Understanding what you so succinctly describe requires the ability to process critically and objectively. Given the bulk of the self-serving testimony during the city council meeting it is painfully apparent that many are either incapable or unwilling to engage in rational thought...including the majority of council members.
Everyone acts in their own best interests. Why would I as a tenant concern myself with the desires of the people who have leverage over me?
Should I listen to the landlords who obviously have a financial stake in this, and may not have my interests in mind- or my own?
Not that I care if rent control passes, but this self aggrandizing "Oh we moderates/conservatives are thinking critically!" Is the height of narcissism.
If I'm a tenant, why should I care for the arguments a landlord presents?
"But rent control-"
Do I trust you [generic, aimed at landlords]?
More than that - if the most vocal defenders of abstract "rights" over property have a disdain for the poor, and mock those who might seek rent control to secure their own stability, what makes me think landlords are trustworthy when they or their defenders speak so callously?
What is something worth? What a buyer is willing to pay, no more and no less. Absent rent control, a landlord could charge what a rental is worth. With rent control a landlord is forced to charge less than a property is worth, forced to keep tenants at low rents while prospective tenants willing to pay more are locked out. This will decrease housing supply and further the housing crisis. It will, however, create opportunities for an expanded role for government involvement in directly providing housing which is perhaps the ultimate goal.
"It will, however, create opportunities for an expanded role for government involvement in directly providing housing which is perhaps the ultimate goal."
And this is a problem because... a state or municipality concerned with securing the stability of it's own populace is immoral?
Nonsense. Hosuing is a right, perhaps one not recognized by the masonic constitutional, but is a natural right as man is owed justice.
You are leaving out that supply is constrained and not replaceable.
You are promoting a bidding situation. Those who can pay the most can live here. That is fine until it prices you out. Then you will understand the life of those who can't afford it today.
What you are describing has shown not to be true. Look into Paris rent control.
No no and more no. Those who can pay the most can and should get the best of everything. It is the dividend of success and what drives men to succeed, produce and it is what makes America great and the preferred destination for immigration, not France.
Thank you for writing. Until we the people of this city elect council members that understand a little more about business and economics, rent control will remain; many spoke prior to the five o'clock "emotional hour."
You raise several points that deserve serious consideration — but as the piece unfolds, the analysis becomes selective, and that bias undermines the conclusion.
Officials concentrated regulation on older housing
Officials exempted newer, larger developments
Officials created uncertainty that rewards scale and punishes small ownership
But earlier, you also state:
“Santa Barbara’s housing pressure did not appear overnight. The city is physically constrained by the Pacific Ocean to the south and the Santa Ynez Mountains to the north, with little room to expand outward. Once the city filled in, there was no next frontier.”
That raises an obvious question.
How, exactly, are elected officials supposed to change geography?
Physical constraints are not policy failures. They are immutable facts. Any serious analysis has to distinguish between structural limits that pre-date current leadership and policy decisions that meaningfully altered outcomes.
Now let’s address what actually drove rents higher — and what is largely missing from your argument.
From a property owner’s perspective, the largest contributors to rising rents were not ideological signals or speculative reactions to future policy. They were concrete, unavoidable cost increases:
Insurance!
This is the single biggest shock to operating costs in recent years. Premiums have exploded, coverage has narrowed, and some carriers have exited the market entirely. That cost is neither optional nor theoretical.
Materials used for repair and maintenance costs rose dramatically. So did construction costs. Lumber, fixtures, appliances, and mechanical systems all became materially more expensive.
Labor costs increased across the board. This is not limited to regulated sectors like fast food. Skilled and semi-skilled labor costs rose sharply, and availability tightened.
A significant portion of the construction and maintenance workforce historically consisted of workers here temporarily or without permanent status. With aggressive enforcement and removals, that labor pool is shrinking. The replacement workforce — primarily native-born citizens — will not perform this work at the same rates. That reality directly affects costs.
These are not marginal factors. They are the dominant drivers.
You argue that regulation caused rents to spike — but you never demonstrate which regulations materially did so, or how their impact compares to the cost drivers above.
If the answer is permit fees, processing timelines, or procedural requirements, then we should be honest about scale. Those costs are rounding errors compared to insurance, labor, and materials. Focusing on them while ignoring the major inputs distorts the analysis.
Policy choices can influence behavior at the margins. But they did not create the cost environment property owners are responding to.
Santa Barbara’s housing pressures are real. But attributing rent increases primarily to elected officials — while downplaying geography, market-wide cost inflation, insurance shocks, labor shortages, and immigration policy — oversimplifies a far more complex reality.
If the goal is accountability, it must be grounded in proportionality. Otherwise, the argument becomes less an explanation — and more a narrative.
And narratives, no matter how confidently written, do not lower rents.
Bigger than insurance or maintenance or fees is what a property is generating in income relative to its value. I was happy to rent a house in Goleta for 2k a month that I paid 400k for in 2014 but today that home is worth 1M and i would either charge much more or sell and put that money to work elsewhere where i could get a better return. I sold it and there is now one less rental. To me the question is why did that property go from 400k to 1M and I would point the finger at federal monetary policy in response to the Covid fraud which drove inflation. Paying people to stay home with printed dollars and then the inflation reduction act throwing more vapor dollars at environmental fraud might have fueled inflation.
You always have an answer, hunting for a question.
Why did house prices increase from the late 90s until we had the financial crisis in 08?
There was NO COVID fraud. There was 9/11, and Bush was sending people money to go BUY things. Thanks, GW, for the $750. But it was Bernanke who pushed interest rates down to near zero at rocket speed and then realized he needed to get back to the typical 5% at rocket speed, which collapsed the market. That, along with FRAUD from the originators, was a huge factor.
When you sold your house, you may have removed your property from the rental market. I do not know what the new buyer did with it. They could have rented it or moved into it. Regardless, it still became a place to live.
Selective bias? You certainly have yours as well. Don’t forget the main driver of the 08 financial crash was because government mandated that home loans be extended to people who could not afford them by using the ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) loans that entrapped many people enforce bankruptcy on many of the people the policy was meant to help. Not to mention the collapse of many banks. Even included with all of your reasoning it only goes to show that President Reagan was right when he said that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
You yourself glossed over one of your points, which is probably the biggest problem of all and that is immigration. California does not enforce the national policy and therefore we are a landing spot for illegal immigrants and those extra MILLIONS of people and GROWING is the biggest driver of the housing shortage and thus driving prices ever upward.
Your last statement that “narratives don’t lower rent costs“ , what does?
When was the last time rents lowered? Never is the answer. Free markets are the only way to reflect true costs and value. Government intervention only further ads cost to any transaction because they are taking their share for doing nothing but regulating other peoples businesses!
Another great article by Bonnie Donovan. As laid out in the article, our resources are limited here in Santa Barbara, so while supply remains somewhat fixed it can never catch up with the demand. We could never build enough housing for everybody who wants to live here, especially making it affordable for people that can’t afford to live here. I saw the writing on the wall some 50 years ago when I first moved here in 1973, I couldn’t afford to live here. So I moved and work my way up through the systems until I could afford to move back here in the early 80s. My children also moved away in their early 20s because they couldn’t afford to make their way here. And they are perfectly happy in the cities of Chicago & Portland and doing quite well. Wouldn’t life be grand if we could all choose our ideal place to live and have others pay for it?
Keep an eye on NYC for a current model. Short, of course, of its local government's threat to appropriate private property if it deems it necessary. Suggestion: think the unthinkable and ponder the consequences.
It is not a local problem, it is an national one. Rents are spinning in Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Antonio and other cities across the US. The reasons are so much more complicated than this divisive post.
The "spike" only shows up for a year or two, starting in 2021: https://www.noozhawk.com/what-kind-of-apartment-can-you-get-for-3000-in-santa-barbara-county/ . The historical trend is a steady increase, not a spike. Average rents for 2 BR apartments actually went DOWN from 2024 to 2025. Landlords have nothing to do with the cost of rent. Tenants dictate rents. The current rent freeze is vivid proof.
Understanding what you so succinctly describe requires the ability to process critically and objectively. Given the bulk of the self-serving testimony during the city council meeting it is painfully apparent that many are either incapable or unwilling to engage in rational thought...including the majority of council members.
What can government do for me meets how can I buy votes.
Not at all TVW.
Everyone acts in their own best interests. Why would I as a tenant concern myself with the desires of the people who have leverage over me?
Should I listen to the landlords who obviously have a financial stake in this, and may not have my interests in mind- or my own?
Not that I care if rent control passes, but this self aggrandizing "Oh we moderates/conservatives are thinking critically!" Is the height of narcissism.
If I'm a tenant, why should I care for the arguments a landlord presents?
"But rent control-"
Do I trust you [generic, aimed at landlords]?
More than that - if the most vocal defenders of abstract "rights" over property have a disdain for the poor, and mock those who might seek rent control to secure their own stability, what makes me think landlords are trustworthy when they or their defenders speak so callously?
What is something worth? What a buyer is willing to pay, no more and no less. Absent rent control, a landlord could charge what a rental is worth. With rent control a landlord is forced to charge less than a property is worth, forced to keep tenants at low rents while prospective tenants willing to pay more are locked out. This will decrease housing supply and further the housing crisis. It will, however, create opportunities for an expanded role for government involvement in directly providing housing which is perhaps the ultimate goal.
"It will, however, create opportunities for an expanded role for government involvement in directly providing housing which is perhaps the ultimate goal."
And this is a problem because... a state or municipality concerned with securing the stability of it's own populace is immoral?
Nonsense. Hosuing is a right, perhaps one not recognized by the masonic constitutional, but is a natural right as man is owed justice.
It is the road to serfdom. Dude, just learn a trade.
A right?? A necessity, yes. But bring in "rights" and you bring in the God of Obfuscation [without using a condominium...]
I hope rent control succeeds then.
:)
I told you TVW. This is the contempt I speak of. Don't be surprised when tenants have no regard for the desires of landlords.
No NO and more NO.
You are leaving out that supply is constrained and not replaceable.
You are promoting a bidding situation. Those who can pay the most can live here. That is fine until it prices you out. Then you will understand the life of those who can't afford it today.
What you are describing has shown not to be true. Look into Paris rent control.
No no and more no. Those who can pay the most can and should get the best of everything. It is the dividend of success and what drives men to succeed, produce and it is what makes America great and the preferred destination for immigration, not France.
Thank you for writing. Until we the people of this city elect council members that understand a little more about business and economics, rent control will remain; many spoke prior to the five o'clock "emotional hour."
Bonnie,
You raise several points that deserve serious consideration — but as the piece unfolds, the analysis becomes selective, and that bias undermines the conclusion.
You write that rents spiked because:
Officials restricted supply without replacing it
Officials capped future increases, encouraging front-loaded hikes
Officials concentrated regulation on older housing
Officials exempted newer, larger developments
Officials created uncertainty that rewards scale and punishes small ownership
But earlier, you also state:
“Santa Barbara’s housing pressure did not appear overnight. The city is physically constrained by the Pacific Ocean to the south and the Santa Ynez Mountains to the north, with little room to expand outward. Once the city filled in, there was no next frontier.”
That raises an obvious question.
How, exactly, are elected officials supposed to change geography?
Physical constraints are not policy failures. They are immutable facts. Any serious analysis has to distinguish between structural limits that pre-date current leadership and policy decisions that meaningfully altered outcomes.
Now let’s address what actually drove rents higher — and what is largely missing from your argument.
From a property owner’s perspective, the largest contributors to rising rents were not ideological signals or speculative reactions to future policy. They were concrete, unavoidable cost increases:
Insurance!
This is the single biggest shock to operating costs in recent years. Premiums have exploded, coverage has narrowed, and some carriers have exited the market entirely. That cost is neither optional nor theoretical.
Materials used for repair and maintenance costs rose dramatically. So did construction costs. Lumber, fixtures, appliances, and mechanical systems all became materially more expensive.
Labor costs increased across the board. This is not limited to regulated sectors like fast food. Skilled and semi-skilled labor costs rose sharply, and availability tightened.
A significant portion of the construction and maintenance workforce historically consisted of workers here temporarily or without permanent status. With aggressive enforcement and removals, that labor pool is shrinking. The replacement workforce — primarily native-born citizens — will not perform this work at the same rates. That reality directly affects costs.
These are not marginal factors. They are the dominant drivers.
You argue that regulation caused rents to spike — but you never demonstrate which regulations materially did so, or how their impact compares to the cost drivers above.
If the answer is permit fees, processing timelines, or procedural requirements, then we should be honest about scale. Those costs are rounding errors compared to insurance, labor, and materials. Focusing on them while ignoring the major inputs distorts the analysis.
Policy choices can influence behavior at the margins. But they did not create the cost environment property owners are responding to.
Santa Barbara’s housing pressures are real. But attributing rent increases primarily to elected officials — while downplaying geography, market-wide cost inflation, insurance shocks, labor shortages, and immigration policy — oversimplifies a far more complex reality.
If the goal is accountability, it must be grounded in proportionality. Otherwise, the argument becomes less an explanation — and more a narrative.
And narratives, no matter how confidently written, do not lower rents.
Bigger than insurance or maintenance or fees is what a property is generating in income relative to its value. I was happy to rent a house in Goleta for 2k a month that I paid 400k for in 2014 but today that home is worth 1M and i would either charge much more or sell and put that money to work elsewhere where i could get a better return. I sold it and there is now one less rental. To me the question is why did that property go from 400k to 1M and I would point the finger at federal monetary policy in response to the Covid fraud which drove inflation. Paying people to stay home with printed dollars and then the inflation reduction act throwing more vapor dollars at environmental fraud might have fueled inflation.
You always have an answer, hunting for a question.
Why did house prices increase from the late 90s until we had the financial crisis in 08?
There was NO COVID fraud. There was 9/11, and Bush was sending people money to go BUY things. Thanks, GW, for the $750. But it was Bernanke who pushed interest rates down to near zero at rocket speed and then realized he needed to get back to the typical 5% at rocket speed, which collapsed the market. That, along with FRAUD from the originators, was a huge factor.
When you sold your house, you may have removed your property from the rental market. I do not know what the new buyer did with it. They could have rented it or moved into it. Regardless, it still became a place to live.
Selective bias is getting boring to refute.
Selective bias? You certainly have yours as well. Don’t forget the main driver of the 08 financial crash was because government mandated that home loans be extended to people who could not afford them by using the ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) loans that entrapped many people enforce bankruptcy on many of the people the policy was meant to help. Not to mention the collapse of many banks. Even included with all of your reasoning it only goes to show that President Reagan was right when he said that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
You yourself glossed over one of your points, which is probably the biggest problem of all and that is immigration. California does not enforce the national policy and therefore we are a landing spot for illegal immigrants and those extra MILLIONS of people and GROWING is the biggest driver of the housing shortage and thus driving prices ever upward.
Your last statement that “narratives don’t lower rent costs“ , what does?
When was the last time rents lowered? Never is the answer. Free markets are the only way to reflect true costs and value. Government intervention only further ads cost to any transaction because they are taking their share for doing nothing but regulating other peoples businesses!
Another great article by Bonnie Donovan. As laid out in the article, our resources are limited here in Santa Barbara, so while supply remains somewhat fixed it can never catch up with the demand. We could never build enough housing for everybody who wants to live here, especially making it affordable for people that can’t afford to live here. I saw the writing on the wall some 50 years ago when I first moved here in 1973, I couldn’t afford to live here. So I moved and work my way up through the systems until I could afford to move back here in the early 80s. My children also moved away in their early 20s because they couldn’t afford to make their way here. And they are perfectly happy in the cities of Chicago & Portland and doing quite well. Wouldn’t life be grand if we could all choose our ideal place to live and have others pay for it?
Keep an eye on NYC for a current model. Short, of course, of its local government's threat to appropriate private property if it deems it necessary. Suggestion: think the unthinkable and ponder the consequences.
It is not a local problem, it is an national one. Rents are spinning in Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Antonio and other cities across the US. The reasons are so much more complicated than this divisive post.
The "spike" only shows up for a year or two, starting in 2021: https://www.noozhawk.com/what-kind-of-apartment-can-you-get-for-3000-in-santa-barbara-county/ . The historical trend is a steady increase, not a spike. Average rents for 2 BR apartments actually went DOWN from 2024 to 2025. Landlords have nothing to do with the cost of rent. Tenants dictate rents. The current rent freeze is vivid proof.