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.
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.
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!
Is this an April Fool’s Day joke? So what fiduciary will allow any client, institutional or otherwise, to invest in Anything that is capped annually at a 2/3rds of CPI Gross, before costs?? Doing so Will clearly lead to a legal dumpster for anyone involved. This is an outrageous example of economic ignorance proposed by politicians, who have already destroyed what was once a beautiful commerce area, and now are marching rental property into a sadly sorry world of filthy cheap and loathsome rental ‘projects’, that typically spawn unhealthy, crime-ridden conditions into the community. This is the closest attempt that small-minded, power-fevered politicians in the U.S. have come to copying what Fidel did to Havana! Capping returns on housing incentivizes rodents. ( btw, have they fixed and sanitized the water fountains in front of New York Pizza and Cost Plus Market on State Street yet? It has been over 2 years since they needed repair )
"""""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.
The laws of economics cannot be repealed. The free market is the most efficient system; and if society decides that certain people need financial assistance, then society as a whole should share that expense, not only landlords. Having renters demand that landlords lower their rent is like allowing the shoppers in a grocery store decide the prices of their purchases. Berney
When a city, county, state or national authority steps into contolling local economic issues based on equity, or social manipulation, it is an authorization for that economy to collapse.
Nothing good comes from authoritarian control.
Nothing of productive value or results come from economically ignorant political control.
Just look at the thriving, glowing bountiful economies of communist or socialist nations, at how great are their results.
Is Venezuela your chosen model? Or Cuba? Or China? Or Russia? Or Brazil?
This is the end result of the suppressive ideas being pushed by the City Council and Mayor of Santa Barbara.
As Celeste Barber stated, Meagan Harmon is the swing vote. Direct all of your emails, text messages and by chance in person comments to her. The others cannot be swayed.
My letter to city council ( next time please make emails actual email links ):
I have a simple plan that, if implemented, would gain you the support of every landlord in the city regarding rent control. Here it is:
1) Have the city freeze all its revenues from all sources at the same rate as the proposed rental control.
2) Continue to allow all city expenses to increase uncontrolled; insurance, property tax on city owned properties, salary increases, maintenance and repairs etc etc.
3) Do this for 3 years and then demonstrate to property owners who are being asked to follow this exact plan, just how this strategy succeeded for you.
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
Why not try to get some one new to run against these people who have been in office way to long. Or better yet, reduce the salary we are paying. This would get rid of them for sure
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, I didn't realize that the sky is falling, but apparently it is. (At least above some people.) May I suggest that instead of hurling such vitriol here that we all participate more in the governance of our community? And that means taking time to sit down and actually listen to those "on the other side." This divisive ranting doesn't help us make the world a better place—in fact, it helps BlackRock get richer.
Evidently each thread has to have a scold. No one believes ‘the sky is falling’. No one is ‘hurling’ vitriol. They’re debating. I’ll stay here on the thread to learn and formulate my own opinion. But you go make the world a better place.
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.
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.
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.
Whatever SB Independent opinion is offered up I choose the opposite!
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
Is this an April Fool’s Day joke? So what fiduciary will allow any client, institutional or otherwise, to invest in Anything that is capped annually at a 2/3rds of CPI Gross, before costs?? Doing so Will clearly lead to a legal dumpster for anyone involved. This is an outrageous example of economic ignorance proposed by politicians, who have already destroyed what was once a beautiful commerce area, and now are marching rental property into a sadly sorry world of filthy cheap and loathsome rental ‘projects’, that typically spawn unhealthy, crime-ridden conditions into the community. This is the closest attempt that small-minded, power-fevered politicians in the U.S. have come to copying what Fidel did to Havana! Capping returns on housing incentivizes rodents. ( btw, have they fixed and sanitized the water fountains in front of New York Pizza and Cost Plus Market on State Street yet? It has been over 2 years since they needed repair )
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.
The laws of economics cannot be repealed. The free market is the most efficient system; and if society decides that certain people need financial assistance, then society as a whole should share that expense, not only landlords. Having renters demand that landlords lower their rent is like allowing the shoppers in a grocery store decide the prices of their purchases. Berney
When a city, county, state or national authority steps into contolling local economic issues based on equity, or social manipulation, it is an authorization for that economy to collapse.
Nothing good comes from authoritarian control.
Nothing of productive value or results come from economically ignorant political control.
Just look at the thriving, glowing bountiful economies of communist or socialist nations, at how great are their results.
Is Venezuela your chosen model? Or Cuba? Or China? Or Russia? Or Brazil?
This is the end result of the suppressive ideas being pushed by the City Council and Mayor of Santa Barbara.
Just for the record, Mayor Rowse has always been against rent control.
As Celeste Barber stated, Meagan Harmon is the swing vote. Direct all of your emails, text messages and by chance in person comments to her. The others cannot be swayed.
My letter to city council ( next time please make emails actual email links ):
I have a simple plan that, if implemented, would gain you the support of every landlord in the city regarding rent control. Here it is:
1) Have the city freeze all its revenues from all sources at the same rate as the proposed rental control.
2) Continue to allow all city expenses to increase uncontrolled; insurance, property tax on city owned properties, salary increases, maintenance and repairs etc etc.
3) Do this for 3 years and then demonstrate to property owners who are being asked to follow this exact plan, just how this strategy succeeded for you.
Easy.
You are welcome.
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
Why not try to get some one new to run against these people who have been in office way to long. Or better yet, reduce the salary we are paying. This would get rid of them for sure
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, I didn't realize that the sky is falling, but apparently it is. (At least above some people.) May I suggest that instead of hurling such vitriol here that we all participate more in the governance of our community? And that means taking time to sit down and actually listen to those "on the other side." This divisive ranting doesn't help us make the world a better place—in fact, it helps BlackRock get richer.
Evidently each thread has to have a scold. No one believes ‘the sky is falling’. No one is ‘hurling’ vitriol. They’re debating. I’ll stay here on the thread to learn and formulate my own opinion. But you go make the world a better place.
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.
Wow