The thing I never understand about Santa Barbara (and I've had family here since 1961j is why anyone thinks it should be affordable now. When I got out of UCSB I wanted to stay here but there were no jobs and it was too expensive. So I went where I could get a small apartment and start my life. I always hoped/planned to come back. But I didn't insist that SB cater to my needs. All the kids I grew up with had to do likewise except my friends from ranching families who stayed to work on the family biz. That was 1974. Paradisiacal resort towns aren't supposed to be affordable for everyone. When you go to Lake Como or St. Bart's for a week do you rant against the expensive housing? Of course not. This is a resort town the elected idiots are intent on turning into an ugly place where they can rig votes but no tourist wants to spend money because it looks like the dumpville they already live in. In a few more years of this, stars like Selena Gomez won't be choosing Santa Barbara to spend millions on to get a photo shoot wedding.
‘Affordable’ housing needs a MAJOR REFOCUS toward current homeowners and landlords. Financial loads at every turn are UNAFFORDABLE: insurance; taxes + eye-popping add ons of bonds/fees; maintenance; repairs; code compliance. Total loss from earthquake or fire is a major risk that haunts every property owner in this town.
Case in point for one rental condo unit: water, sewer, garbage and maintenance costs went up $1200 a year and annual condo unit property insurance went up $800 a year, 8 unit condo complex insurance went up $1200 this year, along with annual property taxes on the condo unit that also go up incrementally every year. Fixed costs per unit.
Treading water is the best any landlord can now expect to get from making their housing unit available. Is this worth the on-going tenant grief in this current system, totally stacked against the landlord? Where one bad tenant can destroy any building maintenance reserves in a single case, by one obstructionist tenant. Earthquake insurance totally unaffordable agree forget it but every property owner is haunted daily not knowing when or if all will be lost with no compensation.
Landlords live daily with threats of loss, while tenants demand to be relieved from any and all risks and burdens of actual property ownership. New roofs, termites, water/sewer pipe bursts, routine painting, dry rot maintenance, floor coverings, property taxes, bond issues and parcel tax increases.
Add to that rental unit appliance replacements that come up from time to time: washing machine/ drier, stove, refrigerator, dishwater garbage disposal, water heater. Landlords are now being asked to fully subsidize these replacements as well and not recoup these costs in higher rents, if they exceed this draconian rent control limit. While the free market has many begging, hoping and waiting for a rental unit to show up on the open market. The subsidized tenant gets to laugh all the way to the bank.
Rent control is the government taking of private property, with no just fair compensation. It is an unearned subsidy by the lucky few, in exchange fo no community benefit for the whole. You cannot maintain a healthy community when only a few abritrarily benefit at the expense of the rest of the community.
Rent control, particularly in this community, is 100% misguided, patently unfair, dangerous and will serve as a death knell to the community at large.
Don't worry. When all the smaller landlords decide to sell, Black_rock will be right there to buy them up and leave them vacant so that they can manipulate the market while the houses die from lack of use. The City will oversee the water and electric grid, Black_rock will oversee housing, Gates our food supply, the pharmaceutical and healthcare insurance companies our healthcare, and we will live happily ever after...for a day or two.
Housing is not a right. It is a commodity. It is a product that is bought and sold.
If you cannot afford this commodity in Santa Barbara, you have no right to demand someone else pays you to not commute to an area where you can afford the housing. End of discussion.
Voracious free housing activists in fact are demanding they have a right not to commute. Not buying what they are selling.
The problem today is greedy tenants; not "gouging landlords". Tenants demanding superior rights over property owners become professional squatters who freeze out the natural market forces who choose to and can afford to live in Santa Barbara.
Every property in Santa Barbara will be negatively affected by this unending confiscation of private property, requiring a wholesale revaluation of all current property tax rates.
Mostly true, but one of the market forces that makes housing expensive here is zoning and various building codes. The supply is artificially restricted by the government.
Santa Barbara used to be special in no small part because of zoning. It has restricted out of control irresponsible development (I am a developer). Yes, the consequence is the cost of housing.Some are willing to pay the premium...some are not. Where is it written that anybody has an entitlement to live in Santa Barbara? Like Polly I made the decision to stay here after college even though I knew affordability was a big issue and was willing to make that trade off for a quality of life that is now washing down the toilet thanks to the socialist make up of the Santa Barbara City Council.
I have moved all but one real estate investment out of the state…To a place that I call "America"...Utah and Idaho. The remaining property has leases coming due in the next 60 to 90 days. I will be significantly cranking up those rents...not because I want to charge more...but because I need to protect my investment from these communists going forward. I am not alone in that regard.
Should not basic test on economics and markets be required for City Council members as a requisite to hold office? Sneddon, SantaMaria, et., are your listening?
LibProf: Wrong. Very little in this city is zoned R-1. Nor do zoning restrictions even matter any longer. Lax zoning enforcement also continues to keep the supply of illegal second units in high supply.
The supply is "restricted" because there is so little turn-over, once here and once in government subsidized hosing no one leaves. So of course the inventory is restricted. Including what happens to insider turnover to next generational occupancy in public housing?
Claiming zoning and building codes restrict supply is an old wives tale for this particular area. There is an insatiable pipeline feeding demand to live here, many coming from the 5000 or so recent UCSB graduates every single year who do not want to leave.
The only housing that has turnover is housing for seniors who at least conveniently die and provide new vacancies. The rest dig in and that is the end of the supply chain.
Please update your housing supply arguments and make them pertinent to this particular area with its unique housing demands, Lib Prof Your arguments do not sound in fact nor real life experience.
I agree with much of what you are saying. But I would encourage you to visit Zillow and do a quick search for home sales - especially during and immediately following COVID. There is turn over in our area because people "pump" the market by buying and flipping homes. I have been stunned when I do these searches on Zillow in the SB area!
I wonder how the State, County, and City will respond when property values start declining and everyone requests adjustments to their property taxes accordingly?
City currently has vast numbers of low income and very low income housing units:
1. Santa Barbara Housing Authority properties in vast numbers all over the city
2. Inclusionary housing mandates in all new private development properties, or in lieu fees
3. Charitable housing units for targeted low income persons
4. Vast numbers of converted motel properties now serving only low income residents
5. Constant loss of of property tax paying properties to non-profit housing organizations
6. ADUs now permanently eliminating prior residential zoning controls
7. Uncounted number of illegal second units all over this city, materially impacting resources
8. Builder's remedy now inserting 5-7 story buildings in R-4 downtown areas
And now greedy housing activists demand all rental property also becomes mandated "affordable" housing on their terms only. What will be left of the private property ownership necessary to sustain a healthy and mixed economy in this town?
Rent-control means virtually all housing in this town is now under 100% government control.
Opinion: Santa Barbara’s New Rent-Control Push Will Hurt the Very People It Claims to Help
By EnoughIsEnough805
Santa Barbara’s City Council is once again flirting with a policy that sounds compassionate but will ultimately deepen our housing crisis. On October 14, Councilmembers Kristen Sneddon and Wendy Santamaria plan to introduce a new rent-control ordinance capping annual rent increases at just 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index—a formula that would limit rent hikes this year to a mere 1.62 percent.
At first glance, that may seem fair. But let’s be honest: when utilities, insurance, and basic maintenance costs have all risen far faster than inflation, a 1.6 percent limit is not “stability”—it’s financial suffocation. Property owners large and small would be forced to subsidize the city’s housing policy out of their own pockets.
California already limits rent increases through state law (AB 1482), which caps them at 5 percent plus CPI, or 10 percent total—a framework designed to balance tenant protection and property rights. Santa Barbara’s proposed rule would go far beyond that and push us into legally and economically dangerous territory. It would make landlords petition a government board simply to cover expenses—an approach that sounds more like bureaucratic micromanagement than sound housing policy.
The likely results are predictable because we’ve seen them before:
Fewer rentals, as owners sell or convert to short-term uses.
Less new housing, as developers flee a market that punishes investment.
Falling property values, shrinking our tax base and hurting city services.
Higher rents, ironically, as scarcity deepens and demand outpaces supply.
Rent control may feel good politically, but it has never solved a housing shortage. It simply freezes the problem in place while discouraging anyone from building or maintaining the homes we desperately need.
If the Council truly wants affordability, it should focus on incentivizing new housing, cutting red tape, and enforcing existing state laws fairly, not layering on new restrictions that will backfire. Santa Barbara deserves thoughtful solutions—not populist experiments that punish those who provide housing in the first place.
Let your voice be heard before this misguided policy gains traction. Contact the Council and tell them rent control isn’t compassion—it’s control.
The bottom line: More rent control will not solve our housing challenges—it will make them worse. The only way to stop this is for Council to hear directly from you!
There is nothing compassionate forcing others to pay people to live in areas they cannot afford , nor being able to meaningfully fund the necessary tax base required that support life in this area.
This city already has vast numbers of subsidized housing units. Rent-control simply adds thousands more subsidized units to this already very generous local "affordable" housing market distortion. There is a tipping point after which a community simply dies.
"""""1.6 percent limit is not “stability”—it’s financial suffocation. Property owners large and small would be forced to subsidize the city’s housing policy out of their own pockets."
If Sacramento screws up again and the insurance rates climb, and their infinite stupidity increases the wages there is no way any Mom/Pop is going to survive. A floor job that used to cost $1,000 now costs $2,500 (sanding and sealing). A standard plumbing call is now $100 for the call and if it takes time there is that extra.
So the question becomes one of when do the radical socialists stop? Well that answer is never, that is why they are radicals.
I have said this before, Santa Barbara is one of 6 locations in the world with ocean, hills, climate and it creates a never ending "I wanna live here" issue. Sacramento doesn't get it because of radical socialists like Gregg Hart. He was backing this type of junk the first month of his first term on the Council. Does anyone remember Williams and the "living wage" that fell flat when at that time, the minimum wage would be $45,000+ and the city stated it could not afford it?
Sure let's open every aspect of our personal lives for government review.
This is the same insanity that closed streets, blocked streets, allows e-motorcycles on the streets that are dangerous, letting b-bike operate without license / fees, and let's not forget the illegal street food vendors. A City that is out of control. Just remember you voted for them so stop wringing your hands. You own this stupidity lock, stock, and barrel.
Yet another example of the liberal left chipping away at property rights. What’s next, having opposing views be marginalized by virtue of voting gerrymandering in order to have super majorities in perpetuity? Oh wait, that’s exactly what they are doing!
Rent control, free mass transit, free groceries, limits on wealth accumulation, all part of the “Mamdani affect.” This is where we are now heading as Democrats are embracing Socialism, with the ultimate goal of workforce and low income housing , guaranteed health care and income for all. Regardless of immigration status!
Don’t like it? Too bad, should you object loudly you’ll be singled out, chastised and bullied for being racist.
It’s high time for those that own property get off their duffs and unite and coalesce around protecting our interests before our community ends up like so many others blue communities, SF, Portland or LA.
I just heard Uber will be unionizing, time for property owners to do the same!
I agree with Elce's comments and would like to add that San Francisco has pretty made it impossible for mom and pop property owners to make a profit. I could go on but the reaction to today's topic are already pretty robust and comprehensive. Bottom line Rent Control is not the answer.
This is insane. What they should be doing is lowering the property taxes so that we would not have to be raising the rents. If this does pass, and I hope it doesn’t, we all will have to either sell our properties or go to short term so that we can make enough money to cover the Cost of owning this property in the county that charges insane property taxes
Rita, you can count the four sure YES votes on your fingers right now. It will pass and there is nothing we can do about this: Sneddon, Santa Maria, Harmon and Gutierrez.
What we can do is vote far better in Sneddon and Harmon's districts, to rebalance the next incoming city council, since they both are termed out.
It's important that folks show up at the October 14 Council meeting and speak. As it stands, 2% Rent Control will pass on a 4/3 vote: Sneddon, Santamaria, Guitierrez, and Harmon. Harmon is the wild card. Remember: These are the same folks who voted to close State Street to cars.
It must also be noted that if Council approves, Staff will be redirected to focus on this item, setting aside the question of Short-term Vacation Rentals -- a serious issue for Mesa residents that requires attention NOW, not back-burner. The Council minority needs your presence in City Hall, and of course through emails.
If all this city council majority does is follow mob rule and bends to whatever group of self-serving activists shows up to threaten them in city hall chambers on the date of a vote, they have fully demonstrated they are unfit to serve need to be recalled immediately.
That agenda item on October 14 IS the line in the sand. The meeting where you show up and throw down the gauntlet. Force Sneddon, etc, to face the voters. Especially helpful if those of you who reside in their districts identify yourselves as such -- especially Sneddon's. Bear in mind that this woman is seeking the Mayor's seat.
Bear in mind a critical mass of voters in Kristen Sneddon's district** are already working for or are generously pensioned by the government, in one form or another. They are not going to be immediately affected by her private property take-over.
This critical mass of voters can well afford to live in Santa Barbara, thanks to local taxpayers and voters. (See Transparent California for government employment compensation packages for many Santa Barbara residents, by name.)
Which includes Ms Sneddon herself, who currently pulls down a quarter million dollars year every year in tax payer funded government compensation and benefits. She is tone deaf to any appeals from "her district". She literally has sufficient district votes in the bank.
**Sneddon's District Four: parts of San Roque, Upper East, Riviera, Eucalyptus Hill.
Recall Kristen Sneddon and Wendy SantaMaria. Their continuous micromanaging nanny-state version of Santa Barbara has no place in our city.
Put the two other city council persons necessary to support their tone-deaf, draconian take-over of private property in this city on immediate notice they are next.
Harmon? Jordan? Gutierrez? Friedman? Stand up and be counted.
NYC had rent control for decades. Anyone not acquiring a rental near the beginning of rent controls paid huge percentages more to make up for the money lost for not being able to raise rents. Eventually owners of rental buildings had to just abandon them. Finally the great Mayor Koch made it possible for owners to convert rent controlled property into condos or, I think, coops. The process of undoing the horrendous damage of rent control began.
I agree this is insane. We just received notification that a triplex on San Pascual st in a fire zone”. Fair Plan ( the only insurance option) quote is a bit over $9,000 a year. Previously insurance was about ?2,400.
However, I think the hyperbole should be turned down. Attract democratic. Don’t castigate them.
A-M: Which side is guilty of hyperbole? The rent control activists who demand other people subsidize them? Or landlords who have watched erosion of their private property rights over the past few decades to finally reach a point of total exasperation?
Your fire zone insurance costs went up because of these similar cadres of "green" activists demanding no fire mitigation policies be put in place, to the point insurance companies finally had to pull the plug and get out of the insurance business in this state.
As if globetrotting Calif Insurance Commissioner Lara could even care. One more party apparatchik moved into one more musical political chair for which he has no skills nor talent, in what is now the Sacramento one party super-majority government.
Hyperbole? Give me a break. This state is at a critical tipping point and if you don't know this and are willing to fight to take this back, that is on you and you alone.
1436 units of housing have been approved or proposed for the La Cumbre Plaza and Paseo Nuevo locations. Not one single unit will be moderate income market rate. That fact is more alarming (just barely) to me than the proposed rent control.
SJ: It is far more alarming we are intentionally turning this community into a permanent low-income satrap, with no future housing turnover, generational in-house transfers which exclude any new vacancies, and eliminating any re-entry of viable market forces. This is a guaranteed recipe for total housing stagnation in this once lovely and vital area.
The thing I never understand about Santa Barbara (and I've had family here since 1961j is why anyone thinks it should be affordable now. When I got out of UCSB I wanted to stay here but there were no jobs and it was too expensive. So I went where I could get a small apartment and start my life. I always hoped/planned to come back. But I didn't insist that SB cater to my needs. All the kids I grew up with had to do likewise except my friends from ranching families who stayed to work on the family biz. That was 1974. Paradisiacal resort towns aren't supposed to be affordable for everyone. When you go to Lake Como or St. Bart's for a week do you rant against the expensive housing? Of course not. This is a resort town the elected idiots are intent on turning into an ugly place where they can rig votes but no tourist wants to spend money because it looks like the dumpville they already live in. In a few more years of this, stars like Selena Gomez won't be choosing Santa Barbara to spend millions on to get a photo shoot wedding.
‘Affordable’ housing needs a MAJOR REFOCUS toward current homeowners and landlords. Financial loads at every turn are UNAFFORDABLE: insurance; taxes + eye-popping add ons of bonds/fees; maintenance; repairs; code compliance. Total loss from earthquake or fire is a major risk that haunts every property owner in this town.
Case in point for one rental condo unit: water, sewer, garbage and maintenance costs went up $1200 a year and annual condo unit property insurance went up $800 a year, 8 unit condo complex insurance went up $1200 this year, along with annual property taxes on the condo unit that also go up incrementally every year. Fixed costs per unit.
Treading water is the best any landlord can now expect to get from making their housing unit available. Is this worth the on-going tenant grief in this current system, totally stacked against the landlord? Where one bad tenant can destroy any building maintenance reserves in a single case, by one obstructionist tenant. Earthquake insurance totally unaffordable agree forget it but every property owner is haunted daily not knowing when or if all will be lost with no compensation.
Landlords live daily with threats of loss, while tenants demand to be relieved from any and all risks and burdens of actual property ownership. New roofs, termites, water/sewer pipe bursts, routine painting, dry rot maintenance, floor coverings, property taxes, bond issues and parcel tax increases.
Add to that rental unit appliance replacements that come up from time to time: washing machine/ drier, stove, refrigerator, dishwater garbage disposal, water heater. Landlords are now being asked to fully subsidize these replacements as well and not recoup these costs in higher rents, if they exceed this draconian rent control limit. While the free market has many begging, hoping and waiting for a rental unit to show up on the open market. The subsidized tenant gets to laugh all the way to the bank.
Rent control is the government taking of private property, with no just fair compensation. It is an unearned subsidy by the lucky few, in exchange fo no community benefit for the whole. You cannot maintain a healthy community when only a few abritrarily benefit at the expense of the rest of the community.
Rent control, particularly in this community, is 100% misguided, patently unfair, dangerous and will serve as a death knell to the community at large.
Don't worry. When all the smaller landlords decide to sell, Black_rock will be right there to buy them up and leave them vacant so that they can manipulate the market while the houses die from lack of use. The City will oversee the water and electric grid, Black_rock will oversee housing, Gates our food supply, the pharmaceutical and healthcare insurance companies our healthcare, and we will live happily ever after...for a day or two.
Housing is not a right. It is a commodity. It is a product that is bought and sold.
If you cannot afford this commodity in Santa Barbara, you have no right to demand someone else pays you to not commute to an area where you can afford the housing. End of discussion.
Voracious free housing activists in fact are demanding they have a right not to commute. Not buying what they are selling.
The problem today is greedy tenants; not "gouging landlords". Tenants demanding superior rights over property owners become professional squatters who freeze out the natural market forces who choose to and can afford to live in Santa Barbara.
Every property in Santa Barbara will be negatively affected by this unending confiscation of private property, requiring a wholesale revaluation of all current property tax rates.
Mostly true, but one of the market forces that makes housing expensive here is zoning and various building codes. The supply is artificially restricted by the government.
Santa Barbara used to be special in no small part because of zoning. It has restricted out of control irresponsible development (I am a developer). Yes, the consequence is the cost of housing.Some are willing to pay the premium...some are not. Where is it written that anybody has an entitlement to live in Santa Barbara? Like Polly I made the decision to stay here after college even though I knew affordability was a big issue and was willing to make that trade off for a quality of life that is now washing down the toilet thanks to the socialist make up of the Santa Barbara City Council.
I have moved all but one real estate investment out of the state…To a place that I call "America"...Utah and Idaho. The remaining property has leases coming due in the next 60 to 90 days. I will be significantly cranking up those rents...not because I want to charge more...but because I need to protect my investment from these communists going forward. I am not alone in that regard.
Should not basic test on economics and markets be required for City Council members as a requisite to hold office? Sneddon, SantaMaria, et., are your listening?
LibProf: Wrong. Very little in this city is zoned R-1. Nor do zoning restrictions even matter any longer. Lax zoning enforcement also continues to keep the supply of illegal second units in high supply.
The supply is "restricted" because there is so little turn-over, once here and once in government subsidized hosing no one leaves. So of course the inventory is restricted. Including what happens to insider turnover to next generational occupancy in public housing?
Claiming zoning and building codes restrict supply is an old wives tale for this particular area. There is an insatiable pipeline feeding demand to live here, many coming from the 5000 or so recent UCSB graduates every single year who do not want to leave.
The only housing that has turnover is housing for seniors who at least conveniently die and provide new vacancies. The rest dig in and that is the end of the supply chain.
Please update your housing supply arguments and make them pertinent to this particular area with its unique housing demands, Lib Prof Your arguments do not sound in fact nor real life experience.
I agree with much of what you are saying. But I would encourage you to visit Zillow and do a quick search for home sales - especially during and immediately following COVID. There is turn over in our area because people "pump" the market by buying and flipping homes. I have been stunned when I do these searches on Zillow in the SB area!
I wonder how the State, County, and City will respond when property values start declining and everyone requests adjustments to their property taxes accordingly?
City currently has vast numbers of low income and very low income housing units:
1. Santa Barbara Housing Authority properties in vast numbers all over the city
2. Inclusionary housing mandates in all new private development properties, or in lieu fees
3. Charitable housing units for targeted low income persons
4. Vast numbers of converted motel properties now serving only low income residents
5. Constant loss of of property tax paying properties to non-profit housing organizations
6. ADUs now permanently eliminating prior residential zoning controls
7. Uncounted number of illegal second units all over this city, materially impacting resources
8. Builder's remedy now inserting 5-7 story buildings in R-4 downtown areas
And now greedy housing activists demand all rental property also becomes mandated "affordable" housing on their terms only. What will be left of the private property ownership necessary to sustain a healthy and mixed economy in this town?
Rent-control means virtually all housing in this town is now under 100% government control.
Opinion: Santa Barbara’s New Rent-Control Push Will Hurt the Very People It Claims to Help
By EnoughIsEnough805
Santa Barbara’s City Council is once again flirting with a policy that sounds compassionate but will ultimately deepen our housing crisis. On October 14, Councilmembers Kristen Sneddon and Wendy Santamaria plan to introduce a new rent-control ordinance capping annual rent increases at just 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index—a formula that would limit rent hikes this year to a mere 1.62 percent.
At first glance, that may seem fair. But let’s be honest: when utilities, insurance, and basic maintenance costs have all risen far faster than inflation, a 1.6 percent limit is not “stability”—it’s financial suffocation. Property owners large and small would be forced to subsidize the city’s housing policy out of their own pockets.
California already limits rent increases through state law (AB 1482), which caps them at 5 percent plus CPI, or 10 percent total—a framework designed to balance tenant protection and property rights. Santa Barbara’s proposed rule would go far beyond that and push us into legally and economically dangerous territory. It would make landlords petition a government board simply to cover expenses—an approach that sounds more like bureaucratic micromanagement than sound housing policy.
The likely results are predictable because we’ve seen them before:
Fewer rentals, as owners sell or convert to short-term uses.
Less new housing, as developers flee a market that punishes investment.
Falling property values, shrinking our tax base and hurting city services.
Higher rents, ironically, as scarcity deepens and demand outpaces supply.
Rent control may feel good politically, but it has never solved a housing shortage. It simply freezes the problem in place while discouraging anyone from building or maintaining the homes we desperately need.
If the Council truly wants affordability, it should focus on incentivizing new housing, cutting red tape, and enforcing existing state laws fairly, not layering on new restrictions that will backfire. Santa Barbara deserves thoughtful solutions—not populist experiments that punish those who provide housing in the first place.
Let your voice be heard before this misguided policy gains traction. Contact the Council and tell them rent control isn’t compassion—it’s control.
The bottom line: More rent control will not solve our housing challenges—it will make them worse. The only way to stop this is for Council to hear directly from you!
Mayor Randy Rowse rrowse@santabarbaraca.gov
Kristen Sneddon KSneddon@santabarbaraca.gov
Wendy Santamaria WSantamaria@santabarbaraca.gov
Eric Friedman EFriedman@santabarbaraca.gov
Meagan Harmon mharmon@santabarbaraca.gov
Mike Jordan mjordan@santabarbaraca.gov
Oscar Gutierrez ogutierrez@santabarbaraca.gov
There is nothing compassionate forcing others to pay people to live in areas they cannot afford , nor being able to meaningfully fund the necessary tax base required that support life in this area.
This city already has vast numbers of subsidized housing units. Rent-control simply adds thousands more subsidized units to this already very generous local "affordable" housing market distortion. There is a tipping point after which a community simply dies.
Below says it all..... no if and's or but's
"""""1.6 percent limit is not “stability”—it’s financial suffocation. Property owners large and small would be forced to subsidize the city’s housing policy out of their own pockets."
If Sacramento screws up again and the insurance rates climb, and their infinite stupidity increases the wages there is no way any Mom/Pop is going to survive. A floor job that used to cost $1,000 now costs $2,500 (sanding and sealing). A standard plumbing call is now $100 for the call and if it takes time there is that extra.
So the question becomes one of when do the radical socialists stop? Well that answer is never, that is why they are radicals.
I have said this before, Santa Barbara is one of 6 locations in the world with ocean, hills, climate and it creates a never ending "I wanna live here" issue. Sacramento doesn't get it because of radical socialists like Gregg Hart. He was backing this type of junk the first month of his first term on the Council. Does anyone remember Williams and the "living wage" that fell flat when at that time, the minimum wage would be $45,000+ and the city stated it could not afford it?
Sure let's open every aspect of our personal lives for government review.
This is the same insanity that closed streets, blocked streets, allows e-motorcycles on the streets that are dangerous, letting b-bike operate without license / fees, and let's not forget the illegal street food vendors. A City that is out of control. Just remember you voted for them so stop wringing your hands. You own this stupidity lock, stock, and barrel.
Yet another example of the liberal left chipping away at property rights. What’s next, having opposing views be marginalized by virtue of voting gerrymandering in order to have super majorities in perpetuity? Oh wait, that’s exactly what they are doing!
Rent control, free mass transit, free groceries, limits on wealth accumulation, all part of the “Mamdani affect.” This is where we are now heading as Democrats are embracing Socialism, with the ultimate goal of workforce and low income housing , guaranteed health care and income for all. Regardless of immigration status!
Don’t like it? Too bad, should you object loudly you’ll be singled out, chastised and bullied for being racist.
It’s high time for those that own property get off their duffs and unite and coalesce around protecting our interests before our community ends up like so many others blue communities, SF, Portland or LA.
I just heard Uber will be unionizing, time for property owners to do the same!
I agree with Elce's comments and would like to add that San Francisco has pretty made it impossible for mom and pop property owners to make a profit. I could go on but the reaction to today's topic are already pretty robust and comprehensive. Bottom line Rent Control is not the answer.
Reminder of conservative fundamentals that are now fully trashed in this city:
1. Protection of private property
2. Free and equitable markets
3. Rule of law
4. Limited government
Fact of political life in Santa Barbara today - four votes needed to pass this latest draconian rent control demand:
There are already four solid yes votes: Sneddon, SantaMaria, Gutierrez; Harmon. They will not budge, so whose vote will you change?
1. Mayor Rowse - no
___2. Kristen Sneddon - YES - termed out, wants to run for mayor
___3. Wendy SantaMaria -YES-special minority/majority voting district campaigned on this issue
___4. Oscar Gutierrez -YES-termed out-nothing to lose-special minority/majority voting district
___5. Meghan Harmon - YES , termed out - nothing to lose
6. Mike Jordan - ? - their vote does not matter
7. Eric Friedman - ? - their vote does not matter
This is what term limits and Democrat-driven California Voting Rights Act district elections looks like in real life.
This is insane. What they should be doing is lowering the property taxes so that we would not have to be raising the rents. If this does pass, and I hope it doesn’t, we all will have to either sell our properties or go to short term so that we can make enough money to cover the Cost of owning this property in the county that charges insane property taxes
Rita, you can count the four sure YES votes on your fingers right now. It will pass and there is nothing we can do about this: Sneddon, Santa Maria, Harmon and Gutierrez.
What we can do is vote far better in Sneddon and Harmon's districts, to rebalance the next incoming city council, since they both are termed out.
It's important that folks show up at the October 14 Council meeting and speak. As it stands, 2% Rent Control will pass on a 4/3 vote: Sneddon, Santamaria, Guitierrez, and Harmon. Harmon is the wild card. Remember: These are the same folks who voted to close State Street to cars.
It must also be noted that if Council approves, Staff will be redirected to focus on this item, setting aside the question of Short-term Vacation Rentals -- a serious issue for Mesa residents that requires attention NOW, not back-burner. The Council minority needs your presence in City Hall, and of course through emails.
It is not important to "speak up".
If all this city council majority does is follow mob rule and bends to whatever group of self-serving activists shows up to threaten them in city hall chambers on the date of a vote, they have fully demonstrated they are unfit to serve need to be recalled immediately.
Start their recall petitions immediately.
That agenda item on October 14 IS the line in the sand. The meeting where you show up and throw down the gauntlet. Force Sneddon, etc, to face the voters. Especially helpful if those of you who reside in their districts identify yourselves as such -- especially Sneddon's. Bear in mind that this woman is seeking the Mayor's seat.
Bear in mind a critical mass of voters in Kristen Sneddon's district** are already working for or are generously pensioned by the government, in one form or another. They are not going to be immediately affected by her private property take-over.
This critical mass of voters can well afford to live in Santa Barbara, thanks to local taxpayers and voters. (See Transparent California for government employment compensation packages for many Santa Barbara residents, by name.)
Which includes Ms Sneddon herself, who currently pulls down a quarter million dollars year every year in tax payer funded government compensation and benefits. She is tone deaf to any appeals from "her district". She literally has sufficient district votes in the bank.
**Sneddon's District Four: parts of San Roque, Upper East, Riviera, Eucalyptus Hill.
Recall Kristen Sneddon and Wendy SantaMaria. Their continuous micromanaging nanny-state version of Santa Barbara has no place in our city.
Put the two other city council persons necessary to support their tone-deaf, draconian take-over of private property in this city on immediate notice they are next.
Harmon? Jordan? Gutierrez? Friedman? Stand up and be counted.
NYC had rent control for decades. Anyone not acquiring a rental near the beginning of rent controls paid huge percentages more to make up for the money lost for not being able to raise rents. Eventually owners of rental buildings had to just abandon them. Finally the great Mayor Koch made it possible for owners to convert rent controlled property into condos or, I think, coops. The process of undoing the horrendous damage of rent control began.
I agree this is insane. We just received notification that a triplex on San Pascual st in a fire zone”. Fair Plan ( the only insurance option) quote is a bit over $9,000 a year. Previously insurance was about ?2,400.
However, I think the hyperbole should be turned down. Attract democratic. Don’t castigate them.
A-M: Which side is guilty of hyperbole? The rent control activists who demand other people subsidize them? Or landlords who have watched erosion of their private property rights over the past few decades to finally reach a point of total exasperation?
Your fire zone insurance costs went up because of these similar cadres of "green" activists demanding no fire mitigation policies be put in place, to the point insurance companies finally had to pull the plug and get out of the insurance business in this state.
As if globetrotting Calif Insurance Commissioner Lara could even care. One more party apparatchik moved into one more musical political chair for which he has no skills nor talent, in what is now the Sacramento one party super-majority government.
Hyperbole? Give me a break. This state is at a critical tipping point and if you don't know this and are willing to fight to take this back, that is on you and you alone.
Wow
1436 units of housing have been approved or proposed for the La Cumbre Plaza and Paseo Nuevo locations. Not one single unit will be moderate income market rate. That fact is more alarming (just barely) to me than the proposed rent control.
SJ: It is far more alarming we are intentionally turning this community into a permanent low-income satrap, with no future housing turnover, generational in-house transfers which exclude any new vacancies, and eliminating any re-entry of viable market forces. This is a guaranteed recipe for total housing stagnation in this once lovely and vital area.