As a renter, I want a stable, sustainable city. I understand why rent stabilization is being considered, but a policy meant to protect renters shouldn’t end up hurting future ones. Before moving forward, we need to ask the hard questions:
• Today’s Protection: If we protect current renters, but market rents for new apartments increase to compensate, are we accidentally closing the door on the next generation of Santa Barbarians?
• Mobility: If stabilized rent is the only thing making a home affordable, will we end up with “empty nesters” stuck in three-bedrooms and young families crammed into studios because neither can afford to move?
• Maintenance Incentive: If costs are squeezed by rising utilities, insurance, and maintenance costs, how will the city ensure that landlords don’t simply neglect properties or sell?
• Local Workers: As landlords look to cut costs, will that mean plumbers, electricians, carpenters, painters, roofers, gardeners, cleaners, and others lose jobs?
• Costs: Who pays for registries, boards, and enforcement to manage this? Will these fees be passed to renters? Will other city services be cut?
• Supply Reality: Is the city pairing this with a major push for new housing, the only proven way to lower rents? If we stabilize rents without building more housing, affordability becomes a privilege, not a right.
We shouldn’t have to choose between displacement today and decay tomorrow. We deserve a balanced, data-driven policy that protects the whole community — not just those lucky enough to have a lease today.
