In her recent op-ed, Kristen Sneddon argues that rent stabilization, if done well, can protect renters while also supporting responsible housing providers. That sounds reassuring. It also ignores the city’s actual record when it comes to supporting housing providers.
If rent stabilization done well is the goal, then the obvious question is this: What evidence is there that the city has done anything well for housing providers so far?
For almost a decade, Santa Barbara has moved steadily toward treating housing providers as a problem to be managed rather than as community members providing an essential service. Over that time numerous ordinances have: increased penalties, added layers of bureaucracy, and expanded restrictions. The city doesn’t give one new ordinance time to measure its impact before another one is being implemented. These one-sided regulations have sent a clear message. Owning and operating rental housing is something to be constrained and punished, not supported.
Councilmember Sneddon describes rent stabilization as placing reasonable limits on rent increases. Her most recent proposal would have capped annual increases at 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In practical terms, that translates to roughly one to two percent per year. There is nothing reasonable about that.
Insurance and utility costs have risen by double digits. Labor, materials, permits, regulatory compliance, and property taxes all continue to climb. None of these costs are capped. None are tied to CPI. None come with a discussion about reasonableness.
Yet housing providers are told that the one tool they have to absorb these costs must be artificially limited. That is not balance. It is a forced subsidy.
We are also told that a rent freeze allows everyone to come to the table. That’s interesting since the last time everyone was at the table the City Council promptly ignored their unanimous findings and recommendations. But who was at the table when her last rent control proposal was drafted? It was not housing providers. It was not property managers. It was not local professionals who operate rental housing in Santa Barbara. The proposal appears to mirror similar ones shaped by professional activists who promote the same policies in cities across the state, regardless of local conditions. Housing providers were invited only after the framework was already written and their concerns were routinely dismissed. Calling that collaboration does not make it so.
The city offers housing providers no predictability when it comes to cost increases. Utilities, insurance, permits, fees, labor, and materials all rise without negotiation. Now the city proposes to cap rent increases without any mechanism to account for those rising costs or to evaluate what tenants can reasonably afford. That is not equity. Equity requires considering impacts on both sides. What is being proposed shifts all risk to one group in the hope that it symbolically benefits another, while doing little to address the underlying causes of affordability.
Santa Barbara has real issues around housing affordability and habitability. The city has tools to address them without punishing an entire sector of the community. It could invest in education for tenants and landlords. It could enforce existing laws to address bad actors on both sides. It could expand the Housing Trust Fund and provide targeted assistance to those who truly need help. It could remove barriers to new housing and stop being so restrictive about building. None of those require a rent freeze.
Declaring a freeze across thousands of housing units without a plan to help housing providers manage continued rising costs is not thoughtful policy. It is a political gesture that imposes real harm on one group while offering brief relief to another. If the goal is truly to support responsible housing providers and protect renters, then policy must start with honesty, inclusion, and economic reality. A rent freeze is not a pause. It is a verdict already reached.
