Santa Barbara is losing the people who hold our community together as rising housing costs force firefighters, teachers, nurses, and caregivers to move away. Whether we are renters, homeowners, or business owners, that affects all of us.
The state’s current rent stabilization law caps rent increases at 5 percent plus the Consumer Price Index. At today’s rates, this means rents can rise by more than 25 percent in just three years. I believe most residents understand why that is not sustainable.
That is why throughout my campaign for Santa Barbara City Council, I have expressed support for a rent stabilization ordinance that protects renters from price gouging and gives them long-term stability. A good policy can do that while respecting property rights, and without saddling the city with costs, complexity, and legal risks we cannot afford.
The rent stabilization ordinance presented to the City Council last week fails that test. The details matter, and several important provisions must be fixed.
This policy was originally slated to come before the City Planning Commission, where I have served for five years. I had planned to weigh in there. However, given the city’s decision to bypass that review, and the possibility that the ordinance may be left to the next council, I want to be clear on where I stand.
The rent cap is too tight. The ordinance limits annual increases to 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index or 3 percent, whichever is less. This would be one of the tightest caps in California.
Courts have ruled that property owners have a constitutional right to a fair return. Every rent stabilization ordinance, including ours, must therefore allow owners to petition for larger increases when a rent cap prevents that return.
Here’s the paradox: The tighter the cap, the more owners are likely to file costly and time-consuming petitions to raise rents above it. That could leave tenants facing less predictable and potentially larger increases, while adding significant costs for the city. A cap set too low can undermine the very stability we are all trying to achieve.
Costs are high and remain uncertain. Each fair return petition is expected to cost the city about $27,000. A tight cap could overwhelm staff with petitions and hit small, local landlords hardest. We need to ensure this is a program our staff can appropriately administer under our financial constraints. Adjusting the cap is the simplest fix to reduce administrative costs.
Exempt owners already renting below market rate. The council should reconsider Councilmember Harmon’s earlier proposal to exempt owners who voluntarily charge below-market rents. Some landlords have kept rents affordable for years, with no subsidy and no legal requirement. Treating them the same as owners charging market rents misses the point, and those with the lowest rents have the least room to absorb a tight cap.
Exempt government-regulated affordable housing. Our City Housing Authority has requested exemptions for legally restricted affordable units and units rented through Section 8. And I agree wholeheartedly. These units are already price stabilized and adding another regulatory layer on top disincentivizes landlords from participating in this very important and needed program in our community.
Allow limited rent banking. Rent banking lets owners save an unused rent increase for a future year. With reasonable limits, it gives owners flexibility to hold rents steady instead of encouraging them to impose the maximum increase every year. Even San Francisco, which has one of California’s strongest rent stabilization systems, allows it.
Getting these details right is critical to ensuring this ordinance delivers the stability our community needs.
Too much of our public discussion has focused on villains and victims, and winners and losers. We must work together to address legitimate concerns. Ignoring those that disagree with you is not a sound way to make public policy. We need to come together and pursue a tailored and reasonable approach that works for our community.
Rent stabilization alone is not going to solve our housing challenges. We must also pursue a comprehensive approach that addresses the supply and subsidy side of housing.
In the event this ordinance does not pass on Tuesday, it would be considered for adoption by the new City Council. I am asking every councilmember, on both sides of this issue, to dig into the details, ask staff hard questions, and consider these improvements.
We can create a reasonable, tailored rent stabilization policy that protects renters, respects property owners, and actually works. This ordinance is not there yet. The Council must do the work to fix it.
Devon Wardlow serves on the Santa Barbara City Planning Commission and is a candidate for City Council District 4.
