In response to Randy Rowse’s opinion piece “City Council’s Latest Scheme,” the argument presented rests on a familiar but flawed premise: that rent control and tenant protections are the obstacle to housing availability, rather than a response to a long-standing market failure. This framing shifts responsibility away from systemic issues and places it squarely on renters — particularly working families and seniors — who are already struggling to remain housed.
First, the claim that rent control “accomplishes none of these goals” ignores substantial evidence that tenant protections prevent displacement, stabilize communities, and allow workers and seniors to remain near jobs, healthcare, and social support. Housing supply is not meaningfully increased when long-term residents are priced out and replaced by short-term rentals or luxury units that do not serve the local workforce. Stability is not the enemy of supply; unchecked speculation is.
Second, invoking short-term rental violations as a solution while opposing rent regulation is contradictory. If returning units from short-term rentals to the long-term market is a priority, then protecting those long-term renters from sudden rent spikes is essential. Otherwise, those “returned” units simply become unaffordable commodities, not workforce or senior housing.
Third, the article frames rent control as “divisive” and “burdensome to one sector,” yet it overlooks how the current system disproportionately burdens renters — who face rising rents, stagnant wages, and the constant threat of displacement. Asking property owners to operate within reasonable limits is not demonization; it is regulation in the public interest, no different from zoning, safety codes, or environmental rules that already shape development.
The call to focus on “barriers to housing development” is valid — but incomplete. Development alone, without affordability requirements or rent stabilization, has repeatedly failed to produce housing accessible to the people who actually make the community function. Market-rate development overwhelmingly favors higher-income newcomers, while workers, seniors, and families are pushed farther away, eroding the social fabric the article claims to protect.
Finally, appeals to “neighborhood sanctity” should not be used to justify policies that exclude longtime residents. Santa Barbara has spent roughly $76 million since the pandemic to address homelessness and it increased by 17 percent. According to the 2025 Point In Time data there are 2,455 people without homes in our county.
Obviously we need to prevent renters from being priced out their homes and added to our ever-growing homeless population.
A community’s character is defined by its people, not by rising rents or investor-driven turnover. Preserving what makes a place desirable means ensuring that teachers, service workers, healthcare staff, and retirees can continue to live there.
Real community solutions are not those that rely solely on the market and hope affordability will trickle down. They are solutions that balance new development with strong tenant protections, enforce short-term rental rules, and treat housing as a shared social responsibility — not a zero-sum investment vehicle.
If the goal is truly a sustainable, inclusive community, then rent stabilization is not the problem. It is part of the solution.
Gina Rodarte Quiroz is a Santa Barbara community housing and policy advocate.
