This is a great article that shows Bonnie has a clear understanding of this somewhat complicated isolated situation.
My bottom line:
This article is not framed as landlords vs. tenants or profit vs. morality
The central question is fairness and sustainability
If limiting cost recovery to 60% of inflation is good policy:
Why has the City never applied it to itself?
In other words double standard or "do as i say, not as I do."
My takeaway:
Why would a small time (mom and pop) investor ever enter a marketplace like Santa Barbara to build a portfolio of rental properties? It is a zero sum game with no upside.
I think if they vote for a rent rollback to December 2025 and a one year freeze, there should also the same roll back applied to all COLA for city employees, especially the city administrator who was granted a 3.5% increase just a month or two ago.
Supporters of the emergency ordinance argue that some renters face immediate, steep rent hikes and real risk of displacement, and that waiting months for the usual process could leave people without homes before any protections take effect. That fear is not imaginary. Housing instability is a serious, long‑running problem in Santa Barbara.
But housing affordability has been a decades‑long challenge, not a sudden act of God. The question is whether that longstanding problem justifies bypassing the very process that is supposed to protect everyone when big policies are on the table.
A reasonable, middle‑of‑the‑road position looks something like this:
Yes, renters are under real strain, and some are facing painful, immediate decisions.
Yes, the city can and should explore tools to prevent egregious abuses. No one wants price gouging or bad‑faith evictions.
No, that does not justify skipping due process and treating a chronic policy challenge as if it were the civic equivalent of a wildfire.
I do not doubt that many on the council are acting out of sincere concern for renters. But sincere concern still needs to operate within a fair process.
If councilmembers believe rent caps or strict limits are smart policy, they should:
Publish the full proposal with real‑world examples and data.
Open a proper public process: workshops, hearings, and serious staff analysis.
Take testimony from small property owners, renters, economists, nonprofit housing providers, and neighborhood advocates.
Consider alternatives and tradeoffs openly.
Right now, the practical message is: Trust us, it is an emergency; we can sort out the details later. That is not good enough for something this consequential.
In this case, the issue is about the ratio of landlords to tenants in the ballot boxes. I don't know the numbers, but at least 1 to 9 seems likely, when counting all tenants and all landlords. Plus, tenants are organized precisely to achieve favorable decisions like the one proposed, especially as the majority of voters are not adversely affected by it. Bonnie's article is logically persuasive, but will there be enough opposition from unaffected voters to make the socialists on the council change their minds?
The city government plans on attacking and stopping one part of a miles long supply chain. It is so stupid I and unenforceable that I don't even know where to begin on this...
It will play out like one of those videos: "It was great idea! With the best intentions...what could possibly go wrong?....Well, for starters..." 🤣
This is insane. They are running this show against one set of people. The ones that own rental property. We have been absorbing the majority of these increases already. The property tax that we pay should be enough to fund the majority of city council needs.
I’m sorry I am not in Santa Barbara today as I would definitely like to be there.
I hope that many will be there in protest of this bill that will destroy the value of rental property as no one will want to own rental properties anymore.
Public comment via Zoom is possible. But best to join Zoom session early, and "raise hand" at the start of agenda item 14. Then wait (about 2 hours?) for in-person comments. Or just send written comments to Clerk@santabarbaraca.gov.
Brilliant argument, Bonnie. The City rightfully argues that as their costs for goods and services rise, so does City fees, based on “Cost Recovery” and the CPI. This rationale does not seem to extend to property owners and landlords. Quite the opposite.
How are rent controls even constitutional and not in violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? The City arguing this is an “Emergency” measure, presumably meaning temporary.
If the City’s mandate of rent controls is justified because of an “emergency,” even though the ordinance will be permanent, what is to keep the City from declaring emergency measures due to climate change and making permanent changes to energy policy by prohibiting fossil fuels? Or how about the City declaring an emergency due to rising deficits and therefore disavowing Prop 13 and raising taxes beyond limits in order to cover expenses?
This is very much a slippery slope for the City and may have to be sued in a class action by property owners in order to get injunctive relief. Why? Because we all know the Socialists on the Council will get their way and an ordinance will be passed.
Spot on! This is exactly the point. The city also handles the leases it manages for its own properties completely differently for cost recovery purposes. SOMEBODY PLEASE CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT FOR A SHOW OF HANDS OF THOSE WHO WILL VOTE TO APPLY THE SAME ‘INCOME CONTROL’ TO THE CITY THAT IT ADOPTS FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS’. I spoke at last meeting but can’t make this one. LAWSUIT???
Rents are a direct reflection of property value. Consider the cost to buy or finance, maintain and insure a property and if is often more than can be charged in rent. An 800k condo will cost at least 6k per month to finance, insure and maintain. Framing an economic reality as an emotional plea for compassion will result in destructive policy. The real problem is property values not greedy landlords.
Landlords advertise apartments at rents which they guess to be about market rate. Is that being greedy, or just sane? If a unit is advertised at a rate much lower than market rate, the landlord is overwhelmed with applications. But increasing rents on current residents is the issue. That sure annoyed me in 1977.
If I could rent a property at significantly more that the cost to acquire it and maintain it, I would buy 100 rentals. So would every other swinging Richard and supply would increase and rents would go down. The free market in action. The free market only works if it is free meaning no government meddling.
A free market serves those who participate in it. By its nature a free market is the best system to reward productivity and achieve efficiency resulting in the highest standard of living. I know to you that will sound like a lizard brain answer. It is hard to type with claws.
Even if you happen to like the idea of rent control in theory, you should still be uneasy about how this is being done.
Today, a council claims an emergency to fast‑track rent rules. Tomorrow, another council might claim an emergency to fast‑track something you deeply oppose.
When officials get used to governing by emergency, public trust erodes. People who might have been willing to discuss careful reforms in good faith become suspicious and defensive. And the community becomes more polarized and less able to solve anything together.
Good intentions do not erase the need for good process.
With a business‑minded, officially non‑partisan mayor running for re‑election and two more liberal councilmembers effectively campaigning for the center seat, it is hard to ignore the political timing of this new “emergency” rent‑control push.
Housing affordability in Santa Barbara is a serious, long‑running challenge, not a sudden disaster. When a decades‑old problem is suddenly branded an emergency in an election year, residents are entitled to wonder whether they’re seeing crisis management or campaign messaging.
Whatever your position on rent control itself, we should be able to agree on this: emergency powers are a poor substitute for transparent process, especially when every seat on the dais is thinking about the next ballot, not just the next ordinance.
I read your comments because you’re clearly arguing from a serious first‑principles framework and you are articulate.
When it’s phrased as “I utterly despise your worldview” or “someone like you,” or otherwise disparaging, dismissive and judgmental, it comes across as contempt for people rather than critique of ideas, and at that point I’m not interested in trading reactions. If your aim is persuasion, I think your case would be stronger if the sharpest language were reserved for policies instead of the people debating them.
Councilmembers pay attention to who speaks up and who stays silent. They notice which issues generate a full room and which ones glide through in front of a few insiders and staff.
If you think an emergency rent control ordinance is a bad way to govern this city—even if you are undecided on rent control itself—you need to say so now, not after the vote has already been taken.
You do not need to be a policy expert. You do not need perfect talking points. You just need to show that ordinary, reasonable people are paying attention and expect the council to respect normal democratic process.
How to Make Your Opinion Heard
Here are two concrete ways to weigh in. Doing both is best.
1. Submit Written Public Comment
Public comments may also be submitted via email to Clerk@SantaBarbaraCA.gov prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting.
“Public Comment re: [Agenda Item #14] – Opposition to Emergency Rent Control Ordinance”
Be brief and specific. In a few short paragraphs, you can:
State that you oppose adopting rent control as an emergency ordinance.
Ask the council to pursue any rent policies through the normal process, with full public hearings and analysis.
Mention if you are a renter, homeowner, small landlord, employer, or long‑time resident. Your role in the community matters.
Send it before the deadline. Agendas typically specify when written comments must be received to be included in the record. Do not wait until the last minute.
If you are not sure what to say, even a short note like this is powerful:
“Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you not to adopt rent control as an emergency ordinance. Housing affordability is a serious, long‑term challenge, not a sudden emergency. Please follow the normal process, allow full public input, and carefully consider the impact on small property owners, renters, and future housing.
Sincerely, [Your Name], [Your Neighborhood or Role]”
2. Attend the Meeting in Person (If You Can)
Nothing sends a clearer message than a council chamber full of residents who took time out of their day because they care.
The meeting is JANUARY 13, 2026, 2:00 PM put it on your calendar now.
Arrive early. Seats can fill up quickly for controversial items, and public comment typically happens early in the discussion of that agenda item.
Fill out a speaker slip. When you arrive, staff will have forms you can complete to speak on a specific agenda item. If this is your first time, just ask staff to point you in the right direction.
Keep your remarks simple. You usually get only a few minutes. Focus on one or two key points:
You oppose using an emergency ordinance for something this major.
You want open, normal process with time for everyone to be heard.
You are concerned about impacts on renters and small housing providers alike.
Stay respectful. Firm disagreement is fine. Personal attacks and shouting make it easier for officials to dismiss the entire opposition.
If you truly cannot attend, encourage a friend, neighbor, or coworker who shares your concerns to go in your place.
... "limiting cost recovery to 60 percent of inflation is sound public policy, why has the City never applied that standard to its own fees, rates, and utilities?"
I would add 'never applied to their city salaries too?' What do we see in the increased expenditure for their city salaries? I bet they never miss a beat in raising their own salaries.
It's the same democrat hypocrisy that infects our country wherever democrats and their zombie voter minions are allowed to vote. The observations are irrefutable. The numbers don't lie.
My friends, I've been watching the public comment for the past hour and almost every person is a "mom & pop," property owner. Shame on Kristen Sneddon, Wendy Santamaria, Oscar Gutierrez and Meagan Harmon for bringing this issue to the full council. You can watch it here on You Tube, more comments and the full presentation will start at 5pm.
It's almost 3pm as I write this and the council has spent more than 30 minutes of general public comment on some issue regarding Lobster Joe's Summer Camp. I guess some idiot in the city administration cancelled their beach permit over not having enough safety personal in attendance. Wow, what a waste of time. The city staff person that made this choice should be demoted, that's my word. . . .
And to everyone else interested in the meeting, it's on You Tube right now on the City of Santa Barbara channel. AND THEY CHANGED THE FORMAT for public comment. They will be doing some public comment coming up shortly but more public comment will begin at 5pm today. You can call in at the 5pm meeting if you want to give your ONE minute comment.
This is a great article that shows Bonnie has a clear understanding of this somewhat complicated isolated situation.
My bottom line:
This article is not framed as landlords vs. tenants or profit vs. morality
The central question is fairness and sustainability
If limiting cost recovery to 60% of inflation is good policy:
Why has the City never applied it to itself?
In other words double standard or "do as i say, not as I do."
My takeaway:
Why would a small time (mom and pop) investor ever enter a marketplace like Santa Barbara to build a portfolio of rental properties? It is a zero sum game with no upside.
I think if they vote for a rent rollback to December 2025 and a one year freeze, there should also the same roll back applied to all COLA for city employees, especially the city administrator who was granted a 3.5% increase just a month or two ago.
A Moderate Case Against “Emergency” Rent Control
Supporters of the emergency ordinance argue that some renters face immediate, steep rent hikes and real risk of displacement, and that waiting months for the usual process could leave people without homes before any protections take effect. That fear is not imaginary. Housing instability is a serious, long‑running problem in Santa Barbara.
But housing affordability has been a decades‑long challenge, not a sudden act of God. The question is whether that longstanding problem justifies bypassing the very process that is supposed to protect everyone when big policies are on the table.
A reasonable, middle‑of‑the‑road position looks something like this:
Yes, renters are under real strain, and some are facing painful, immediate decisions.
Yes, the city can and should explore tools to prevent egregious abuses. No one wants price gouging or bad‑faith evictions.
No, that does not justify skipping due process and treating a chronic policy challenge as if it were the civic equivalent of a wildfire.
I do not doubt that many on the council are acting out of sincere concern for renters. But sincere concern still needs to operate within a fair process.
If councilmembers believe rent caps or strict limits are smart policy, they should:
Publish the full proposal with real‑world examples and data.
Open a proper public process: workshops, hearings, and serious staff analysis.
Take testimony from small property owners, renters, economists, nonprofit housing providers, and neighborhood advocates.
Consider alternatives and tradeoffs openly.
Right now, the practical message is: Trust us, it is an emergency; we can sort out the details later. That is not good enough for something this consequential.
In this case, the issue is about the ratio of landlords to tenants in the ballot boxes. I don't know the numbers, but at least 1 to 9 seems likely, when counting all tenants and all landlords. Plus, tenants are organized precisely to achieve favorable decisions like the one proposed, especially as the majority of voters are not adversely affected by it. Bonnie's article is logically persuasive, but will there be enough opposition from unaffected voters to make the socialists on the council change their minds?
Well met, Bonnie.
You mean the city is acting hypocritically?
Shocked! Shocked I tell you!
The city government plans on attacking and stopping one part of a miles long supply chain. It is so stupid I and unenforceable that I don't even know where to begin on this...
It will play out like one of those videos: "It was great idea! With the best intentions...what could possibly go wrong?....Well, for starters..." 🤣
This is insane. They are running this show against one set of people. The ones that own rental property. We have been absorbing the majority of these increases already. The property tax that we pay should be enough to fund the majority of city council needs.
I’m sorry I am not in Santa Barbara today as I would definitely like to be there.
I hope that many will be there in protest of this bill that will destroy the value of rental property as no one will want to own rental properties anymore.
Public comment via Zoom is possible. But best to join Zoom session early, and "raise hand" at the start of agenda item 14. Then wait (about 2 hours?) for in-person comments. Or just send written comments to Clerk@santabarbaraca.gov.
Brilliant argument, Bonnie. The City rightfully argues that as their costs for goods and services rise, so does City fees, based on “Cost Recovery” and the CPI. This rationale does not seem to extend to property owners and landlords. Quite the opposite.
How are rent controls even constitutional and not in violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? The City arguing this is an “Emergency” measure, presumably meaning temporary.
If the City’s mandate of rent controls is justified because of an “emergency,” even though the ordinance will be permanent, what is to keep the City from declaring emergency measures due to climate change and making permanent changes to energy policy by prohibiting fossil fuels? Or how about the City declaring an emergency due to rising deficits and therefore disavowing Prop 13 and raising taxes beyond limits in order to cover expenses?
This is very much a slippery slope for the City and may have to be sued in a class action by property owners in order to get injunctive relief. Why? Because we all know the Socialists on the Council will get their way and an ordinance will be passed.
https://alblawfirm.com/articles/constitutional-rent-stabilization/
Spot on! This is exactly the point. The city also handles the leases it manages for its own properties completely differently for cost recovery purposes. SOMEBODY PLEASE CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT FOR A SHOW OF HANDS OF THOSE WHO WILL VOTE TO APPLY THE SAME ‘INCOME CONTROL’ TO THE CITY THAT IT ADOPTS FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS’. I spoke at last meeting but can’t make this one. LAWSUIT???
Rents are a direct reflection of property value. Consider the cost to buy or finance, maintain and insure a property and if is often more than can be charged in rent. An 800k condo will cost at least 6k per month to finance, insure and maintain. Framing an economic reality as an emotional plea for compassion will result in destructive policy. The real problem is property values not greedy landlords.
Landlords advertise apartments at rents which they guess to be about market rate. Is that being greedy, or just sane? If a unit is advertised at a rate much lower than market rate, the landlord is overwhelmed with applications. But increasing rents on current residents is the issue. That sure annoyed me in 1977.
If I could rent a property at significantly more that the cost to acquire it and maintain it, I would buy 100 rentals. So would every other swinging Richard and supply would increase and rents would go down. The free market in action. The free market only works if it is free meaning no government meddling.
I don’t know what that means.
A free market serves those who participate in it. By its nature a free market is the best system to reward productivity and achieve efficiency resulting in the highest standard of living. I know to you that will sound like a lizard brain answer. It is hard to type with claws.
This Is About Trust, Not Just Economics
Even if you happen to like the idea of rent control in theory, you should still be uneasy about how this is being done.
Today, a council claims an emergency to fast‑track rent rules. Tomorrow, another council might claim an emergency to fast‑track something you deeply oppose.
When officials get used to governing by emergency, public trust erodes. People who might have been willing to discuss careful reforms in good faith become suspicious and defensive. And the community becomes more polarized and less able to solve anything together.
Good intentions do not erase the need for good process.
Today's vote is only for the 1-year freeze. That will not be the end of the world. Mostly a fig leaf to distract from gross defects in zoning.
defects?
The goal of the city employees is to sustain itself, first and foremost.
Reading this reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
With a business‑minded, officially non‑partisan mayor running for re‑election and two more liberal councilmembers effectively campaigning for the center seat, it is hard to ignore the political timing of this new “emergency” rent‑control push.
Housing affordability in Santa Barbara is a serious, long‑running challenge, not a sudden disaster. When a decades‑old problem is suddenly branded an emergency in an election year, residents are entitled to wonder whether they’re seeing crisis management or campaign messaging.
Whatever your position on rent control itself, we should be able to agree on this: emergency powers are a poor substitute for transparent process, especially when every seat on the dais is thinking about the next ballot, not just the next ordinance.
I read your comments because you’re clearly arguing from a serious first‑principles framework and you are articulate.
When it’s phrased as “I utterly despise your worldview” or “someone like you,” or otherwise disparaging, dismissive and judgmental, it comes across as contempt for people rather than critique of ideas, and at that point I’m not interested in trading reactions. If your aim is persuasion, I think your case would be stronger if the sharpest language were reserved for policies instead of the people debating them.
Your Voice Matters
Councilmembers pay attention to who speaks up and who stays silent. They notice which issues generate a full room and which ones glide through in front of a few insiders and staff.
If you think an emergency rent control ordinance is a bad way to govern this city—even if you are undecided on rent control itself—you need to say so now, not after the vote has already been taken.
You do not need to be a policy expert. You do not need perfect talking points. You just need to show that ordinary, reasonable people are paying attention and expect the council to respect normal democratic process.
How to Make Your Opinion Heard
Here are two concrete ways to weigh in. Doing both is best.
1. Submit Written Public Comment
Public comments may also be submitted via email to Clerk@SantaBarbaraCA.gov prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting.
“Public Comment re: [Agenda Item #14] – Opposition to Emergency Rent Control Ordinance”
Be brief and specific. In a few short paragraphs, you can:
State that you oppose adopting rent control as an emergency ordinance.
Ask the council to pursue any rent policies through the normal process, with full public hearings and analysis.
Mention if you are a renter, homeowner, small landlord, employer, or long‑time resident. Your role in the community matters.
Send it before the deadline. Agendas typically specify when written comments must be received to be included in the record. Do not wait until the last minute.
If you are not sure what to say, even a short note like this is powerful:
“Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge you not to adopt rent control as an emergency ordinance. Housing affordability is a serious, long‑term challenge, not a sudden emergency. Please follow the normal process, allow full public input, and carefully consider the impact on small property owners, renters, and future housing.
Sincerely, [Your Name], [Your Neighborhood or Role]”
2. Attend the Meeting in Person (If You Can)
Nothing sends a clearer message than a council chamber full of residents who took time out of their day because they care.
The meeting is JANUARY 13, 2026, 2:00 PM put it on your calendar now.
Arrive early. Seats can fill up quickly for controversial items, and public comment typically happens early in the discussion of that agenda item.
Fill out a speaker slip. When you arrive, staff will have forms you can complete to speak on a specific agenda item. If this is your first time, just ask staff to point you in the right direction.
Keep your remarks simple. You usually get only a few minutes. Focus on one or two key points:
You oppose using an emergency ordinance for something this major.
You want open, normal process with time for everyone to be heard.
You are concerned about impacts on renters and small housing providers alike.
Stay respectful. Firm disagreement is fine. Personal attacks and shouting make it easier for officials to dismiss the entire opposition.
If you truly cannot attend, encourage a friend, neighbor, or coworker who shares your concerns to go in your place.
... "limiting cost recovery to 60 percent of inflation is sound public policy, why has the City never applied that standard to its own fees, rates, and utilities?"
I would add 'never applied to their city salaries too?' What do we see in the increased expenditure for their city salaries? I bet they never miss a beat in raising their own salaries.
It's the same democrat hypocrisy that infects our country wherever democrats and their zombie voter minions are allowed to vote. The observations are irrefutable. The numbers don't lie.
My friends, I've been watching the public comment for the past hour and almost every person is a "mom & pop," property owner. Shame on Kristen Sneddon, Wendy Santamaria, Oscar Gutierrez and Meagan Harmon for bringing this issue to the full council. You can watch it here on You Tube, more comments and the full presentation will start at 5pm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMw43rEPbc
It's almost 3pm as I write this and the council has spent more than 30 minutes of general public comment on some issue regarding Lobster Joe's Summer Camp. I guess some idiot in the city administration cancelled their beach permit over not having enough safety personal in attendance. Wow, what a waste of time. The city staff person that made this choice should be demoted, that's my word. . . .
And to everyone else interested in the meeting, it's on You Tube right now on the City of Santa Barbara channel. AND THEY CHANGED THE FORMAT for public comment. They will be doing some public comment coming up shortly but more public comment will begin at 5pm today. You can call in at the 5pm meeting if you want to give your ONE minute comment.