Ever seen the old movie "The Untouchables" starring Kevin Costner and Sean Connery?
There is a scene where they are about to do their 1st raid.
A young inexperienced Elliott Ness (Costner) asks the older battle weary CPD Sgt Malone (Connery): "That's it? It's just behind this door?"
Sgt Malone: "Mr Ness, everybody knows where the booze is. The question is who has the balls to cross Capone? You step through that door, there is no going back"
Just like in the movie, in real life, ask any builder, we all know how to build affordable homes. The question is: "Who has the balls to cross Capone?
Make no mistake, the Democrat power brokers who have a stranglehold in California are the "Capone's" of our time.
These boys play for keeps and will fight to the death to protect their gravy train.
If the people were to ever wise up that they are the reason we can't have "nice things"...they'd all be run out of town on a rail.
You want affordable housing? Easy peasy, 1st of all, YOU DONT BUILD HERE!
You take a large parcel of land inland or up the coast, use state resources to establish base infrastructure like roads, water, and electricity.
Cut down all the trees, establish a defensible fire break, and call the new town something like "Pacific Oaks" 😆🤦♂️
Remove all unnecessary regulatory expenses and build build build Starter Homes that sell for under $300K, rentals for $1K/mth!
Young families will move there in droves to take advantage of the American Dream.
Schools will be quickly be established, businesses will move there to serve the fledgling upstart town. More businesses will move there to take advantage of the opportunity to get into the area on the ground floor.
Equity builds
In 40 years, the established town will start claiming "an affordability crisis!"
Santa Barbara’s affordability problems are not just about landlords — they’re about public policies that create private markets around public scarcity. What’s striking is that the same pattern exists in our city’s housing system and in our harbor slip‑permit system.
In housing, long‑term renters benefit from rent freezes and protected status, while new renters face extreme prices. Campbell cites research showing rent control reduces rental supply and increases costs for everyone else. He also notes how increased demand — including demand from unauthorized immigration — puts additional pressure on the lowest‑cost housing. The result is a two‑tier system: long‑term rental holders with protected access, and newcomers priced out.
The harbor operates on the same logic.
Santa Barbara is one of the only cities in California that allows slip permits to transfer with boat sales, creating a private shadow market for a public resource. Slip holders become the equivalent of long‑term renters: they gain a valuable, protected position that can be sold privately. New boaters, like new renters, are effectively shut out unless they pay inflated prices for a boat they don’t even want — simply to acquire the slip. The City calls slip permits “revocable licenses,” but the transfer policy creates a de‑facto private asset worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In both cases, City policy privatizes access to public resources.
In both cases, long‑term holders benefit while newcomers face barriers.
In both cases, scarcity is manufactured by rules the City itself controls.
And in both cases, the City blames private actors for outcomes its own policies helped create. The harbor slip‑transfer rule could be ended overnight, restoring equal access and eliminating a private market for a public asset. Housing reform is more complex, but the underlying principle is the same: scarcity created by policy will always produce inequity.
Yep, when I lived in NYC there were "rent controlled" apartments for less than half the monthly market rate every non-rent-controlled apartment was going for.
The catch? To get a rent controlled apartment you had to pay the existing tenant $50-100K under the table. It was called "an application fee"
And this was in 1980's and 1990's dollars...whole different dollar than we have today!
Excellent, coherent assessment of the housing crisis, especially in Santa Barbara. I hope you sent it to the members of the Santa Barbara city council. In fact, all your readers should send a copy to them. Create a deluge of common-sense economics on the ignorant. Then, explain what they should be doing instead of their current policies. Providing the necessary energy for political action directed at the problem, is vital for change.
No Derek ... the FRAUD is MASSIVE in CALIFRAUDIA with no end in sight ... rational talk is
no longer an option as you say > "I hope you sent it to the members of the Santa Barbara city council. In fact, all your readers should send a copy to them. "
Many landlords have attended the City Council meetings. There was even a lawsuit against the City regarding rent control. The city council has stopped listening to their constituents and making their own decisions about what's best for the community.
That landlord lawsuit against the city has already been thrown out, with leave to amend. Whether it gets amended and refiled remains to be seen.
Judge declared insufficient arguments presented to determine if "rent-control" is a 5th Amendment taking of private property, or if the rent control ordinance was implemented after reckless attention to city process.
Council member majority Sneddon, Santamaria, Harmon and Gutierrez must be so pleased.
Compare points made in this article to the campaign statements already made by the current crop of DSA candidates, poised to take majority control of this city in a matter of months.
DSA ideologies is for government to run and control everything. They don't want private ownership of properties or businesses.
And so that seems how SB is leaning towards. Punish the businesses by raising taxes and costs until they can no longer operate in SB. Does the Government then buy up properties to make them low income housing? But low income housing properties do not pay property taxes.
Rather quickly the DSA crowd will run into the looming financial liabilities already imposed on local tax dollars. This is due to the prior union-bargained, but woefully underfunded government employe pension short-falls now coming due.
Building more property tax-free "affordable housing, on high value land is not a solution. This is a real crisis that requires substantive discussion. Is DSA up to it, because the recent union-controlled city council majorities certainly have not been up to the task.
How will the DSA "pro-worker" agenda reconcile stiffing the current employee pension under-funding, with their promise to use those tax dollars for more tax free housing while confiscating the current rental market and property tax base with their rent control agenda. Lots of balls up in the air right now. Show us your stuff, DSA.
No one is a winner on either side right now, except the enduring but now discredited animal sprits of the market place, which is always only way to seek a new equilibrium. Bad, bad capitalism. But DSA is only digging the holes deeper. Who knew.
Increasing government revenues demands confront government's increasing distaste for private market solutions. Damn, how do you get a win-win out of this?
A very superficial GROK exploration revealed a significant part of our local "housing crisis" can come from workforce demands generated by our two large estate neighbors, Hope Ranch and Montecito. GROK estimates they may need approximately 2-20 onsite employees per large property estate for daily property management. That quickly adds up as another significant driver of the demands for more local workforce housing.
The days of these large estates voluntarily providing "gardeners cottages and maids quarters" are long gone. Instead these daily estate workers are also part of either the daily commutes from outlying areas, or creation of the demand for ever more high-density worker housing locally.
The larger question is what exact local businesses internally drive so much continual demand for their workers to not commute into this area daily, or consume increasing numbers of this perpetual need for more low-income housing demand?
What businesses in fact have benefited from the numerous new "affordable" housing programs already in place at public expense, including the ever-expanding SBHA units now already in place. No more regurgitation of "first responders" (aka government employees) since many prior housing schemes for these workers have failed to play out as intended. We need to look into the history those attempts too.
How has the Cottage Hospital worker housing installed in the old St Francis Hospital property played out in real time, for the benefit of both the residents and Cottage Hospital? Kudos to schools districts now converting their own underutilized properties into worker housing for their own employees. But how too does this employee benefit work out in real time -who gets it, who keeps it, how does it affect employee turnover, what happens when workers need to be separated from their original housing providers?
We know HOAs can occasionally become nightmares, how are these employee/resident close living arrangements actually working out? Who has audited these dense workers housing projects to determine if in fact they continue to satisfy their original goals? How can we build on their successes, what can we learn from what does to work as originally intended.
Right now we know zero about this path we are committed to keep taking - build, build build. As long as there is one soul left who demands "affordable housing" in Santa Barbara, shall we remain committed to providing it? That is the way it feels right now. While politicians prance around with "golden shovels" grinning at the new digs to keep supplying sheer numbers of units and get patted on their heads by our Sacramento elected representatives who keep setting these artificial goals for their own sense of self-accomplishment.
What happens to those workforce housing units when the recipients retire and are no longer part of the allegedly necessary local workforce? Is providing the potentially significant workforce housing demands for Hope Ranch and Montecito estate our duty, or their duty.
Who exactly are we serving and why? Data please; not just more political agenda. "Affordable housing" still remains token hand-out housing for the very few, when compared to the insatiable demands. Who and why are these few being benefited and for what specific end goal? Is this subsidized-housing allocation also getting gamed from the inside?
Begging the question again, in real data terms who benefit and who pays for more "affordable housing" and do they owe us anything back in return that we can specifically track? A pro forma please.
Creating an ever-growing embedded nanny-state population is never healthy for any community. The devil is in the details. We are woefully devoid of any details about this growing local nanny-state.
Right on Brian. Your facts prove the incentive: votes and more funding. The tenant dependency secures votes for those that give the subsidies. The affordable housing folks make a lot of money on these projects with special government funding and approvals, plus get full market rent for each unit. There is no incentive to find solution. The cycle continues similar to one making more money treating a disease than finding a cure. Free market housing is the only fair and equitable solution for all. Besides, home ownership should be the goal for all tenants, not forever renting on subsidies.
The downtown cit council district is a lost cause, ripe for DSA perpetually picking it off every election cycle. Dense, full of renters and ripe for SBHA picking off prime income producing properties after they fall into neglect, due to rent control. Ringing the former downtown retail/business district with perpetually low-income residents is not healthy for the future of this city.
“Recently, Edhat reported that Santa Barbara ranked 298th out of 300 cities selected by WalletHub for first-time home buyers and 299th for affordability.
That does not mean Santa Barbara had the highest home prices. WalletHub’s affordability ranking considers housing costs relative to local incomes, along with insurance, cost of living, cost per square foot, and property taxes.”
This reality is a huge part of the housing affordability equation. The large and apparently growing population of local adults who choose to live in Santa Barbara like kids out of Mom and Dad’s home for the first time into middle age and beyond have the politicians’ ears. This group is augmented annually with a significant portion of fresh UCSB grads, most with little economic value liberal arts degrees (or drop outs), who have fallen in love with the beach vibe and weather and refuse to recognize the realities of the article quoted above. A rationale adult would recognize that as nice as Santa Barbara is, unless one has gotten on the government gravy train, it is very difficult to make a living, let alone form a family and household with a private sector job and it would be best to move to greener financial pastures elsewhere. Instead this arrested developed group ages in place while whining and complaining about affordable housing, heartless “rich” people, greedy landlords and businesses to the Independent and the politicians who have no business or financial sense. The tail is waging the dog.
The taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting the sun and beach vibe for this group with subsidized housing.
You nailed it 100% Brian! Excellent recap on how Santa Barbara and CA got to this place. Let’s stop blaming everyone but ourselves! It matters who you vote for. Newsolini has bankrupted our state , and the fraud is unimaginable! So many people I know have sold their “rental” properties due to the draconian laws passed by this inept government.
We already know the city's rent control policies potentially reduced the numbers of intended new rental units at the new La Cumbre Road developmet, since they recently converted all those proposed new rental units into condominiums. Benefit: potentially new entry level home ownership units, but definitely a loss as intended new rental units.
When the term "affordable housing" gets tossed out, how is this allocated between entry level home ownership units versus more rental units? Which is the better course to follow?
Are those that bought into the fixed-equity "inclusionary housing units" happy with their decisions? Are they still living there or have they converted this housing into market rate rental units themselves? How do these intentionally low-income owners keep up with increasing HOA fees as they now meet the inevitable major systems replacement costs?
Not everyone can afford what their heart desires. There’s many things that I would like but do without.
The affordable mentality that captured governments in the 70’s has led to this so called “crisis”.
In communities that have paid governmental penalties to maintain their quality of life pay much higher rates for services. It’s a win-win! They live in safe clean communities paid for with after tax dollars and those providing the services are paid handsomely for their efforts and don’t need affordable housing or public assistance.
We in SB subsidize low wage earners with our tax dollars.
How would it ease the “housing crisis” if you had to be here legally?
Is it because permissive parenting has lead to the child never being told no they can't have something and now as adults they want to do what ever they want.
Or millenals raising their best friend instead of their child and giving in to their every demand.
I would live to live in mansion in Montecito but that is not attainable. You find what you can afford and not expect things to change for your desires.
Imagine how much building costs would be reduced if we got rid of 70% of the unnecessary regulations and inspections that mostly don't do ANYTHING except give someone another worthless government job! SOME regulations are important and necessary. Most are not.
Imagine what would happen if AMERICANS were hired by contractors instead of cutting costs on employees becauseImagine how much housing would be available if illegal immigrants went back to their countries.
they spend so much money jumping through the regulatory hoops.
The entire house development network is intentionally inefficient and expensive to make it difficult to build new homes or upgrade old homes.
The question is why the voters in SB continue to elect these same delusional, self serving, socialist politicians (aka Democrats) who perpetuate the insane policies described here. Do the blue haired aging boomers waving signs in front of Whole Foods truly represent the voters of our city? Sadly, more and more people who understand the problem move East, looking for sanity in hot, humid red states.
“Go West Youn Man” is now a sad joke. We need to educate local voters, and vote. The voter ID initiative on the coming ballot would be a big step in the right direction. So would electing Steve Hilton, Bob Smith, Sonja Shaw, and other like minded folks running for office in November. If that fails, more will call to reserve a U Haul.
Thank you for writing. Rent control policies do not eliminate housing costs; they transfer them from tenants to landlords, future renters, and local municipalities. While price caps provide immediate financial relief to existing occupants, the underlying economic burdens of maintaining, developing, and taxing real estate are redistributed across the broader housing ecosystem.
Electing new council members is really the only way to change this draconian and uneconomic situation. The short sightedness of some council members is purely political and the housing health of the city will suffer.
Be sure to read all the candidates official campaign statements for this coming election, even when they are not running in one's own district. Are there even viable alternate choices this round?
All it takes is any four of them to turn this town totally upside down. Two DSA votes on city council are already guaranteed. DSA potentially have the necessary four votes, since population-based district elections combined with historic low voter turnouts have already gamed the system.
Very nice article, I agree that rent control is not a good thing. I hope that nothing happens to our municipal golf course. I want to bring up a while ago. There was talk about somebody was going to buy Earl Warren Showgrounds and part of the deal was a land swap to build a better event center. Have you heard more about this? Thank you for all you do.
I read this RESPONSIBLITY Article titled "What If the Housing Crisis Was Not Created by Landlords?"
By Brian Campbell and I have a new and real title as follows "I would not Trust ANY Local Government Leader for ANYTHING in this Lil Ole RICH Beach Town" and I quote from Mr. Campbell "We need to start asking why the politicians responsible are still being trusted to solve it."
Mr. Campbell, with all due respect, we do not need to ask the Local Leaders ANYTHING and certaintLy do not Trust them to solve ANYTHING. At least I tried to do something in this God-Forsaken Town that was DEAD a very long time ago. If you are OVER THE TARGET these nice loving and caring CALIFRAUDIA Leaders will Target you >>>>> Be very careful FOLKS.
This article should be “force fed” to The Independent’s Angry Poodle.
It would give the aging, tired poodle explosive .......well, you know.
💯
Ever seen the old movie "The Untouchables" starring Kevin Costner and Sean Connery?
There is a scene where they are about to do their 1st raid.
A young inexperienced Elliott Ness (Costner) asks the older battle weary CPD Sgt Malone (Connery): "That's it? It's just behind this door?"
Sgt Malone: "Mr Ness, everybody knows where the booze is. The question is who has the balls to cross Capone? You step through that door, there is no going back"
Just like in the movie, in real life, ask any builder, we all know how to build affordable homes. The question is: "Who has the balls to cross Capone?
Make no mistake, the Democrat power brokers who have a stranglehold in California are the "Capone's" of our time.
These boys play for keeps and will fight to the death to protect their gravy train.
If the people were to ever wise up that they are the reason we can't have "nice things"...they'd all be run out of town on a rail.
You want affordable housing? Easy peasy, 1st of all, YOU DONT BUILD HERE!
You take a large parcel of land inland or up the coast, use state resources to establish base infrastructure like roads, water, and electricity.
Cut down all the trees, establish a defensible fire break, and call the new town something like "Pacific Oaks" 😆🤦♂️
Remove all unnecessary regulatory expenses and build build build Starter Homes that sell for under $300K, rentals for $1K/mth!
Young families will move there in droves to take advantage of the American Dream.
Schools will be quickly be established, businesses will move there to serve the fledgling upstart town. More businesses will move there to take advantage of the opportunity to get into the area on the ground floor.
Equity builds
In 40 years, the established town will start claiming "an affordability crisis!"
Rinse Lather Repeat
But 1st, someone has to cross Capone.
The wisdom of those who have been there, done that and have seen it all. Thanks.
"But 1st, someone has to cross Capone."
Santa Barbara’s affordability problems are not just about landlords — they’re about public policies that create private markets around public scarcity. What’s striking is that the same pattern exists in our city’s housing system and in our harbor slip‑permit system.
In housing, long‑term renters benefit from rent freezes and protected status, while new renters face extreme prices. Campbell cites research showing rent control reduces rental supply and increases costs for everyone else. He also notes how increased demand — including demand from unauthorized immigration — puts additional pressure on the lowest‑cost housing. The result is a two‑tier system: long‑term rental holders with protected access, and newcomers priced out.
The harbor operates on the same logic.
Santa Barbara is one of the only cities in California that allows slip permits to transfer with boat sales, creating a private shadow market for a public resource. Slip holders become the equivalent of long‑term renters: they gain a valuable, protected position that can be sold privately. New boaters, like new renters, are effectively shut out unless they pay inflated prices for a boat they don’t even want — simply to acquire the slip. The City calls slip permits “revocable licenses,” but the transfer policy creates a de‑facto private asset worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In both cases, City policy privatizes access to public resources.
In both cases, long‑term holders benefit while newcomers face barriers.
In both cases, scarcity is manufactured by rules the City itself controls.
And in both cases, the City blames private actors for outcomes its own policies helped create. The harbor slip‑transfer rule could be ended overnight, restoring equal access and eliminating a private market for a public asset. Housing reform is more complex, but the underlying principle is the same: scarcity created by policy will always produce inequity.
Yep, when I lived in NYC there were "rent controlled" apartments for less than half the monthly market rate every non-rent-controlled apartment was going for.
The catch? To get a rent controlled apartment you had to pay the existing tenant $50-100K under the table. It was called "an application fee"
And this was in 1980's and 1990's dollars...whole different dollar than we have today!
Excellent, coherent assessment of the housing crisis, especially in Santa Barbara. I hope you sent it to the members of the Santa Barbara city council. In fact, all your readers should send a copy to them. Create a deluge of common-sense economics on the ignorant. Then, explain what they should be doing instead of their current policies. Providing the necessary energy for political action directed at the problem, is vital for change.
No Derek ... the FRAUD is MASSIVE in CALIFRAUDIA with no end in sight ... rational talk is
no longer an option as you say > "I hope you sent it to the members of the Santa Barbara city council. In fact, all your readers should send a copy to them. "
https://x.com/TheSCIF/status/2039743763262702026
Time to stop the Machine.
Many landlords have attended the City Council meetings. There was even a lawsuit against the City regarding rent control. The city council has stopped listening to their constituents and making their own decisions about what's best for the community.
That landlord lawsuit against the city has already been thrown out, with leave to amend. Whether it gets amended and refiled remains to be seen.
Judge declared insufficient arguments presented to determine if "rent-control" is a 5th Amendment taking of private property, or if the rent control ordinance was implemented after reckless attention to city process.
Council member majority Sneddon, Santamaria, Harmon and Gutierrez must be so pleased.
Compare points made in this article to the campaign statements already made by the current crop of DSA candidates, poised to take majority control of this city in a matter of months.
DSA ideologies is for government to run and control everything. They don't want private ownership of properties or businesses.
And so that seems how SB is leaning towards. Punish the businesses by raising taxes and costs until they can no longer operate in SB. Does the Government then buy up properties to make them low income housing? But low income housing properties do not pay property taxes.
What is their untlimate goal?
To keep their (illegal) voter base housed????
Makes you wonder....
Rather quickly the DSA crowd will run into the looming financial liabilities already imposed on local tax dollars. This is due to the prior union-bargained, but woefully underfunded government employe pension short-falls now coming due.
Building more property tax-free "affordable housing, on high value land is not a solution. This is a real crisis that requires substantive discussion. Is DSA up to it, because the recent union-controlled city council majorities certainly have not been up to the task.
How will the DSA "pro-worker" agenda reconcile stiffing the current employee pension under-funding, with their promise to use those tax dollars for more tax free housing while confiscating the current rental market and property tax base with their rent control agenda. Lots of balls up in the air right now. Show us your stuff, DSA.
No one is a winner on either side right now, except the enduring but now discredited animal sprits of the market place, which is always only way to seek a new equilibrium. Bad, bad capitalism. But DSA is only digging the holes deeper. Who knew.
Increasing government revenues demands confront government's increasing distaste for private market solutions. Damn, how do you get a win-win out of this?
We need people to vote these people out,find new candidates who don't support these policies.
People also need to wake up and not rely on their government to take care of them.
A very superficial GROK exploration revealed a significant part of our local "housing crisis" can come from workforce demands generated by our two large estate neighbors, Hope Ranch and Montecito. GROK estimates they may need approximately 2-20 onsite employees per large property estate for daily property management. That quickly adds up as another significant driver of the demands for more local workforce housing.
The days of these large estates voluntarily providing "gardeners cottages and maids quarters" are long gone. Instead these daily estate workers are also part of either the daily commutes from outlying areas, or creation of the demand for ever more high-density worker housing locally.
The larger question is what exact local businesses internally drive so much continual demand for their workers to not commute into this area daily, or consume increasing numbers of this perpetual need for more low-income housing demand?
What businesses in fact have benefited from the numerous new "affordable" housing programs already in place at public expense, including the ever-expanding SBHA units now already in place. No more regurgitation of "first responders" (aka government employees) since many prior housing schemes for these workers have failed to play out as intended. We need to look into the history those attempts too.
How has the Cottage Hospital worker housing installed in the old St Francis Hospital property played out in real time, for the benefit of both the residents and Cottage Hospital? Kudos to schools districts now converting their own underutilized properties into worker housing for their own employees. But how too does this employee benefit work out in real time -who gets it, who keeps it, how does it affect employee turnover, what happens when workers need to be separated from their original housing providers?
We know HOAs can occasionally become nightmares, how are these employee/resident close living arrangements actually working out? Who has audited these dense workers housing projects to determine if in fact they continue to satisfy their original goals? How can we build on their successes, what can we learn from what does to work as originally intended.
Right now we know zero about this path we are committed to keep taking - build, build build. As long as there is one soul left who demands "affordable housing" in Santa Barbara, shall we remain committed to providing it? That is the way it feels right now. While politicians prance around with "golden shovels" grinning at the new digs to keep supplying sheer numbers of units and get patted on their heads by our Sacramento elected representatives who keep setting these artificial goals for their own sense of self-accomplishment.
What happens to those workforce housing units when the recipients retire and are no longer part of the allegedly necessary local workforce? Is providing the potentially significant workforce housing demands for Hope Ranch and Montecito estate our duty, or their duty.
Who exactly are we serving and why? Data please; not just more political agenda. "Affordable housing" still remains token hand-out housing for the very few, when compared to the insatiable demands. Who and why are these few being benefited and for what specific end goal? Is this subsidized-housing allocation also getting gamed from the inside?
Begging the question again, in real data terms who benefit and who pays for more "affordable housing" and do they owe us anything back in return that we can specifically track? A pro forma please.
Creating an ever-growing embedded nanny-state population is never healthy for any community. The devil is in the details. We are woefully devoid of any details about this growing local nanny-state.
Right on Brian. Your facts prove the incentive: votes and more funding. The tenant dependency secures votes for those that give the subsidies. The affordable housing folks make a lot of money on these projects with special government funding and approvals, plus get full market rent for each unit. There is no incentive to find solution. The cycle continues similar to one making more money treating a disease than finding a cure. Free market housing is the only fair and equitable solution for all. Besides, home ownership should be the goal for all tenants, not forever renting on subsidies.
The downtown cit council district is a lost cause, ripe for DSA perpetually picking it off every election cycle. Dense, full of renters and ripe for SBHA picking off prime income producing properties after they fall into neglect, due to rent control. Ringing the former downtown retail/business district with perpetually low-income residents is not healthy for the future of this city.
Excellent article!
“Recently, Edhat reported that Santa Barbara ranked 298th out of 300 cities selected by WalletHub for first-time home buyers and 299th for affordability.
That does not mean Santa Barbara had the highest home prices. WalletHub’s affordability ranking considers housing costs relative to local incomes, along with insurance, cost of living, cost per square foot, and property taxes.”
This reality is a huge part of the housing affordability equation. The large and apparently growing population of local adults who choose to live in Santa Barbara like kids out of Mom and Dad’s home for the first time into middle age and beyond have the politicians’ ears. This group is augmented annually with a significant portion of fresh UCSB grads, most with little economic value liberal arts degrees (or drop outs), who have fallen in love with the beach vibe and weather and refuse to recognize the realities of the article quoted above. A rationale adult would recognize that as nice as Santa Barbara is, unless one has gotten on the government gravy train, it is very difficult to make a living, let alone form a family and household with a private sector job and it would be best to move to greener financial pastures elsewhere. Instead this arrested developed group ages in place while whining and complaining about affordable housing, heartless “rich” people, greedy landlords and businesses to the Independent and the politicians who have no business or financial sense. The tail is waging the dog.
The taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting the sun and beach vibe for this group with subsidized housing.
Great article. Thanks for giving us a voice here. My family concurs.
You nailed it 100% Brian! Excellent recap on how Santa Barbara and CA got to this place. Let’s stop blaming everyone but ourselves! It matters who you vote for. Newsolini has bankrupted our state , and the fraud is unimaginable! So many people I know have sold their “rental” properties due to the draconian laws passed by this inept government.
I completely agree that the municipal golf course should stay- it’s a treasure, a heaven, for not just golfers.
We already know the city's rent control policies potentially reduced the numbers of intended new rental units at the new La Cumbre Road developmet, since they recently converted all those proposed new rental units into condominiums. Benefit: potentially new entry level home ownership units, but definitely a loss as intended new rental units.
When the term "affordable housing" gets tossed out, how is this allocated between entry level home ownership units versus more rental units? Which is the better course to follow?
Are those that bought into the fixed-equity "inclusionary housing units" happy with their decisions? Are they still living there or have they converted this housing into market rate rental units themselves? How do these intentionally low-income owners keep up with increasing HOA fees as they now meet the inevitable major systems replacement costs?
Not everyone can afford what their heart desires. There’s many things that I would like but do without.
The affordable mentality that captured governments in the 70’s has led to this so called “crisis”.
In communities that have paid governmental penalties to maintain their quality of life pay much higher rates for services. It’s a win-win! They live in safe clean communities paid for with after tax dollars and those providing the services are paid handsomely for their efforts and don’t need affordable housing or public assistance.
We in SB subsidize low wage earners with our tax dollars.
How would it ease the “housing crisis” if you had to be here legally?
One can not laways have what their heart desires.
Is it because permissive parenting has lead to the child never being told no they can't have something and now as adults they want to do what ever they want.
Or millenals raising their best friend instead of their child and giving in to their every demand.
I would live to live in mansion in Montecito but that is not attainable. You find what you can afford and not expect things to change for your desires.
Imagine how much building costs would be reduced if we got rid of 70% of the unnecessary regulations and inspections that mostly don't do ANYTHING except give someone another worthless government job! SOME regulations are important and necessary. Most are not.
Imagine what would happen if AMERICANS were hired by contractors instead of cutting costs on employees becauseImagine how much housing would be available if illegal immigrants went back to their countries.
they spend so much money jumping through the regulatory hoops.
The entire house development network is intentionally inefficient and expensive to make it difficult to build new homes or upgrade old homes.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS.
This is so well written!
The question is why the voters in SB continue to elect these same delusional, self serving, socialist politicians (aka Democrats) who perpetuate the insane policies described here. Do the blue haired aging boomers waving signs in front of Whole Foods truly represent the voters of our city? Sadly, more and more people who understand the problem move East, looking for sanity in hot, humid red states.
“Go West Youn Man” is now a sad joke. We need to educate local voters, and vote. The voter ID initiative on the coming ballot would be a big step in the right direction. So would electing Steve Hilton, Bob Smith, Sonja Shaw, and other like minded folks running for office in November. If that fails, more will call to reserve a U Haul.
Thank you for writing. Rent control policies do not eliminate housing costs; they transfer them from tenants to landlords, future renters, and local municipalities. While price caps provide immediate financial relief to existing occupants, the underlying economic burdens of maintaining, developing, and taxing real estate are redistributed across the broader housing ecosystem.
Electing new council members is really the only way to change this draconian and uneconomic situation. The short sightedness of some council members is purely political and the housing health of the city will suffer.
Be sure to read all the candidates official campaign statements for this coming election, even when they are not running in one's own district. Are there even viable alternate choices this round?
All it takes is any four of them to turn this town totally upside down. Two DSA votes on city council are already guaranteed. DSA potentially have the necessary four votes, since population-based district elections combined with historic low voter turnouts have already gamed the system.
Very nice article, I agree that rent control is not a good thing. I hope that nothing happens to our municipal golf course. I want to bring up a while ago. There was talk about somebody was going to buy Earl Warren Showgrounds and part of the deal was a land swap to build a better event center. Have you heard more about this? Thank you for all you do.
I read this RESPONSIBLITY Article titled "What If the Housing Crisis Was Not Created by Landlords?"
By Brian Campbell and I have a new and real title as follows "I would not Trust ANY Local Government Leader for ANYTHING in this Lil Ole RICH Beach Town" and I quote from Mr. Campbell "We need to start asking why the politicians responsible are still being trusted to solve it."
Mr. Campbell, with all due respect, we do not need to ask the Local Leaders ANYTHING and certaintLy do not Trust them to solve ANYTHING. At least I tried to do something in this God-Forsaken Town that was DEAD a very long time ago. If you are OVER THE TARGET these nice loving and caring CALIFRAUDIA Leaders will Target you >>>>> Be very careful FOLKS.
https://x.com/SteveHiltonx/status/2018156332399128695
Trafficking in Human Misery .... it all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$ M O N E Y !!!
https://x.com/LeeNelsonAuthor/status/2018160918132138175
CALIRAUDIA'S THEME SONG >>> LETS STEAL ALL OF YOUR MONEY !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SheR_6C2oP0&list=RDSheR_6C2oP0&start_radio=1
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
This article should be sent to Steve Hilton and Bob Smith.
36:64 -- sad pre-election report today. The Machine continues to devour this state.
Yup
TRIPLE YUP, YUP AND A YAP.