keep demanding more from the people who provide the housing, while refusing to follow its own rules.
Costs are real. Consequences are real. And it’s time City Hall recognized both.
A Big Thank you
A heartfelt thank you to Tremblay Financial Services, whose generous corporate support helped make SB Current’s Christmas Party truly special. Your commitment to our community shines—thank you for standing with us.
Community Calendar:
Got a Santa Barbara event for our community calendar? Fenkner@sbcurrent.com
Our city government has it in for private ownership of rental properties because they want to be in control. And they don't want to be landlords. They want to be the lords of this land. Are they communists or feudal overlords? I don't care, I just want Santa Barbarans to wake the hell up and vote them the hell out.
Doesn’t the city get a slice of marborg fees, cox fees, cell phone fees? These indirect income streams add to revenue and help keep down the appearance of increased spending