Supporters of Santa Barbara’s proposed rent freeze describe it as a short-term, emergency measure — a pause while the city works out a permanent rent stabilization ordinance. But when you look closely at how the policy actually operates, it becomes clear that this “temporary” freeze can lock rents in place for years, not months.
Here’s why.
Under the proposal, rents are frozen at their December 16, 2025, level. At the same time, landlords are legally required to offer tenants one-year leases. That combination has consequences few people are talking about.
If a rent freeze is in effect when a one-year lease must be offered — say June 1, 2026 — the landlord must set the rent at the frozen amount. Once that lease is signed, the rent is locked for the full year. Even if the rent freeze expires a few weeks later, or a permanent rent stabilization ordinance takes effect with a modest annual increase allowed, the rent cannot be adjusted mid-lease. The frozen rent carries through to the end of that one-year contract.
In other words, a freeze that’s advertised as lasting until summer 2026 can, in practice, suppress rent increases well into 2027 — or longer.
It doesn’t stop there. Any rent increases that were legally taken after December 16, 2025, are not erased, but they are counted against future allowable increases under a permanent ordinance. That means landlords who adjusted rent to keep pace with rising insurance, utilities, or maintenance costs have already “used up” years’ worth of future increases. For some properties, this translates into a multi-year period with no ability to raise rent at all.
This is not a loophole. It is the system working exactly as designed.
The real-world impact is a stacking effect: a temporary freeze, layered with mandatory one-year leases, layered again with retroactive accounting of past increases. The result is a much longer and much tighter restriction on rental income than most residents realize — and far longer than the word “temporary” suggests.
These policies don’t just affect large corporate landlords. In Santa Barbara, much of rental housing is owned by small, local owners: retirees relying on rental income, families renting out a second unit, longtime residents trying to cover escalating costs. When rents are frozen while expenses continue to rise, owners are forced into difficult choices: defer maintenance, stop improvements, or exit the rental market altogether.
A policy meant to provide stability can ultimately reduce housing quality and supply.
Reasonable people can agree that renters deserve protection and predictability. But meaningful policy requires honesty about tradeoffs. A rent freeze that quietly extends itself through mandatory leases and future caps isn’t just a pause — it’s a long-term financial restructuring of housing, enacted without fully acknowledging its reach.
Santa Barbara deserves a housing policy that is transparent, balanced, and rooted in real-world impacts — not one whose consequences only become clear after it’s already law.
