Santa Barbara’s fiscally imperiled Rental Housing Mediation Task Force is far from out of the woods, but based on this week’s council meeting, it appears to have more room with which to work. The good news for the Task Force, which has been mediating disputes between landlords and tenants (and often between tenants and tenants) in Santa Barbara for the past 35 years, is that its six-month lease on life — provided by the City Council last summer — has now been extended to a full year. The bad news is that the same forces that put the Rental Task Force behind the financial eight ball — federal cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program — are still in effect and threaten only to get worse.
In the face of those federal cuts, last year, city administrators proposed cutting the program — which serves about 1,000 people a year, mostly low-income — so deeply it would effectively eliminate mediation services from the Mediation Task Force. Instead, the organization would be reduced to providing information to landlords and tenants inquiring about their respective rights and responsibilities. That effort sparked an outpouring of vocal support for one of the few City Hall programs to target the 60 percent of Santa Barbarans who rent. In response, the City Council voted — for the first time in the agency’s 35 years — to make up the difference by dipping into the general fund to the tune of $36,000 for a six-month period. That general fund “subsidy” expires at the end of December. Thanks to an infusion of cash from Carpinteria, Goleta, and the County of Santa Barbara — not to mention $10,000 in grants — the Task Force (whose mediation services have benefited the family of this writer) now has enough money to make it through June.
But come July 1, the Task Force will confront a projected shortfall of $71,000, and it will be up to the City Council — once again — to determine whether to put a program that historically never received general-fund dollars on the general-fund payroll. With the election of Cathy Murillo to the City Council — she takes office in January — the Task Force has found a likely new supporter to join Mayor Helene Schneider and Councilmember Grant House. Councilmembers Bendy White and Frank Hotchkiss, while appreciative of the work the Task Force does, expressed concern about saddling City Hall with any new obligations. And Councilmember Dale Francisco asked a lot of questions that indicated a strong interest in transferring the Task Force’s function to some nonprofit agency.
Geoff Green from the Fund for Santa Barbara — which just provided the Task Force with a $5,000 grant — urged the council to keep the Rental Task Force under City Hall’s auspices. No other nonprofit currently provides the services the Task Force does, he said, and none could do the job as efficiently. Aside from the fact that the Task Force’s initials do not spell out a “cute acronym,” Green asked, “What’s not to like?” Lisa Beck, a volunteer mediator, argued that for the Task Force to remain effective it had to enjoy a reputation of neutrality with both landlords and tenants. Such neutrality would be seriously compromised, she argued, should the Task Force be joined with a nonprofit organization affiliated with tenants’ rights or with landlord concerns.
Beck said the Task Force explored a host of other changes that might cut costs, like charging beneficiaries a fee for service based on a sliding scale. Because 80 percent of the clients are of decidedly limited means, she said, this would chase many potential clients away. Should that happen, she argued, landlord-tenant disputes would spill over into an already overloaded court system, or cops would find themselves forced to deal with the unhappy fallout from people attempting to settle disputes on their own.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Who needs a rental task force when we should just vote in tent controls. There are far more renters than landlords in SB proper, shouldn't be a problem. That way people can't gouge for delapidated dwellings nor ignore their tenants phone calls.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2011 at 4:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We already have tent control KV, it's called no public camping as the Occupiers have found out....
Oh, you may have meant RENT control! If you have not noticed rents have been amazingly going down(and tents too but I digress) in SB since the housing market and economy went to hell; but why let market forces do their job?
Take a look at the astronomic rents in Manhattan or New York under rent control to see how affordable they are before you propose another set of rules intended to help people. Plus with our traditionally transient population rent control would be next to impossible. It's expensive to live here, like most everywhere that is really nice, and social engineering does not solve or circumvent human nature and supply and demand.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2011 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, the State Supreme Court has already ruled that Landlords with voluntary move-outs, ie transient student population, can already go to Market after each move-out. Rent Control does not work with high turnover.
The real issue should be the BLIND EYE from the City of Santa Barbara that allows single family residencies to be illegally subdivided into multi-families dwellings or the illegally converted garage dwellers. These renters have no smoke/carbon monoxide alarms, fire extinguishers or other basic safety facilities that Legally Licensed Multi-Tenant Properties must provide.
These renters are also disadvantaged in having their grievances meet by the landlord, for fear of eviction.
The City also looses out on Business License Revenue.
The Single Family Neighborhoods that are blighted by these units have cars all over the street and party noise, while the Slum Lords line their pockets.
The City of Santa Barbara should be sued for dereliction of duty for failing to Equally Enforce Zoning Laws and not forcing Landlords to run clean, hospitable, legal rental units.
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2011 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually I am quite familiar with rent control in NYC. Rent control for Santa Barbara county is a positive solution. Too bad for out of town landlords who add nothing to our community.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2011 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW "How Green Was My Valley", John Ford would side with the impoverished families you describe.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2011 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are "quite familiar with rent control in NYC" you would not suggest it for SB as there are almost zero similarities. I'll presume you are simply not telling the truth or you'd be proposing a solution that is at a minimum, relevant.
Out of town landlords pay the same taxes as everyone else and they supply housing for people who need housing. How is this adding "nothing" in your Utopian socialist speak?
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seriously how much time and how many friends do you have in NYC? I'm guessing none. Out of town landlords inflate the bubble and gouge tenants to pay for it 9 times outta ten.
Seems like you love SB so much you want to make it just like Rome.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rent Control is a Blight. Before the 1997 CASC ruling landlords were stuck with a yearly 10% cost inflation and only 3% rent recapture in most Metro Areas that had Rent Control. So they let their buildings go to hell, to get some kind of return out of their invested dollars. Rent Control has unintended consequences.
Post 1998 Rent Controlled Properties have been able to go to Market on voluntary vacancies. Many Rent Control Properties changed hands and billions of dollars were spent to upgrade the properties. Tenant and Landlord both got a good deal.
The current economic downturn has left Landlords with depreciating rental rates, retention cuts etc., but back to 10% cost inflation as Cities raise Property Taxes, Refuse Removal, Water/Sewer and Electrical rates with Landlords not even able to pass on a yearly 3% Rent Control Increase.
After the economy improves it will take Landlords many many Years to get back to square one.
Rent Control is a Poster Child of Government messing with the Free Market and getting Unintended Consequences.
Rent Control is THEFT by Government.
Ken please go back to New York, you deserve that Hell Hole.
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2011 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Being a native Southern Californian I shall stick to this hell. Boohoo for landlords who were flipping houses and using mortgages as ATMs.
Normal person + anonymity + audience = jerk
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2011 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, I am a Native Southern Californian.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2011 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dearest Kenny, I have been in Manhattan proper 15+ times this year alone doing clinical cases. I fly into LGA and it takes about 20 minutes max to the upper East side via towncar where I normally spend my time at 81st and 3rd ave at the house of my best friend in America. I normally work at both NYU and Cornell. And you, my friend, have zero knowledge of the actual rent control in NYU or you would have flouted facts instead of stupidity.
At least postulate something with some thought instead of ignorance when you state we need rent control.
As for Roma, that's why my home is in the EUR, to be out of the centro which has too much density. Unlike you, I get out rather often and can speak from actual experience not just whim and completely half baked ideology.
ciao bella
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2011 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Via towncar" ect ect heh. Methinks that post was for the writer's ego but no wonder they are so against the Occupy Movement. I know I can get a studio apt in the West Village directly across from one of my favorite bookstores for $150/month in NYC. Alas competition is fierce. And indeed that is a rare example. $100 a year rent increases are crazy yet standard in SB.
One landlord I had was shocked that every Winter the heating bill went up, so then did the rent. And a more brightly lit house during Christmas time you would not find than their's. Must've used as much electricity in one month as DisneyLand does in a week.
User Name Fun Facts: Both the novel and film "How Green Was My Valley" were criticized as Communist propaganda.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kenny,
So you are a Native Californian? My Family came in with Anza.
You sure your not just the offspring of the Yankee Carpetbaggers that moved here from the East?
Thats not Native.
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2011 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken says,
BTW "How Green Was My Valley", John Ford would side with the impoverished families you describe.
BTW I was describing College Student Rental Housing. You know those poor impoverished rich kids that got a smart phone at 12 and a car at 16.
The Landlords that illegally subdivide Single Family Residences and Garage Rentals live in Santa Barbara.
The problem is the Government that makes you go through a three ringed Circus to take down a tree or do a small remodel, it the same Government that refuses to enforce the Building Codes when it comes to illegal Student Housing.
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2011 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Building codes go unenforced due to lack of funding and personnel. Its not an either/or situation when it comes to regulation and sometimes there's a very good reason not to cut that tree down.
"Carpetbagger"? Wasn't the last group to use that word a bunch of racists in the South?
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In most large cities people think nothing of walking, taking a train, skateboarding, buses, or even cabs. Unless automobile technology radically changes the auto culture is gonna die. Unless you want to pay high prices for food better save the agricultural land locally while we have it.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2011 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I’m very happy to see that someone honorable like Martin Osborn is still on the job, when he could be making more money somewhere else.
edukder (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2011 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)