City of Santa Barbara May Face Litigation over Temporary Rent Freeze

Santa Barbara City Council decided not to discuss the potential extension of the city’s temporary rental increase moratorium, instead choosing to delay deliberation another week following threats of litigation over the legality of extending the rent freeze.

The decision comes in light of the recent petition to place rent stabilization on the ballot, sponsored by property owners opposed to the recently approved and heavily debated citywide rent stabilization ordinance. The Help Save Santa Barbara Housing Committee (HSSBHC), supported by the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, announced that its petition reached 9,000 signatures this week, meeting the preliminary minimum requirement for a referendum, despite a wave of public pushback over the alleged misleading tactics employed by paid signature gatherers.

Property owners who support the petition are looking to get the item on the ballot for a special election in 2027. They oppose the rent stabilization, which was approved in a series of 4-3 votes, following a drawn out and highly polarized planning process. 

“Santa Barbara residents deserve a voice in a decision that will affect housing availability, affordability and the future of our community,” said Rick Lang, spokesperson for the HSSBHC. “We believe this decision is too important to be left to four members of the City Council. The council should repeal this misguided ordinance or give voters the opportunity to decide in a special election.”

Without the referendum, the city would have implemented the new citywide rent cap starting January 1, 2027. The temporary rent increase moratorium, which the council put into place to keep rents steady during the planning process, was scheduled to end on December 31, the day before the new program was to begin.

The petition threw a wrench into the implementation plans. The referendum proceeds to the next step only after the county elections office verifies the signatures, which could take anywhere from 30 to 90 days from the filing date, potentially leaving city renters vulnerable to rent hikes unless the freeze is extended.

But prior to Tuesday’s meeting, property owners filed a letter threatening litigation if the city extended the moratorium. In a statement sent to the media before the meeting, the committee behind the referendum announced it would also consider launching another referendum should the city attempt to extend the rent freeze.

“We just submitted 9,100 signatures. What makes the council think we will not organize another referendum?” Lang said. “If the council adopts this extension, we will consider pursuing another petition drive. We are also prepared to challenge the extension in court. We are done treating polite objections as our only option.”

At the council hearing, City Administrator Kelly McAdoo announced the last-minute decision to delay the item. McAdoo said it was staff’s recommendation that the council “not consider this agenda item today,” and instead include the item on the council’s agenda for next week’s regular meeting.

The referendum has become the newest flashpoint in the debate over rent stabilization, as tenant rights advocates and property owners have both launched campaigns about the rent stabilization petition.

Several community members spoke during the city council’s public comment period. Larry Behrendt, a community organizer with Indivisible S.B. who volunteered at polling stations on election day, said he was shocked to see the paid signature gatherers set up at polling places across the city, soliciting voters to sign in violation of state law.

Behrendt said he personally witnessed the signature gatherers within the restricted 100-foot limit at the First Methodist Church and Eastside Library polling stations, calling into question the intentions of the people behind the referendum.

“It is now incumbent on this city to investigate how proponents of this referendum secured their final signatures through a repeated pattern of harassment and misdemeanor violations,” Behrendt said.

The Santa Barbara Tenants Union launched its own education campaign, providing support to city residents who felt deceived into signing a petition they believed was in support of renters. The organization has lodged multiple formal complaints about the petition effort, alleging harassment, intimidation, and misleading information.

Property owners in support of the petition have criticized the tenant group’s “personal vilification” of landlords, according to a statement from the HSSBHC asking City Council to reject the personal attacks.

“Oppose our position. Make your argument. But stop vilifying people for using a lawful democratic process,” Lang said.