Santa Barbara residents deserve safe housing and public agencies that take responsibility when they fall short. They also deserve accurate information about those agencies, especially when that information is being used to shape public policy.
During the city’s recent debate over the Rent Stabilization Ordinance at the council meeting on September 22, 2026, public comments mischaracterized the Housing Authority’s inspection audit findings as showing that more than 1,000 failed inspections went without follow-up in each of two years.
That claim is false. It confuses the total number of inspections that uncovered a problem with the specific instances in which auditors actually found that follow-up was late. The distinction matters to the residents we serve and to a community weighing important housing decisions.
To be exact, the 2024 audit identified that the Housing Authority had properly carried out its regulatory requirement to conduct inspections and in 1,100 instances had uncovered a problem. Within the files auditors tested in 2024, three cases involved required follow-up and enforcement that did not occur within the prescribed timeframe. The 2025 audit identified seven more exceptions involving untimely follow-up in the files tested.
Again, the audits did not conclude that more than 1,000 failed inspections each year received no follow-up. Nor should the exceptions found in the tested files be presented as a complete count of all possible exceptions. The findings should be described accurately, within the scope of the auditors’ work.
Those documented shortcomings matter and we take responsibility for them.
At the same time, the fact that inspections were carried out that uncovered 1,100 problems demonstrates that the regulatory system we are beholden to is working and that our inspectors were doing their job: identifying deficiencies and requiring corrections. A failed inspection means a unit was not simply approved despite conditions that did not meet housing standards. It is evidence of active and rigorous oversight — oversight that is not required nor conducted with private rental housing stock.
Identifying a problem is only part of our responsibility. Timely follow-up and enforcement must come next. That is where the auditors identified shortcomings in the specific files tested, and that is what we have successfully worked to correct.
None of those overdue cases involved exigent health or safety deficiencies. That does not excuse the delays, but it is relevant context.
The final, signed audit for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026, dated September 24, 2026, confirms that the prior Housing Quality Standards enforcement finding has been resolved. The report identifies finding 2025-001, originally reported as finding 2024-002, as “Resolved” and reports no current federal award findings. This independent confirmation reflects the corrective work we have undertaken to strengthen timely follow-up and enforcement.
We welcome independent scrutiny and doing so is a hallmark of a well-run public agency. Audits help identify weaknesses, establish corrective action, and assess whether improvements are working. Accountability requires us to acknowledge findings and address them.
The Housing Authority inspects every participating voucher unit every two years and conducts interim inspections when tenants or landlords report concerns. Deficiencies must be corrected within applicable HUD deadlines, with urgent health and safety conditions subject to a 24-hour correction requirement. Enforcement includes abating or withdrawing payments to owners who fail to make required corrections. The potential loss of those payments provides a strong incentive to complete repairs.
Residents can report housing conditions directly to us. When they do, regulations clearly spell out how we should proceed to rectify such a situation and those situations are also audited. Residents can also contact the city’s code enforcement staff. We encourage them to speak up in all cases.
Reasonable people can disagree about the design of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, including its exemptions for deed-restricted affordable housing and Section 8. That discussion should proceed on an accurate understanding of how our existing regulatory oversight system works and the importance of audit findings.
The rules governing the habitability of Housing Authority and Section 8 units are far more rigorous than a rent stabilization ordinance. A rental board waits for tenants to file complaints on a case-by-case basis whereas our audit-based system catches problems before they become crises and forces continuous improvement. We inspect every unit every two years and have that verified by an independent third party. An Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not require that of other private sector units.
Regardless, for me, this work has always been about the people who depend on us for a safe place to call home. Their concerns deserve to be heard, and our performance deserves scrutiny. Neither is served by overstating what an audit found. Good policymaking relies on factual and fair information.
We will continue to take responsibility for shortcomings, improve our services, and correct the public record when it is misrepresented. Our residents and our community deserve all three.
