Mayor Randy Rowse’s recent op-ed argues that rent stabilization divides the community and burdens housing providers. Housing advocate Gina Rodarte Quiroz offers a far more grounded response in her piece, “Tenant Protections Prevent Displacement,” and she is right: The real divide is not created by regulation — it is created by a housing market that has failed working people.
The mayor insists that Santa Barbara is building more housing than at any time since the 1950s and boasts one of the highest percentages of deed-restricted affordable units. That claim deserves scrutiny. Announced projects and ribbon cuttings do not equal relief for renters when vacancy rates remain near zero and most new units are priced far beyond local wages. Supply matters — but affordability matters more.
He also defends landlords as “working families and retirees” who sacrificed to buy property. Many did. But context matters. A large share of these properties were purchased in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s for $60,000 to $150,000 — not in today’s million-dollar market. Many mortgages are long paid off. These homes are now worth over a million dollars thanks to decades of public investment and community growth. Acknowledging that reality is not demonizing landlords. It is recognizing that today’s tenants carry a very different burden than yesterday’s buyers.
What truly needs to stop is the demonizing of tenants — subtly casting renters as the culprits in a crisis they did not create. Renters did not inflate home values, create speculative markets, or restrict housing development. Yet they are asked to absorb endless increases in the name of “market forces.”
As Rodarte Quiroz writes in “Tenant Protections Prevent Displacement,” stability is not the enemy of a healthy housing market — displacement is. Many longtime renters in Santa Barbara have seen their rent rise by as much as $1,000 a month — every increase legal, every one unsustainable. For tenants on fixed or modest incomes, legality does not equal fairness; it means slow displacement. Add delayed repairs and limited enforcement, especially in unincorporated areas where city protections don’t apply, and the burden becomes even heavier.
The mayor points to short-term rental enforcement as progress, yet opposes rent stabilization. That is a contradiction. Returning units to the long-term market means little if renters can’t afford to stay in them. Without protections, “recovered” units simply become higher-priced commodities.
Yes, Santa Barbara needs more housing. But development without tenant protections has already shown us the outcome: luxury units rise, working people leave, and the social fabric frays. A city cannot build its way out of a housing crisis if the people who keep it running are forced farther and farther away.
A community’s character is defined by its people — teachers, service workers, healthcare staff, retirees — not by escalating rents or investor turnover. Rent stabilization is not anti-growth. It is pro-stability, pro-community, and pro-dignity.
If Santa Barbara truly wants housing solutions that unite rather than divide, it must stop blaming tenants and start protecting them.
