Should Santa Barbara adopt rent stabilization?

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, First of all, thank you for your service to the citizens of Santa Barbara. I know that yours is often a thankless job, so thank you. I would like to express some thoughts on the proposals before the council regarding rent control. I am a retired City of Santa [NAME]. My wife and I own a rental property within the City. I purchased the condominium many years ago, and lived in it for several years. When my wife and I got married, we were able to purchase another house and we were able to keep the condo as a rental.

The rental unit supplements our retirement income and frankly helps us continue to live in Santa Barbara with our family and longtime friends. Santa Barbara has been our community for over forty years. First let me say that we are not opposed to some type of rent control, but the proposals that I am hearing being considered are extreme. I attended the Tuesday December 16 Council meeting and listened to many of the public comments. Overall, the speakers that favor a rent control ordinance are either misinformed or under-informed on the intricacies of providing rental housing. I heard a lot of anger directed at landlords which I am sure in some cases is justified.

However, as a property owner who provides a clean, well maintained rental unit at below market prices, I am offended when we are all cast in the same light. I believe that, overall, the vast majority of rental property owners within the City of Santa Barbara are honest business people who simply want to run an honest, and sustainable business by providing rental housing.

I implore the council to reject the thought of a .6% of CPI cap on annual rent increases on ANY rental property within the City. This will push rental property owners of all shapes and sizes out of business and we will see rental property within the City go the way of retail on State St. Additionally it will crush property values, lowering tax revenue from real estate tax which as you know is the general fund's largest source of revenue.

Businesses must be allowed to grow in order to support their owners, employees and to contribute to the public good by providing clean and safe housing. As you know, the State of California already limits the amount of rent increases allowed via the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. I believe that there is no sound reason to further restrict property owners.

Consider this. Property owners must run a sustainable business which includes the following:

Property cost – even properties purchased many years ago require loan servicing.

… 2 more paragraphs

Maintenance cost – plumbing, electrical, interior and exterior painting, roofing, drywall and plaster, appliances and updating. And the list goes on.

Insurance cost – insurance costs continue to rise dramatically within California.

Our insurance rose approximately 20% in 2025.

Utilities costs – City water, gas, electrical, internet and security Again, we are not opposed to some controls on rent increases, however the State of California has already restricted landlords from over-increasing rent. Rental property owners must be able to sustain their businesses which in turn goes a long way toward sustaining our community and making it the wonderful place we all live in. Please do not consider the extreme measures being pushed by those who do not understand the challenges of providing rental housing.

Thank you. Sinceerely, Lee and [NAME] 805-448-2761 [EMAIL]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Please share this in the public comment period during the rent stabilization talks.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing as a local property manager who works daily with both tenants and small "mom-and-pop" housing providers throughout Santa Barbara. I respectfully wish to share concerns regarding the proposed rent freeze and to request an opportunity for meaningful participation in the policy discussion.

First, I believe it is important to acknowledge that the challenges surrounding housing affordability are not new, nor do they constitute an emergency requiring rapid, one-size-fits-all action. Both the State of California and the City of Santa Barbara have been aware of these pressures for many years, and existing regulations—most notably AB 1482

… 1 more paragraph

—already impose highly restrictive limits on rent increases.

In practice, these constraints have created unintended consequences.

Because owners know increases may be limited or eliminated in the future, many feel compelled to raise rents annually simply to keep pace with rising costs such as insurance, utilities, labor, and building materials. This often removes the flexibility to keep rents stable for good long-term tenants, even when an owner would otherwise choose to do so.

Rather than a blanket rent freeze, I encourage the City to consider more nuanced, data-driven approaches. For example:

Limiting rent increases that exceed reasonable thresholds relative to median market rents in the area Allowing modest increases for units that are demonstrably under market rent Providing clear pathways for approved increases when owners invest in meaningful unit upgrades, safety improvements, or deferred maintenance These types of policies would better reflect real-world conditions and help preserve housing quality, while still protecting tenants from excessive rent increases.

Property managers are uniquely positioned to contribute to this conversation. We serve as the go-between for tenants and owners, understand local market dynamics, and manage the delicate balance of keeping rents reasonable, maintaining buildings, reducing vacancy and turnover costs, and ensuring that rental housing remains economically viable. Many current rent stabilization discussions unintentionally leave out this perspective, despite its relevance to outcomes on the ground.

Our company would welcome the opportunity to engage in collaborative problem-solving. Addressing housing affordability requires thinking outside the box—not simply limiting owners' ability to carry their investments, but designing policies that sustain long-term rental housing, protect tenants, and encourage responsible ownership.

If there is a sign-up sheet for upcoming workshops, working groups, or opportunities for public input beyond standard public comment, we would be happy to sign up and would greatly appreciate information on how to stay informed and participate in a more substantive way.

… 3 more paragraphs

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. We look forward to being part of a thoughtful, balanced dialogue on this important issue.

Respectfully, [NAME] Cochrane Property Management, Inc.

102 [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93101 P: (805) 965-2887 x116 | Direct: (805) 456-8778 F: (805) 966-6468 [EMAIL] www.cochranepm.com For all repairs and maintenance, please contact our 24-7 maintenance line at (805) 965-2887 x1

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City Council Members, We are asking you to Vote NO on Rent Freeze.

My husband and I have painstakingly built our business in Santa Barbara since 1980. It has become our family livelihood.

It is illegal for you to vote on rent freeze. You are taking away rights from us as United States citizens. You have NO right to do so. You are controlling our businesses, livelihoods and OUR rights.

We do not take advantage of our renters and have kept rents below market average for many years. We value our tenants and the quality of the dwellings they live in. The rental increase moratorium is not only illegal but puts a strain on us who treat our renters with respect. The rental moratorium takes away our dignity as business owners.

This will create housing that long term renters will not be able to stay if we do not have the income to maintain our properties and the overhead (insurance, mortgages, utilities, repairs, etc.).

… 2 more paragraphs

Please show us respect and vote No.

[NAME] de Veer 805 729 0364

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Rent control:;

0ur family has had rentals since the 1950's and the Family has Built a small family business that has become our small families livelihood!

We have never taken advantage of our renters and we would often absorb the increased costs of utilities, insurance, maintenance and taxes!

We feel your rental increase moratorium is not only illegal but a strain on the small family business incomes of many long-time Santa Barbara citizens !!!

We feel this will create housing that long time renters will not be able to continue living in due to the owners increased costs of maintaining properties and therefore unable to fix things as they break down!!!

You are taking away our property, our businesses and livelihood, and our rights as private property owners!

Cordially Mrs. [NAME] Mr [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I am writing to express my concerns and thoughts regarding the proposed emergency rent freeze that will be discussed and voted on Tuesday, January 13, 2026.

I am a co-owner of a small family business (a local family-owned corporation) that owns and manages one residential 10 unit apartment building in Santa Barbara. We keep our rents fair and under the going market rate. We take pride in ownership of our apartment building, listen to our tenants, maintain our property and provide affordable units to the community.

The proposal to freeze rent increases until December 2026 and possibly into the future is unconstitutional and greatly unfair to property owners in Santa Barbara.

Rental property expenses have been increasing tremendously over the last several years. Our property insurance premiums have more than doubled, property taxes keep increasing each year, cost of maintenance and labor has greatly increased, and the City of Santa Barbara keeps increasing water/sewer and trash rates, which we pay for. These expenses are rising faster than the CPI. We cannot sustain these expense increases without reasonable rent increases.

We are urging you to represent both the property owners of this City and the tenants, not just the tenants. Implementing a rent freeze unfairly punishes property owners. Policies that drive out small providers like us will reduce supply, reduce quality, and worsen affordability over time. Santa Barbara needs solutions that increase housing, not policies that shrink it. We urge you to slow down and not implement emergency actions. We need data driven decision making with full economic analysis.

We urge you to vote NO on the proposal to Implement a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium.

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Investment Company

… 3 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important  Item 14–Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium By the time I arrived at the City Council meeting after work, I was told they were no longer accepting speaker slips, so I'd like to submit my comments here:

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is [NAME], and I have been a local housing provider for more than 20 years.

I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze and related tenant protection measures.

There are certainly landlords who charge whatever the market will bear. But there are many small, local landlords--like me-- who intentionally keep rents significantly below market to support our tenants and our community. My tenants rarely see increases, and when they do, they are extremely modest.

I rented in Santa Barbara at a time when safe, comfortable housing didn't consume most of a paycheck. I was fortunate to eventually buy a property, and have tried to pay thatforward by providing well-maintained, affordable housing. I believe deeply that housing affordability is one of Santa Barbara's most serious challenges, and I often vote against my own financial interests as a landlord to protect a sustainable rental market. No one should have to choose between basic needs and rent.

That said, responsible, community-minded housing providers shouldn't be forced into that sort of position either. Just as costs have risen for tenants, they've risen dramatically for landlords. Property taxes, utilities, and maintenance costs have all skyrocketed. Just this morning, I spent $1000 --just for the materials, not counting installation--on a new water heater that cost $400 a year ago. The new roof that I have been planning and saving for has tripled in price. My insurance has done the same. And without the ability to make modest, periodic rent adjustments to what are already modest rents, it becomes impossible to maintain safe, quality housing.

For me personally, freezing rents at pre-October levels would roll my tenants back to the rents they were paying in 2022-- which were already far below market-- because that's the last time they saw an increase, even as my costs have continued to climb.

I don't believe that, in the long run, these proposed measures are sustainable for renters, either. As small landlords leave the market, corporate interests snap up properties, aggressively increasing rents to levels that prompted these proposals in the first place. I'm concerned that these proposals risk accelerating the very trend they aim to stop.

I respectfully ask the Council to slow down this process, conduct a full economic data study, and engage allstakeholders before adopting measures that could permanently affect both landlords and renters. Thanks for your time.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Santa Barbara City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rent freeze and my deep concern about the direction this policy takes our city. While I understand the intention is to protect tenants, history shows that rent freezes and strict rent control policies consistently make housing problems worse for both renters and property owners in the long run.

Cities like San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles provide clear examples. Studies have shown that rent control:

… 3 more paragraphs

- Reduces the supply of rental housing by discouraging new construction and pushing landlords to remove units from the market.

- Leads to higher rents for new tenants because fewer units are available.

- Encourages landlords to convert rentals into condos or short-term rentals.

- Results in poorer maintenance and building quality over time because owners cannot recoup costs.

- Ultimately benefits a small group of tenants while hurting future renters and overall affordability.

A well-known Stanford study on San Francisco's rent control found that it reduced rental housing supply by about 15% and increased citywide rents by more than 5%. That is the opposite of what our community needs.

Santa Barbara's housing crisis is a supply problem. Freezing rents does not create a single new unit of housing. It only discourages the very people who build, maintain, and invest in long- term rental homes. If we truly want affordability, the focus should be on:

… 3 more paragraphs

- Building more housing, especially multi-family and workforce housing

- Easing and speeding up the building permit and approval process

- Reducing regulatory barriers and costs that make construction financially impossible

- Banning or heavily restricting Airbnb and short-term rentals that remove housing from the long-term market Other cities that have addressed housing shortages successfully did so by increasing supply, not by freezing prices. Artificially controlling rent treats the symptom while worsening the disease.

Santa Barbara should be encouraging development, protecting long-term housing stock, and making it easier—not harder—for responsible owners to provide quality rental homes. A rent freeze sends the message that our city is hostile to housing investment, which will only deepen the crisis for years to come.

Please reconsider this approach and shift the focus toward real, lasting solutions that expand housing availability and stabilize rents naturally through supply.

… 1 more paragraph

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA [NAME] (805) 698-6949

[ Dear Mayor Rouse and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, We are writing again regarding the proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the suggested rent freeze. We are Santa Barbara "locals", in fact third generation local. We are homeowners who live in one unit on our property and rent the other. The income from our rental unit is what has made homeownership in Santa Barbara possible for our family.

As currently proposed, the RSO and rent freeze would impose significant and disproportionate financial hardship on small, "mom-and-pop" landlords such as ourselves—particularly we feel those with three units or fewer. While we fully support the goal of fair, stable, and sustainable housing in Santa Barbara, we believe the current approach does not adequately balance the needs of tenants with the realities faced by small property owners.

We support reasonable rent increase limits, restrictions on the frequency of rent increases, and just-cause eviction protections. These measures can be fair and effective for both tenants and landlords. However, proposals such as rent freezes or rollbacks, prohibitions on utility cost recovery, and caps at 60% of CPI are overly aggressive— especially for small landlords. These measures fail to account for the rapidly rising costs of homeowners insurance, property taxes, utilities, labor, repairs, and inflation overall. Many small landlords are not generating excess profit;

… 1 more paragraph

we are simply managing to cover expenses and remain solvent.

If any of these measures are adopted without meaningful differentiation between the type of landlord, many small property owners may be forced to remove units from the long-term rental market, convert them to short-term rentals, or sell their properties altogether—outcomes that would further reduce housing availability rather than improve it.

In our view, a significant contributor to Santa Barbara's housing challenges is the prevalence of short-term rentals, which remove otherwise viable long-term housing from the market. If fewer STR's were allowed the majority of those units would be back on the market and with more units available the rents would come down. Additionally, large corporate and out-of-town investors purchasing substantial portions of the local housing stock have dramatically altered the housing landscape. These factors deserve greater scrutiny.

Small landlords like us—local residents who have lived here our entire lives, worked hard to achieve homeownership, and who treat our tenants fairly and respectfully—should not be vilified or financially penalized.

We respectfully ask the Council to recognize the important distinctions among landlords and to tailor regulations accordingly.

… 3 more paragraphs

Treating all landlords identically regardless of scale or ownership structure, fails to recognize the meaningful differences between large landlords/corporate entities and individual homeowner landlords. More aggressive regulations or potential rent freezes should apply to large landlords/corporate entities with many multiple units while providing appropriate exemptions or alternative standards for small local property owners.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Zane and [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important To the Clerk of the City of Santa Barbara, Please confirm receipt of this letter of public comment and share with all City Councilmembers prior to the meeting.

Thank you.

[NAME] 1941 [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA 93105 (805) 280-6060 1941 [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA 93105 January 9, 2026 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93101 RE: Proposed Rent Increase Moratorium Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, As a "mom and pop" owner of two rental units in Santa Barbara, I ask that you please resist the drastic step of imposing a rent increase moratorium. This is a "nuclear option" that is wholly out of scale to the problem and will end up causing long term harm to the very issue it is trying to address.

The vast majority of the rental housing units in Santa Barbara are owned by private investors. And the vast majority of private landlords in our city are law-abiding citizens who care about the community and who understand well the challenges presented by the high cost of housing in our community. All of them have offspring, relatives and/or friends that struggle to find an affordable place to live. Are there unscrupulous landlords who utilize exploitative methods to raise rents on their properties? Unquestionably. But the unfair practices of these extremists should be dealt with appropriately through tenant protection laws and effective law enforcement. To institute the proposed rent increase moratorium is to declare war on all real estate investors and sends a clear signal that our city is closed to new property investment.

As someone whose day job is to develop new housing with one of the city's predominant affordable housing providers, I believe I am well placed to understand both sides of this issue. Santa Barbara needs more housing, not to stagnate the housing stock at its current size. Please do not do the irreparable damage of declaring our city a no-investment zone to private developers.

Thank you for considering my feedback and I thank you for your service in preserving the community that we love.

… 1 more paragraph

Sincerely, [NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important [NAME] and I are a small Mom and Pop housing provider here in Santa Barbara. We are concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze and the tenant protection measures being discussed today. We ask that you slow down this process so that proper discussion and solutions can be made. We agree and honor housing affordability in Santa Barbara and in doing so we have good relationships with our tenants and provide reasonable and fair rents to them. This continues to get tougher with rising insurance costs, property tax and overall maintenance on the property. Things that tenants do not have to concern themselves with, but we are diligent about so that our tenants have a safe, reliable place to live.

I encourage the Council to take a look at Item 14 and slow down the process. Have real conversations with housing providers and tenants in our town so that we can all work together to provide the best options for our community.

My Husband and I both have work today and are unable to be at the council meeting in person, but would be willing to meet at any time to discuss our position and concerns in regards to a rent freeze.

… 1 more paragraph

All our best, [NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City Council Members With respect I urge you to consider voting against this measure. Studies have shown that rent control has negative effects on the communities where it has been instituted. As a renter myself, I fear the negative consequences that rent control will have on our community. Small landlords such as my own will likely be driven out of business unable to keep up with the increasing costs of maintenance, insurance, and taxes. Corporations will be the only entities able to acquire properties which will leave the tenant community in a worse position.

I have enjoyed a very positive relationship with my landlords over the years as they are a small family run business owning a handful of rentals. They care about their tenants and do their best for us.

Please do not listen to the activist groups behind these efforts. Most tenants in Santa Barbara have good relationships with their landlords and a rental moratorium will only drive out those owners to be replaced by corporate ownership. The answer to our housing crisis is not to go after small landlords. It is to sustainably build more housing in our community, removing the regulations and restrictions on building and to place logical limits on corporate ownership over rentals. This initiative will only hurt our small landlords and ultimately us tenants.

Respectfully, [NAME]

… 3 more paragraphs

Re: the rent freeze moratorium Good evening mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME] and I'm a Santa Barbara native. My wife and I are raising our 18- month-old son here, and like many people who grew up in this city, staying here as a young family has been incredibly difficult.

We were only able to buy a home this past year because we purchased a small duplex, and rent out the other unit. That rental income isn't extra—it's what makes the mortgage, insurance, and ongoing maintenance possible. Without it, we wouldn't have been able to put down roots here at all.

That's why I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze.

Like many housing providers in Santa Barbara, we're not a large company. We're a young family trying to stay in the city we love, who rents out one unit. Our costs continue to rise— insurance, utilities, repairs, taxes, and interest rates—but a rent freeze would limit income without limiting expenses. That imbalance makes it harder to maintain properties and harder for families like ours to remain here long-term.

It's not just about me and my family, I'm also worried about the bigger picture. Policies like this often reduce housing supply over time, especially when small, local owners decide they can't make the numbers work anymore. That leads to fewer rentals, less investment in existing homes, and ultimately more pressure on renters.

We all want stability and fairness for tenants. But there are no simple fixes in housing, and rushing a decision (this does not constitute an emergency) can create unintended consequences that hurt the very people we're trying to help. Not to mention that there are already restrictions in place regarding how much rent can increase each year.

Santa Barbara already struggles with housing availability. Before making a decision this significant, I urge the Council to not pass this moratorium.

At the very least, I would suggest implementing a unit minimum. Example: only owners with X+ amount of units are subject to this moratorium.

This moratorium would make more sense for landlords who own a large amount of units, but would greatly hurt small families like mine.

Thank you.

… 2 more paragraphs

[NAME]

-- [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Subject: Reference Item 14 – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME] and together with my wife, I am a local housing provider here in Santa Barbara. The rent from our jointly owned single-family residence supplements our Social Security income. I am 74 years old, and I am deeply concerned about the proposed rent freeze.

Owning and maintaining rental housing is not without significant costs. Recently, we had to replace a roof and repair a leaking foundation. In the past, our rental was severely flooded when a tenant's child clogged the sink and left water running; half the house was damaged, and mold remediation was required. These expenses are part of the ongoing reality of property ownership.

I understand the housing affordability challenges. My own children have faced them—one now lives in Ventura but commutes to Goleta for work. But freezing rents does not address the underlying problem. Unless housing prices, maintenance costs, insurance, property taxes, and special bond assessments are also frozen, a rent freeze places an unfair burden on small, mom-and-pop providers like my wife and me.

We are not large corporations; we are semi-retired community members trying to keep our rental safe and habitable while covering rising expenses. I urge the Council to consider solutions that balance affordability for tenants with sustainability for small housing providers.

Kind regards, [NAME] [EMAIL] 3753 Lincoln Road Santa Barbara, CA 93110

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council, My family and I have been providing 7 units of housing in Santa Barbara for over 80 years.

Our rents are reasonable, and our tenants are happy.

The changes that are being proposed have made us seriously consider closing our rental business altogether. If landlords cannot keep rents in line with expenses, there is really no point in continuing to rent.

While the intention of the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium is to make life in Santa Barbara more affordable, I believe this proposal will result in fewer housing units being available. People like me will simply put our property to other uses than housing.

Thank you for your attention, [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hello I am saying , "Please do not consider this item any further!'

Subject: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction;

Ordinance Adoption] This is not a solution. It creates more problems. Look at other cities who have incorporated rent control and you will see how it works out.

This is against rights to own real property. By passing this, it will be difficult for individuals to continue to own rental units and offer much needed housing.

Solution: Help tenants to make purchases of their own. Offer grants, low interest rate loans for low to moderate income earners in our County. Help the renters graduate to becoming owners. Help landlords to continue to offer quality housing for our people.

[NAME] 805-315-5828

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I urge you not to adopt rent control as an emergency ordinance. Housing affordability is a serious, long - term challenge, not a sudden emergency.

Please follow the normal process allowing full public input and carefully consider the impact on small property owners, renters and future housing.

Sincerely, [NAME] East

… 1 more paragraph

Council Members and Mayor Rowse, I am unable to attend this meeting due to work commitments.

Instead I am writing to support the temporary moratorium on tenant rent increases.

I urge you to vote for this moratorium to protect our working class citizens who contribute to the vitality of our community and struggle to make ends meet in order to live here.

That struggle is destined to worsen given the current administration's policies that have stripped programs and increased insurance premiums. Housing is a basic right.

This temporary measure would allow time to develop a more permanent solution.

Thank you.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] Santa Barbara 93103

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council, I am writing to urge your council's support for Item 14, a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and ordinance amendments relating to the Ellis Act. The City is on the right track pursuing rent stabilization, but these protections are crucial to ensure tenants do not suffer during the months the City is working on the rent stabilization program. Please vote to SUPPORT the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium as an emergency measure so it can take effect as soon as possible. If the overall goal is to protect tenants, tenants need to be protected at every step of this process.

Thank you for standing up for the tenants of Santa Barbara. Your support for rent stabilization is critical in ensuring a stable, vibrant, and healthy community.

Sincerely, [NAME] 6

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Council Members, I was surprised to see the sudden item of the proposed 'Emergency Rent Freeze and expanded tenant protection ordinances' that is now before the Council tomorrow.

I am very concerned that the use of an Emergency Ordinance could set a precedent in too many ways for council members to push their own agendas in the future and backfire badly on our Democratic area. Too much of this is going on in so many places in the country already and I didn't think the same types of techniques would be used here even though it's under the guise of something good for some.

Please provide backup as to how this fits the use of an Emergency Ordinance. It seems like a dangerous precedent to name something an emergency when there has not been a natural disaster or other such impetus to label this as one.

I still feel that the vast and creative intelligence of the Santa Barbara community could find better and more sustainable ideas for the housing crunch.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this complicated issue.

… 1 more paragraph

Best regards, [NAME] Santa Barbara Rental Property Owner 2038 Alameda Padre Serra, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 805-457-2872

Good Evening, My name is [NAME], I'm a member of the Hawkes family. We've been landlords in Santa Barbara for over 60 years. We are a small, family run business and we are very concerned about the measure being voted on tonight. We feel the unintended consequences of this measure will be families like ours selling their properties, taking them off the rental market. Our costs continue to rise and if we are handcuffed we will be forced to sell to the highest bidder - which often times is an out of towner looking for a second home. Please consider all the consequences of this action and ask for an economic analysis before voting.

Thank you for your time, [NAME]

I oppose the imposition of a rent control ordinance in the City.

As both a home owner and a business owner who rents commercial property I believe that adding a level of government oversight that will monitor rents is NOT where I want my tax dollars being spent.

<")*)>< [EMAIL]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Good afternoon -- My name is [NAME], born in Santa Barbara as was my wife and our children and grandkids. All of us went to public schools in the city. I am a mom and pop landlord.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to buy an old 7 unit apartment building just a few blocks from where we are now. Not being too astute, I just looked at the outside and purchased it. This was in the month of February and there was a serious rainstorm just as the escrow closed. I received an urgent phone call from an upstairs tenant telling me the ceiling was leaking badly and he ran out of pans and buckets to stop the flow.

Soon after, I had to have the roof completely replaced at great expense.

This really hurt because my rents were so low, and I had to cover the expense with a personal loan. This was just the first of many expenses, mainly plumbing and some structural that have occurred since. The cost of maintenance has risen greatly through the years but my rental rates have not kept up. Currently I am almost at 50% of the current rates and even the housing authority manager says my rates are way too low.

My goal on buying was to rehab this old building and rent to tenants at reduced rents. I have always felt badly for anyone having to rent at high rental rates and have always kept mine very low, many times needing to use other funds rather than rents to keep up with costs.

As the years have gone by, I have kept the property in good condition, even installing double pane windows in all of my units. I used to use Craigslist to offer my units when available, but I would get several hundred people wishing to rent, many not even wanting to see what the unit looked like. This was because my units were low cost. Current listings begin around $2200, mine are just now approaching 50% of that.

Now, we have a rent freeze being considered and I am afraid of the consequences. Even [NAME] in his Angry Poodle Barbecue on November 14 Independent, concerning a Rent Freeze said "but don't show up with some one-size fits all ordinance that fails to address the very real and Santa Barbara-specific concerns of our mom and pops landlords. Lip service to that is a deal killer" As for freezes. I notice that the City raises the water and sewer rates every year. Also trash collection and all other utilities are continually raising. Add in property taxes and especially insurance rates that are skyrocketing upward as I speak. I can not find insurance yet and my policy cancels on January 31, 2026 Can everything other than rents increase. What is the answer? What do I do?

I guess this is the price I pay for being considerate of my tenants while large corporate owners have raised their rents every year.

Thank you for listening.

Santa Barbara City Council, I wanted to give you a real life impact of your proposed ordinance in this agenda item.

My daughter is 33 and is a manager at Cottage Hospital. She has lived in SB for 7 years working at Cottage, moving up the ranks. Renting around town until last February.

She is a good saver and lives pretty frugally, so last year she decided that she was going to try to buy a place instead of renting her whole life. With her income and what she had for a down payment she could only find a place in Goleta. She didn't want to live in Goleta. She works in SB. She wanted to live in SB. She loves SB.

On her realtor's recommendation, she started to look at duplexes in SB, where the renter could help pay the mortgage. Last February she found one that was built in 1929 and had a lot of deferred maintenance but had great yard. It also had a very small studio unit behind the detached garage that could be rented out. (All spaced properly permitted...what a nice surprise!)

By some kind miracle, she got that place last February. Even with getting current market rate rent for the two other units, she still had to take on two roommates in her 2BR 1BA downstairs half of the duplex to make ends meet. She personally pays way more than market value for half of the duplex, but since she is the owner, she knows it will be worth it long term. But she is tapped out.

With this rent freeze, she absolutely has no room to cover the cost of any kind of improvement on the property. Can barely cover small repairs.

She just recently got a property insurance renewal increase of $3000 per year. The roof is old and should be replaced (about $30K). The old water heater is on its last legs and she would like to put in an energy efficient tankless water heater with water filter. She got a bid to add insulation to the roof of the second story half of the duplex for $6K which would really improve the summertime sweltering in the upstairs unit.

With no ability to raise the rents to cover these costs, she can do none of these property improvements/repairs. The quality of her rental units will definitely deteriorate over time.

The other impact of the rent freeze is that she will be motivated to select tenants that are likely to be relatively short term, like students. Will not be able to afford the risk of getting someone who might be there for more than about 2 yrs.

If a permanent draconian rent cap goes into place in SB, she will end up having to sell the place. She isn't wealthy. Just a working person trying to get established and survive in SB.

With her professional skill set, she can really work just about anywhere. She will not be a forever renter. If she can't cover the cost of keeping her property in SB, she will sell it at market rate, pocket the profit and move to another city and invest her life there.

Cottage Hospital will lose a valuable employee, the city will lose a young person who might get married, have a family and wanted to make SB her forever city.

My request is that the SB City Council, PLEASE find a way for people who are small mom- and-pop landlords, like my daughter, to be able to raise rents in her rental units enough to cover the documentable cost of actual property improvements and other costs, like property insurance, property tax increases and repairs.

I hope you find a way to incorporate this kind of reasonable accommodation into your rent stabilization ordinance.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] (760) 920-4888 Virus-free.www.avast.com

… 1 more paragraph

Good Afternoon City Council.

As always I want to thank you all for what you do for our community. I know the work is not always fun and glamorous but I know you all put in a ton of time for the greater good. So Thank you.

I was reading this article today, https://www.sbcurrent.com/p/santa-barbaras-cost-recovery- double, and have been communicating with a lot of tenants and landlords on the lead up to today's meeting.

The word "Emergency" gives me pause. And it should you as well. If this has been a topic of discussion for over a decade and we have rent controls already in place across the state of california, why have we let ourselves decide that this has to be passed through an emergency path.

landlords cannot just charge whatever they want, unless they want to have empty apartments. I recently had a tenant of many years leave one of my 4 units downtown and because of the fear of a rent freeze I raised the rent after doing some research on rents to see if the market would support it. But it did not rent right away so I quickly reduced it back to the same rent as before. We have large loans on this place, and property insurance has tripled and cost of repairs has doble in the last couple of years, so an empty unit scares me. That's how this works. This Emergency ordinance will make it harder for locals to own a few units here or there. You will end up with more large corporations or wealthy oligarchs who can afford to buy up properties here. And those owners do not care if their places are empty and not rented and that will do the opposite of what you are trying to do here , is help people in need. I would think we want to protect local SB families in having some ownership in the apartment stock, they seem uniquely suited for caring for our community and its apartment stock.

Some ideas for helping tenants with a financial need:

- Continue to bolster the housing authority to grow its housing stock in the community. This specifically targets need and does not give a windfall to those that do not need assistance.

… 4 more paragraphs

- Offer stipends for qualified renters to get a monthly aid for rent. This specifically targets need and does not benefit those that do not need help.

- bolster commuter buses and trains to the area. (free or reduced methods)

- Educate independent business owners on how to raise their rates to keep up with cost of living increases seen today.

Thanks [NAME] 805-637-3564

Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council Members:

My wife and I own a house on the mesa that we have been renting out for the past twelve years. Our experience with expenses on the property over the years has been quite an eye opener for us. The house, built in the late 50's is well built , 1300 square feet and on a small lot . It is about as low maintenance as a house could be, or so we thought.

In reality there is always something that needs to be done . With the cost to keep the house and yard up , tenants happy, and to maintain pride of ownership like the rest of the street, the bills never stop . I do most of the gardening , the carpentry , and some of the painting to help control cost, which in some years eat up any profits. I don't see how we could continue the rental if we could not raise rents more than the CPI . The building materials, appliances , insurance, various trades people and local business certainly will be raising prices a good deal more that the index. Only owners of large complexes, with their own in house contractors and willing to cut corners will survive. Then the days of mom and pop landlords providing housing will be numbered.

Respectfully, The Kelly's

… 4 more paragraphs

[ Hello, I am hoping that after you read my email you will take what I'm saying into consideration.

My name is [NAME], I'm born and raised here in Santa Barbara. My parents came from modest means, wher I spent my childhood living in apartments, with that I am very sensitive to how challenging it can be to live not only here in Santa Barbara, but in Southern California.

My husband is also a native along with our two adult children, and while our children don't live here anymore, they still consider this "home".

I'm sharing this because I do not want to give any impression that we come from deep pockets or are disconnected from real life we remember what Santa Barbara used to be, and genuinely miss it.

With this being said, I have spent my life in the printing industry and my husband spent his life as a union concrete carpenter out of the local 805.

We worked our rear ends off and invested our money into real estate. We have watched so much change, some for the better and some for the worse. I am very pro rent control within reason, as yes there is a lot of greed out there.

But here is what is not ever discussed (or maybe I just haven't seen it in print and I read a lot.)

The insurance companies (all of them) are choosing to not insure apartments anymore. This is forcing the property owners to go to the California Fair Plan or anywhere else that will take them on. They are not allowed to go out to bid, because they have no one to bid with, the monthly premiums are horrendous to say the least, and to say that it's scary is an understatement. Imagine not being able to afford your insurance premium and the result is your house gets foreclosed or your car gets repossessed? How would that affect your family who are dependent upon you.

And while there is a great divide between the tenants and the landlords, these landlords still have a responsibility for their tenants and their property. I'm sure it's easy to say "we'll give the tenant back their rent money and the building goes up for sale or whatever" but that's easy, what does this leave the tenant do?

Utilities have increased more than 10 fold, anyone who owns their own home, will attest to this. First it was the water rates have increased because of the water shortages. But the shortages have resolved themselves and the rates have skyrocketed why?Tenants who are paying for their own Gas and Electricity bills will also agree with this view, as the same principle applies.

… 1 more paragraph

These two very important factors does not give any corporate entity or small business such as myself the right to increase rent more than 7.7% in a year as that is what the state has put into place. These are not excuses, these are facts.

It must be recognized that freezing the rent isn't the answer.

Saying that if one unit of a building that is in need of maintenance will result in the entire building being emptied and remaining empty for 5 years, is crazy and will increase homelessness and can also create phantom housing.

(Where the landlord chooses to keep a building empty, this is a huge problem in NY) I say this because while that would devastate a person like myself, there are other people in this community who do have the ways and means to say, "I choose to keep my property empty" More housing needs to be built, where there is volume, the prices will naturally reduce or stabilize. (due to simple supply and demand) The easier the city makes the permitting process, the less expensive it will be to build, and hence less expensive to rent. We still have an insurance crisis, this too must be addressed recognized.

Until the underlying issues are addressed the problem will not go away. Rent Freezes will create more problems, buildings will fall into disrepair, the individuals who live there will be left to live in substandard conditions this does not help anyone. The City of Santa Barbara must work with the local property owners most of whom are small mom and pop businesses, not corporate entities.

Invite them to be a part of the solution.

… 1 more paragraph

Thank You, [NAME] [EMAIL] Sent from my iPad

[ Dear Mayor Rowse and Councilmembers, We are owners of a small 105 year old apartment building. On either side of us are apartment buildings that are even older. Across the street is an old hotel. Our block adds to the historic charm of Santa Barbara. Our antique building requires constant and often costly maintenance. Old electrical, and plumbing have required repairs and improvements on a regular basis. We also recently completed substantial work to improve our stairways and upper walkways to comply with Senate [NAME]. There has even been foundation and roofing improvements completed in prior years. Yes, we do this to comply with State laws, but most importantly, we are willing to do all this, because of our concern for the safety and comfort of our tenants. We also do it for the love and pride we have for this lovely old building. We've been able to absorb these costs over the last few years, by not increasing our income form this rental. We have also rarely raised rents in many years, and are well below market rate. Our tenants often comment on how much they enjoy living in our building and are very appreciative. We are fortunate to have a nice community of tenants. We now find ourselves struggling to keep up with the ever rising costs of labor, materials and yes, City of SB utilities. We are currently needing to raise our rents, well under state law.

At a bare minimum, please utilize the same cost recovery calculations you use within the city, when raising utility rates, fees, licenses, etc.

… 5 more paragraphs

Let us all sit down in the months ahead and work together towards a solution that works for everyone.

PLEASE DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH A RENT FREEZE, OR THE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE/REGISTRY.

Seems like the City of Santa Barbara could spend the money needed to create this ordinance and related programs on projects and programs for all of Santa Barbara.

If this moves forward, we WILL need to sell. What a shame to lose this beautiful old part of Santa Barbara to a big company wanting to build luxury condos (we have been approached multiple times).

Kindly, [NAME], LLC - Alyson Nethery - [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important  Item 14–Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium By the time I arrived at the City Council meeting after work, I was told they were no longer accepting speaker slips, so I'd like to submit my comments here:

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is [NAME], and I have been a local housing provider for more than 20 years.

I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze and related tenant protection measures.

There are certainly landlords who charge whatever the market will bear. But there are many small, local landlords--like me-- who intentionally keep rents significantly below market to support our tenants and our community. My tenants rarely see increases, and when they do, they are extremely modest.

I rented in Santa Barbara at a time when safe, comfortable housing didn't consume most of a paycheck. I was fortunate to eventually buy a property, and have tried to pay thatforward by providing well-maintained, affordable housing. I believe deeply that housing affordability is one of Santa Barbara's most serious challenges, and I often vote against my own financial interests as a landlord to protect a sustainable rental market. No one should have to choose between basic needs and rent.

That said, responsible, community-minded housing providers shouldn't be forced into that sort of position either. Just as costs have risen for tenants, they've risen dramatically for landlords. Property taxes, utilities, and maintenance costs have all skyrocketed. Just this morning, I spent $1000 --just for the materials, not counting installation--on a new water heater that cost $400 a year ago. The new roof that I have been planning and saving for has tripled in price. My insurance has done the same. And without the ability to make modest, periodic rent adjustments to what are already modest rents, it becomes impossible to maintain safe, quality housing.

… 3 more paragraphs

For me personally, freezing rents at pre-October levels would roll my tenants back to the rents they were paying in 2022-- which were already far below market-- because that's the last time they saw an increase, even as my costs have continued to climb.

I don't believe that, in the long run, these proposed measures are sustainable for renters, either. As small landlords leave the market, corporate interests snap up properties, aggressively increasing rents to levels that prompted these proposals in the first place. I'm concerned that these proposals risk accelerating the very trend they aim to stop.

I respectfully ask the Council to slow down this process, conduct a full economic data study, and engage allstakeholders before adopting measures that could permanently affect both landlords and renters. Thanks for your time.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, First of all, thank you for your service to the citizens of Santa Barbara. I know that yours is often a thankless job, so thank you. I would like to express some thoughts on the proposals before the council regarding rent control. I am a retired City of Santa [NAME]. My wife and I own a rental property within the City. I purchased the condominium many years ago, and lived in it for several years. When my wife and I got married, we were able to purchase another house and we were able to keep the condo as a rental.

The rental unit supplements our retirement income and frankly helps us continue to live in Santa Barbara with our family and longtime friends. Santa Barbara has been our community for over forty years. First let me say that we are not opposed to some type of rent control, but the proposals that I am hearing being considered are extreme. I attended the Tuesday December 16 Council meeting and listened to many of the public comments. Overall, the speakers that favor a rent control ordinance are either misinformed or under-informed on the intricacies of providing rental housing. I heard a lot of anger directed at landlords which I am sure in some cases is justified.

However, as a property owner who provides a clean, well maintained rental unit at below market prices, I am offended when we are all cast in the same light. I believe that, overall, the vast majority of rental property owners within the City of Santa Barbara are honest business people who simply want to run an honest, and sustainable business by providing rental housing.

I implore the council to reject the thought of a .6% of CPI cap on annual rent increases on ANY rental property within the City. This will push rental property owners of all shapes and sizes out of business and we will see rental property within the City go the way of retail on State St. Additionally it will crush property values, lowering tax revenue from real estate tax which as you know is the general fund's largest source of revenue.

… 1 more paragraph

Businesses must be allowed to grow in order to support their owners, employees and to contribute to the public good by providing clean and safe housing. As you know, the State of California already limits the amount of rent increases allowed via the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. I believe that there is no sound reason to further restrict property owners.

Consider this. Property owners must run a sustainable business which includes the following:

Property cost – even properties purchased many years ago require loan servicing.

Maintenance cost – plumbing, electrical, interior and exterior painting, roofing, drywall and plaster, appliances and updating. And the list goes on.

… 4 more paragraphs

Insurance cost – insurance costs continue to rise dramatically within California.

Our insurance rose approximately 20% in 2025.

Utilities costs – City water, gas, electrical, internet and security Again, we are not opposed to some controls on rent increases, however the State of California has already restricted landlords from over-increasing rent. Rental property owners must be able to sustain their businesses which in turn goes a long way toward sustaining our community and making it the wonderful place we all live in. Please do not consider the extreme measures being pushed by those who do not understand the challenges of providing rental housing.

Thank you. Sinceerely, Lee and [NAME] 805-448-2761 [EMAIL]

> Hello, > > I am a tenant in Santa Barbara. I choose to be a Tenant in a very expensive yet beautiful town. It is my choice to pay these rates. I work remotely, I could live anywhere. There are many cheaper places, but I choose to live here in expensive Santa Barbara. This is not my landlord's fault. These proposed ordinances are absurd! They are not well thought out.

> > In my building, we had a very disruptive tenant/neighbor, who my landlord had to ask to leave with the appropriate notice. The other five tenants, plus myself, were so relieved that our landlord made this change. We can live in peace and safety once again! When he rented to this tenant, he had no idea of his addictions, if he was restricted to remove him from the building or was afraid to do so because he would have to evict the rest of us, is absolutely out of this world insane. There should be NO such ordinance EVER! There should be no such limitation of years to rent the space again if an eviction occurs.

> > If we have plumbing issues, roof leaks, fencing problems or any other issues on the property, our landlord reacts quickly. Getting the proper service men is expensive yet this property is well-maintained- All of the time it is safe. It is secure. It is our home and our landlord respects that! I can speak for myself and my fellow neighbors we expect a rent increase annually and in return we know we're going to have a place we can call home. Utilities go up annually, are you going to ask those companies to stop there increases?!

> > What should be changed in this town is no more Airbnb's, that is causing disruption, low hotel vacancies, congestion to neighborhoods and taking away from property that our workers in this town could live in permanently.

… 1 more paragraph

The issue is NOT the long term renters. The issue is the short term or even 30 day rentals.

> > Once again, it is a choice to live here, and Santa Barbara is noted to be one of the most expensive coastal towns in the world. If you cannot afford to live here, then that is a fact that the individual will have to work with. It is not the landlord's fault.

> > Do not mess around and bring in any rental control or ordinance to this beautiful town or it will become a slum and full of conflict. Fine the landlords that don't keep up the properties and get rid of Airbnb's!

> > Thank you, > Miss Hattie > 805-284-4569

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Subject: Reference Item 14 – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME] and together with my wife, I am a local housing provider here in Santa Barbara. The rent from our jointly owned single-family residence supplements our Social Security income. I am 74 years old, and I am deeply concerned about the proposed rent freeze.

Owning and maintaining rental housing is not without significant costs. Recently, we had to replace a roof and repair a leaking foundation. In the past, our rental was severely flooded when a tenant's child clogged the sink and left water running; half the house was damaged, and mold remediation was required. These expenses are part of the ongoing reality of property ownership.

I understand the housing affordability challenges. My own children have faced them—one now lives in Ventura but commutes to Goleta for work. But freezing rents does not address the underlying problem. Unless housing prices, maintenance costs, insurance, property taxes, and special bond assessments are also frozen, a rent freeze places an unfair burden on small, mom-and-pop providers like my wife and me.

We are not large corporations; we are semi-retired community members trying to keep our rental safe and habitable while covering rising expenses. I urge the Council to consider solutions that balance affordability for tenants with sustainability for small housing providers.

Kind regards, [NAME] [EMAIL] 3753 Lincoln Road Santa Barbara, CA 93110

[ Dear Sir or Madam:

I totally and completely support your efforts to pass a freeze on rental prices. My own rental cost has gone up thousands of dollars in the last 4 years and I am a senior on a fixed budget who now has little money for food and other expenses because of these increases.

Thank you again for giving me a voice in our community, [NAME] 660 San Felipe Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93111 (510) 410-1904

Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, My husband and I, who are in our late 80s, own a Victorian 6 unit building on Sola St.

Because of its' age, a number of upgrades, which have taken both time and money have needed to be attended to in the last few years. The most impactful to us was a couple of years ago, the replacement of a stairway and balcony, as mandated by state law. Add to this, a bathroom repair and refurbishment at the same time. Th cost was roughly $95.000,000 (not $9,500).

Then, add to that repairing and refurbishing another apartment for $3,600. Yes, these were the major expenses, but also add to that, replacement of a refrigerator, a stove, bee removal, major tree service,...

… 3 more paragraphs

the list goes on.

Regarding tenants, ...for the most part we have had wonderful, cooperative tenants. We have thank you letters which show the kind of people we are. Our rentals are roughly $500 less the city housing authority pays housing providers. Yet, just at the beginning of Covid, when we were ready to evict a non- paying tenant, the law was passed prohibiting eviction. Over a year later, we had a non payment rental loss of over $20,000. Currently, we have a similar situation, though the required mediation was started last April, 2025. We are now at a rent loss of about $12,000, plus legal fees and potential court costs.

We are retired and the time involved makes this our job! Don't we deserve to be paid for our time.... not to mention the emotional strain regarding situations like the above?

I feel what is being considered is the unfair taking of private property and it appears most discriminatory to only apply to rental property owners. What if we applied the same "stabilization" to others, the workers we must hire, the insurance and utility companies.,etc?

Would you like to buy our building?

Sincerely, [NAME]

City Clerk, My name is [NAME] I'm 73 years old. I moved to Santa Barbara in 1989, and I've lived in the same one bedroom the entire time. I had a good job in the semiconductor industry, but it was cut short by multiple sclerosis. My savings are running out. Due to my disease, I won't survive being homeless.

My landlord has made improvements to this apartment building, but those are no longer taking place. Nevertheless, she raises the rent by the maximum allowed by law every year. I won't survive at this rate. Please help me.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 260 W Alamar Ave, Apt 16 Santa Barbara, California 93105

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who opposes rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances beyond what is already in place state-wide.

In Los Angeles my 93 year old mother recently spent $43,000 in legal fees and 6 visits to the courts and a year of lost rent to evict tenants who stopped paying their rent after a modest rent increase. The property is now being kept vacant rather than house people.

Los Angeles has gone too far and what the state has in place is already too tenant-favorable at the expense of landlords [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93105

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important To All City Council Members & Mayor, I am writing to share my comments on Item #14 of todays' agenda.

I have been managing property in the City of Santa Barbara since the late 70's. I currently manage over 80 residences within the City and work extremely hard to balance the cost of maintenance, repairs, replacement, insurance - against affordable rents. We have seen insurance costs as well as labor & materials costs at least double over the past few years. That being said, the solution is not as simple as the landlord bearing the burden of "emergency rent freezes" against increased costs. We need to look at all possible solutions and NOT just stop at the landlord. Threatening the viability of rental housing with this "gotcha" moratorium may backfire badly - causing further sell off of rental housing as well as units being pulled from the market. The supply of rental housing has dwindled and should not be further impacted by what appears to be a very politically motivated ordinance.

I urge you to VOTE NO on the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and work within the community to find a better solution. We need long-term solutions!

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Tele: (805) 689-2170 Emergency: (805) 882-2070 DRE License #00777051 [EMAIL] PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) may be privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this email and permanently delete the message from your computer.

Please consider exceptions for landlords that have only a few rentals or less that have been renting them out well below market level when you discuss rent freezes. There are some of us out there that rent well below market and sometimes we incur maintenance costs that we should be able to at least partially recoup.

Sincerely, [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Councilmembers— At a 10% annual rent increase, rent nearly doubles in about seven years. That's compounding.

Put a real number to it.

A typical two-bedroom apartment in Santa Barbara rents for around $4,000 a month today. At that same increase rate, that apartment costs close to $7,800 a month in seven years. The apartment doesn't change. The bar to stay does.

I'm a SB born and raised, single, 36-year-old woman, with deep roots in the community. I run a local business. I rent a two-bedroom with a roommate. I'm doing what we tell people to do to remain housed in this city.

I don't intend to leave. Make me.

… 7 more paragraphs

But this trajectory matters. It steadily narrows the life people can build here. Not through crisis, but through attrition — one renewal at a time.

No renter I know is seeing wages grow on that curve. When housing costs accelerate faster than incomes, the outcome is predictable. People leave quietly. The city absorbs the loss slowly.

Rent increases move faster than governance. Once they land, they reset the baseline permanently.

A temporary moratorium doesn't solve the housing crisis. It halts a runaway baseline. It prevents compounding damage while longer-term policy is finalized.

Unchecked rent escalation is incompatible with a livable Santa Barbara. A pause now is the rational response.

Thank you.

[NAME] 805-325-9000 madcapcreative.co

… 1 more paragraph

Please pause on this "Emergency Rent Moratorium". I believe this is NOT an emergency. Data shows rent control does not work. California has voted against rent control numerous times. The state already has 1482 in place.

Legislators already have AB 1157 to vote on. Wait to see how this plays out.

Slow down and do it right. Collect the necessary data, work with local landlords. It is unfair to landlords to bare the burden when everything is going up and we won't be able keep up with costs. Santa Barbara will never be the same.

I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Council Members, I was surprised to see the sudden item of the proposed 'Emergency Rent Freeze and expanded tenant protection ordinances' that is now before the Council tomorrow.

I am very concerned that the use of an Emergency Ordinance could set a precedent in too many ways for council members to push their own agendas in the future and backfire badly on our Democratic area. Too much of this is going on in so many places in the country already and I didn't think the same types of techniques would be used here even though it's under the guise of something good for some.

Please provide backup as to how this fits the use of an Emergency Ordinance. It seems like a dangerous precedent to name something an emergency when there has not been a natural disaster or other such impetus to label this as one.

… 3 more paragraphs

I still feel that the vast and creative intelligence of the Santa Barbara community could find better and more sustainable ideas for the housing crunch.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this complicated issue.

Best regards, [NAME] Santa Barbara Rental Property Owner 2038 Alameda Padre Serra, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 805-457-2872

[NAME] [EMAIL] http://www.stevej.com 805-699-5364 319 W Cota, SB 93101 The number of moderate income units built in the City in the last 45 years is zero.

That is a consequence of the extreme bias in the City's zoning against moderate income housing. That zoning bias compares favorably with restricted covenants and red line lending in its exclusionary impact.

… 2 more paragraphs

Why does rent stabilization require urgent action, but not zoning reform?

[NAME] 319 [NAME] CA 93101

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Good afternoon -- My name is [NAME], born in Santa Barbara as was my wife and our children and grandkids. All of us went to public schools in the city. I am a mom and pop landlord.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to buy an old 7 unit apartment building just a few blocks from where we are now. Not being too astute, I just looked at the outside and purchased it. This was in the month of February and there was a serious rainstorm just as the escrow closed. I received an urgent phone call from an upstairs tenant telling me the ceiling was leaking badly and he ran out of pans and buckets to stop the flow.

Soon after, I had to have the roof completely replaced at great expense.

This really hurt because my rents were so low, and I had to cover the expense with a personal loan. This was just the first of many expenses, mainly plumbing and some structural that have occurred since. The cost of maintenance has risen greatly through the years but my rental rates have not kept up. Currently I am almost at 50% of the current rates and even the housing authority manager says my rates are way too low.

My goal on buying was to rehab this old building and rent to tenants at reduced rents. I have always felt badly for anyone having to rent at high rental rates and have always kept mine very low, many times needing to use other funds rather than rents to keep up with costs.

As the years have gone by, I have kept the property in good condition, even installing double pane windows in all of my units. I used to use Craigslist to offer my units when available, but I would get several hundred people wishing to rent, many not even wanting to see what the unit looked like. This was because my units were low cost. Current listings begin around $2200, mine are just now approaching 50% of that.

Now, we have a rent freeze being considered and I am afraid of the consequences. Even [NAME] in his Angry Poodle Barbecue on November 14 Independent, concerning a Rent Freeze said "but don't show up with some one-size fits all ordinance that fails to address the very real and Santa Barbara-specific concerns of our mom and pops landlords. Lip service to that is a deal killer" As for freezes. I notice that the City raises the water and sewer rates every year. Also trash collection and all other utilities are continually raising. Add in property taxes and especially insurance rates that are skyrocketing upward as I speak. I can not find insurance yet and my policy cancels on January 31, 2026 Can everything other than rents increase. What is the answer? What do I do?

I guess this is the price I pay for being considerate of my tenants while large corporate owners have raised their rents every year.

… 1 more paragraph

Thank you for listening.

… 4 more paragraphs

Santa Barbara City Council, I wanted to give you a real life impact of your proposed ordinance in this agenda item.

My daughter is 33 and is a manager at Cottage Hospital. She has lived in SB for 7 years working at Cottage, moving up the ranks. Renting around town until last February.

She is a good saver and lives pretty frugally, so last year she decided that she was going to try to buy a place instead of renting her whole life. With her income and what she had for a down payment she could only find a place in Goleta. She didn't want to live in Goleta. She works in SB. She wanted to live in SB. She loves SB.

On her realtor's recommendation, she started to look at duplexes in SB, where the renter could help pay the mortgage. Last February she found one that was built in 1929 and had a lot of deferred maintenance but had great yard. It also had a very small studio unit behind the detached garage that could be rented out. (All spaced properly permitted...what a nice surprise!)

By some kind miracle, she got that place last February. Even with getting current market rate rent for the two other units, she still had to take on two roommates in her 2BR 1BA downstairs half of the duplex to make ends meet. She personally pays way more than market value for half of the duplex, but since she is the owner, she knows it will be worth it long term. But she is tapped out.

With this rent freeze, she absolutely has no room to cover the cost of any kind of improvement on the property. Can barely cover small repairs.

She just recently got a property insurance renewal increase of $3000 per year. The roof is old and should be replaced (about $30K). The old water heater is on its last legs and she would like to put in an energy efficient tankless water heater with water filter. She got a bid to add insulation to the roof of the second story half of the duplex for $6K which would really improve the summertime sweltering in the upstairs unit.

With no ability to raise the rents to cover these costs, she can do none of these property improvements/repairs. The quality of her rental units will definitely deteriorate over time.

The other impact of the rent freeze is that she will be motivated to select tenants that are likely to be relatively short term, like students. Will not be able to afford the risk of getting someone who might be there for more than about 2 yrs.

If a permanent draconian rent cap goes into place in SB, she will end up having to sell the place. She isn't wealthy. Just a working person trying to get established and survive in SB.

With her professional skill set, she can really work just about anywhere. She will not be a forever renter. If she can't cover the cost of keeping her property in SB, she will sell it at market rate, pocket the profit and move to another city and invest her life there.

Cottage Hospital will lose a valuable employee, the city will lose a young person who might get married, have a family and wanted to make SB her forever city.

My request is that the SB City Council, PLEASE find a way for people who are small mom- and-pop landlords, like my daughter, to be able to raise rents in her rental units enough to cover the documentable cost of actual property improvements and other costs, like property insurance, property tax increases and repairs.

I hope you find a way to incorporate this kind of reasonable accommodation into your rent stabilization ordinance.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] (760) 920-4888 Virus-free.www.avast.com

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I am writing to express my concerns and thoughts regarding the proposed emergency rent freeze that will be discussed and voted on Tuesday, January 13, 2026.

I am a co-owner of a small family business (a local family-owned corporation) that owns and manages one residential 10 unit apartment building in Santa Barbara. We keep our rents fair and under the going market rate. We take pride in ownership of our apartment building, listen to our tenants, maintain our property and provide affordable units to the community.

The proposal to freeze rent increases until December 2026 and possibly into the future is unconstitutional and greatly unfair to property owners in Santa Barbara.

Rental property expenses have been increasing tremendously over the last several years. Our property insurance premiums have more than doubled, property taxes keep increasing each year, cost of maintenance and labor has greatly increased, and the City of Santa Barbara keeps increasing water/sewer and trash rates, which we pay for. These expenses are rising faster than the CPI. We cannot sustain these expense increases without reasonable rent increases.

We are urging you to represent both the property owners of this City and the tenants, not just the tenants. Implementing a rent freeze unfairly punishes property owners. Policies that drive out small providers like us will reduce supply, reduce quality, and worsen affordability over time. Santa Barbara needs solutions that increase housing, not policies that shrink it. We urge you to slow down and not implement emergency actions. We need data driven decision making with full economic analysis.

… 3 more paragraphs

We urge you to vote NO on the proposal to Implement a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Investment Company

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City council members - Please do the right thing for this city and do NOT implement any sort of rent stabilization/ rent control. Landlords need to be able to make rent increases as needed to cover the horrific expenses they are forced to pay. You have no control over their property taxes or other expenses they are forced to bear. Nor do you have any control over the cost of homeowners insurance which is increasing at horrific rates and often cancelled, forcing them to identify replacement insurance often 2-3 times the prior rate. You say you want more housing for tenants in Santa Barbara. All this rent " stabilization" idea will do is take rentals off the market. Landlords should be able to pass on the increasing costs they are forced to pay. This will only cause deferral of required maintenance and reduce number of available units. Stay out of their business. Research how other cities that have implemented rent control have been ruined. Do not punish landlords. You need more, not fewer, of them in this city.

[NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

[ Dear Mayor Rouse and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, We are writing again regarding the proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the suggested rent freeze. We are Santa Barbara "locals", in fact third generation local. We are homeowners who live in one unit on our property and rent the other. The income from our rental unit is what has made homeownership in Santa Barbara possible for our family.

As currently proposed, the RSO and rent freeze would impose significant and disproportionate financial hardship on small, "mom-and-pop" landlords such as ourselves—particularly we feel those with three units or fewer. While we fully support the goal of fair, stable, and sustainable housing in Santa Barbara, we believe the current approach does not adequately balance the needs of tenants with the realities faced by small property owners.

We support reasonable rent increase limits, restrictions on the frequency of rent increases, and just-cause eviction protections. These measures can be fair and effective for both tenants and landlords. However, proposals such as rent freezes or rollbacks, prohibitions on utility cost recovery, and caps at 60% of CPI are overly aggressive— especially for small landlords. These measures fail to account for the rapidly rising costs of homeowners insurance, property taxes, utilities, labor, repairs, and inflation overall. Many small landlords are not generating excess profit;

we are simply managing to cover expenses and remain solvent.

If any of these measures are adopted without meaningful differentiation between the type of landlord, many small property owners may be forced to remove units from the long-term rental market, convert them to short-term rentals, or sell their properties altogether—outcomes that would further reduce housing availability rather than improve it.

… 6 more paragraphs

In our view, a significant contributor to Santa Barbara's housing challenges is the prevalence of short-term rentals, which remove otherwise viable long-term housing from the market. If fewer STR's were allowed the majority of those units would be back on the market and with more units available the rents would come down. Additionally, large corporate and out-of-town investors purchasing substantial portions of the local housing stock have dramatically altered the housing landscape. These factors deserve greater scrutiny.

Small landlords like us—local residents who have lived here our entire lives, worked hard to achieve homeownership, and who treat our tenants fairly and respectfully—should not be vilified or financially penalized.

We respectfully ask the Council to recognize the important distinctions among landlords and to tailor regulations accordingly.

Treating all landlords identically regardless of scale or ownership structure, fails to recognize the meaningful differences between large landlords/corporate entities and individual homeowner landlords. More aggressive regulations or potential rent freezes should apply to large landlords/corporate entities with many multiple units while providing appropriate exemptions or alternative standards for small local property owners.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Zane and [NAME]

… 4 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important  Item 14–Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium By the time I arrived at the City Council meeting after work, I was told they were no longer accepting speaker slips, so I'd like to submit my comments here:

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is [NAME], and I have been a local housing provider for more than 20 years.

I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze and related tenant protection measures.

There are certainly landlords who charge whatever the market will bear. But there are many small, local landlords--like me-- who intentionally keep rents significantly below market to support our tenants and our community. My tenants rarely see increases, and when they do, they are extremely modest.

I rented in Santa Barbara at a time when safe, comfortable housing didn't consume most of a paycheck. I was fortunate to eventually buy a property, and have tried to pay thatforward by providing well-maintained, affordable housing. I believe deeply that housing affordability is one of Santa Barbara's most serious challenges, and I often vote against my own financial interests as a landlord to protect a sustainable rental market. No one should have to choose between basic needs and rent.

That said, responsible, community-minded housing providers shouldn't be forced into that sort of position either. Just as costs have risen for tenants, they've risen dramatically for landlords. Property taxes, utilities, and maintenance costs have all skyrocketed. Just this morning, I spent $1000 --just for the materials, not counting installation--on a new water heater that cost $400 a year ago. The new roof that I have been planning and saving for has tripled in price. My insurance has done the same. And without the ability to make modest, periodic rent adjustments to what are already modest rents, it becomes impossible to maintain safe, quality housing.

For me personally, freezing rents at pre-October levels would roll my tenants back to the rents they were paying in 2022-- which were already far below market-- because that's the last time they saw an increase, even as my costs have continued to climb.

I don't believe that, in the long run, these proposed measures are sustainable for renters, either. As small landlords leave the market, corporate interests snap up properties, aggressively increasing rents to levels that prompted these proposals in the first place. I'm concerned that these proposals risk accelerating the very trend they aim to stop.

… 1 more paragraph

I respectfully ask the Council to slow down this process, conduct a full economic data study, and engage allstakeholders before adopting measures that could permanently affect both landlords and renters. Thanks for your time.

[ Dear Mayor Rowse and Councilmembers, We are owners of a small 105 year old apartment building. On either side of us are apartment buildings that are even older. Across the street is an old hotel. Our block adds to the historic charm of Santa Barbara. Our antique building requires constant and often costly maintenance. Old electrical, and plumbing have required repairs and improvements on a regular basis. We also recently completed substantial work to improve our stairways and upper walkways to comply with Senate [NAME]. There has even been foundation and roofing improvements completed in prior years. Yes, we do this to comply with State laws, but most importantly, we are willing to do all this, because of our concern for the safety and comfort of our tenants. We also do it for the love and pride we have for this lovely old building. We've been able to absorb these costs over the last few years, by not increasing our income form this rental. We have also rarely raised rents in many years, and are well below market rate. Our tenants often comment on how much they enjoy living in our building and are very appreciative. We are fortunate to have a nice community of tenants. We now find ourselves struggling to keep up with the ever rising costs of labor, materials and yes, City of SB utilities. We are currently needing to raise our rents, well under state law.

At a bare minimum, please utilize the same cost recovery calculations you use within the city, when raising utility rates, fees, licenses, etc.

Let us all sit down in the months ahead and work together towards a solution that works for everyone.

… 4 more paragraphs

PLEASE DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH A RENT FREEZE, OR THE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE/REGISTRY.

Seems like the City of Santa Barbara could spend the money needed to create this ordinance and related programs on projects and programs for all of Santa Barbara.

If this moves forward, we WILL need to sell. What a shame to lose this beautiful old part of Santa Barbara to a big company wanting to build luxury condos (we have been approached multiple times).

Kindly, [NAME], LLC - Alyson Nethery - [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council Members:

My wife and I own a house on the mesa that we have been renting out for the past twelve years. Our experience with expenses on the property over the years has been quite an eye opener for us. The house, built in the late 50's is well built , 1300 square feet and on a small lot . It is about as low maintenance as a house could be, or so we thought.

In reality there is always something that needs to be done . With the cost to keep the house and yard up , tenants happy, and to maintain pride of ownership like the rest of the street, the bills never stop . I do most of the gardening , the carpentry , and some of the painting to help control cost, which in some years eat up any profits. I don't see how we could continue the rental if we could not raise rents more than the CPI . The building materials, appliances , insurance, various trades people and local business certainly will be raising prices a good deal more that the index. Only owners of large complexes, with their own in house contractors and willing to cut corners will survive. Then the days of mom and pop landlords providing housing will be numbered.

Respectfully, The Kelly's

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important To All City Council Members & Mayor, I am writing to share my comments on Item #14 of todays' agenda.

I have been managing property in the City of Santa Barbara since the late 70's. I currently manage over 80 residences within the City and work extremely hard to balance the cost of maintenance, repairs, replacement, insurance - against affordable rents. We have seen insurance costs as well as labor & materials costs at least double over the past few years. That being said, the solution is not as simple as the landlord bearing the burden of "emergency rent freezes" against increased costs. We need to look at all possible solutions and NOT just stop at the landlord. Threatening the viability of rental housing with this "gotcha" moratorium may backfire badly - causing further sell off of rental housing as well as units being pulled from the market. The supply of rental housing has dwindled and should not be further impacted by what appears to be a very politically motivated ordinance.

I urge you to VOTE NO on the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and work within the community to find a better solution. We need long-term solutions!

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Tele: (805) 689-2170 Emergency: (805) 882-2070 DRE License #00777051 [EMAIL] PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) may be privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this email and permanently delete the message from your computer.

Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, My husband and I, who are in our late 80s, own a Victorian 6 unit building on Sola St.

Because of its' age, a number of upgrades, which have taken both time and money have needed to be attended to in the last few years. The most impactful to us was a couple of years ago, the replacement of a stairway and balcony, as mandated by state law. Add to this, a bathroom repair and refurbishment at the same time. Th cost was roughly $95.000,000 (not $9,500).

Then, add to that repairing and refurbishing another apartment for $3,600. Yes, these were the major expenses, but also add to that, replacement of a refrigerator, a stove, bee removal, major tree service,...

… 2 more paragraphs

the list goes on.

Regarding tenants, ...for the most part we have had wonderful, cooperative tenants. We have thank you letters which show the kind of people we are. Our rentals are roughly $500 less the city housing authority pays housing providers. Yet, just at the beginning of Covid, when we were ready to evict a non- paying tenant, the law was passed prohibiting eviction. Over a year later, we had a non payment rental loss of over $20,000. Currently, we have a similar situation, though the required mediation was started last April, 2025. We are now at a rent loss of about $12,000, plus legal fees and potential court costs.

We are retired and the time involved makes this our job! Don't we deserve to be paid for our time.... not to mention the emotional strain regarding situations like the above?

I feel what is being considered is the unfair taking of private property and it appears most discriminatory to only apply to rental property owners. What if we applied the same "stabilization" to others, the workers we must hire, the insurance and utility companies.,etc?

Would you like to buy our building?

… 1 more paragraph

Sincerely, [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Rent control:;

0ur family has had rentals since the 1950's and the Family has Built a small family business that has become our small families livelihood!

We have never taken advantage of our renters and we would often absorb the increased costs of utilities, insurance, maintenance and taxes!

We feel your rental increase moratorium is not only illegal but a strain on the small family business incomes of many long-time Santa Barbara citizens !!!

We feel this will create housing that long time renters will not be able to continue living in due to the owners increased costs of maintaining properties and therefore unable to fix things as they break down!!!

You are taking away our property, our businesses and livelihood, and our rights as private property owners!

… 1 more paragraph

Cordially Mrs. [NAME] Mr [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Subject: Reference Item 14 – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME] and together with my wife, I am a local housing provider here in Santa Barbara. The rent from our jointly owned single-family residence supplements our Social Security income. I am 74 years old, and I am deeply concerned about the proposed rent freeze.

Owning and maintaining rental housing is not without significant costs. Recently, we had to replace a roof and repair a leaking foundation. In the past, our rental was severely flooded when a tenant's child clogged the sink and left water running; half the house was damaged, and mold remediation was required. These expenses are part of the ongoing reality of property ownership.

I understand the housing affordability challenges. My own children have faced them—one now lives in Ventura but commutes to Goleta for work. But freezing rents does not address the underlying problem. Unless housing prices, maintenance costs, insurance, property taxes, and special bond assessments are also frozen, a rent freeze places an unfair burden on small, mom-and-pop providers like my wife and me.

We are not large corporations; we are semi-retired community members trying to keep our rental safe and habitable while covering rising expenses. I urge the Council to consider solutions that balance affordability for tenants with sustainability for small housing providers.

… 1 more paragraph

Kind regards, [NAME] [EMAIL] 3753 Lincoln Road Santa Barbara, CA 93110

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, I am writing to you as a 24-year resident and housing provider to urge you to vote NO on the proposed Rent Increase Moratorium.

The rental market is currently righting itself through natural economic forces. I have personally lowered my rent recently to meet this market adjustment. By intervening now, the Council is ignoring reality in favor of a "solution" that even progressive leaders are already abandoning.

1. The "Healey Precedent" (Democratic Leadership): Even prominent Democratic leaders like Governor [NAME] recognize that rent control is a counterproductive policy that halts housing production. I urge you to watch this report on her firm "No" stance: NBC Boston: Gov. Healey on the Economics of Rent Control

2. The Mathematical Reality of Maintenance: The cost of maintaining property in Santa Barbara—plumbing, carpentry, appliances, and insurance—has increased well beyond any proposed cap. Landlords do not raise rents frivolously; we do so in measured ways to straddle the tension between being good stewards and handling the rising costs of home ownership. A cap that ignores these expenses is a recipe for the degradation of our city's housing stock.

3. Legal and Fiscal Risk: As a condominium owner, my property is exempt from local rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Act. Including such units in a moratorium is an unlawful overreach that will invite costly litigation. With the City already facing a $23 million structural budget deficit for 2026-27, it is irresponsible to spend taxpayer funds defending an ordinance that violates state law.

… 2 more paragraphs

Instead of playing to the emotions of a single interest group, this Council should be focused on the $23 million budget deficit threatening our city's essential services. Every hour you spend pursuing a rent control policy—which has historically decimated housing quality and hollowed out local economies—is an hour you are failing to manage the actual fiscal crisis at our doorstep. Santa Barbara deserves leadership that looks at the math, not the politics.

Respectfully, Kiki Foote Santa Barbara Resident & Property Owner

… 3 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City Council Members, We are asking you to Vote NO on Rent Freeze.

My husband and I have painstakingly built our business in Santa Barbara since 1980. It has become our family livelihood.

It is illegal for you to vote on rent freeze. You are taking away rights from us as United States citizens. You have NO right to do so. You are controlling our businesses, livelihoods and OUR rights.

We do not take advantage of our renters and have kept rents below market average for many years. We value our tenants and the quality of the dwellings they live in. The rental increase moratorium is not only illegal but puts a strain on us who treat our renters with respect. The rental moratorium takes away our dignity as business owners.

This will create housing that long term renters will not be able to stay if we do not have the income to maintain our properties and the overhead (insurance, mortgages, utilities, repairs, etc.).

Please show us respect and vote No.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] de Veer 805 729 0364

… 2 more paragraphs

Council Members and Mayor Rowse, I am unable to attend this meeting due to work commitments.

Instead I am writing to support the temporary moratorium on tenant rent increases.

I urge you to vote for this moratorium to protect our working class citizens who contribute to the vitality of our community and struggle to make ends meet in order to live here.

That struggle is destined to worsen given the current administration's policies that have stripped programs and increased insurance premiums. Housing is a basic right.

This temporary measure would allow time to develop a more permanent solution.

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you.

[NAME] Santa Barbara 93103

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing to oppose Item 14, the proposed emergency rent freeze and expanded tenant protection ordinances.

I am a Santa Barbara property owner who provides long-term rental housing and has invested in an ADU to help increase local housing supply. Like many small, local owners, I am managing rising insurance, maintenance, and regulatory costs.

While housing stability is important, emergency measures that impose immediate rent freezes and expanded restrictions risk discouraging continued investment in long-term rentals and ADUs. These actions create uncertainty and may ultimately reduce housing supply by pushing small property owners out of the rental market.

… 4 more paragraphs

I respectfully urge the Council to oppose Item 14 and instead pursue thoughtful, data-driven housing policies through a transparent public process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA

-- [NAME] (916)801-1450

Good Evening, My name is [NAME], I'm a member of the Hawkes family. We've been landlords in Santa Barbara for over 60 years. We are a small, family run business and we are very concerned about the measure being voted on tonight. We feel the unintended consequences of this measure will be families like ours selling their properties, taking them off the rental market. Our costs continue to rise and if we are handcuffed we will be forced to sell to the highest bidder - which often times is an out of towner looking for a second home. Please consider all the consequences of this action and ask for an economic analysis before voting.

Thank you for your time, [NAME]

Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions Date:

Monday, January 12, 2026 3:03:34 PM Attachments:

image001.png CLUE-Santa Barbara Public Comment Agenda item 14, Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance, Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions 121325.pdf Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council Members, I've attached CLUESB's Housing Justice Workgroup letter addressing the critical decision you will be addressing at Tuesday's meeting. I look forward to seeing you then.

[NAME], Housing Justice [NAME] is a network of interfaith community leaders and members organized to address the root causes of local economic and social injustices to those marginalized in Santa Barbara County CLUE Santa Barbara Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice 1500 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 [EMAIL] January 12, 2025 To: Mayor [NAME] [EMAIL] Mayor Pro Tem/Councilmember Eric Friedman [EMAIL] Councilmember Wendy Santamaria [EMAIL] Councilmember [NAME] [EMAIL] Councilmember Oscar Gutierrez [EMAIL] Councilmember Kristin Sneddon [EMAIL] Councilmember Meagan Harmon [EMAIL] Santa Barbara City Council Clerk [EMAIL] Re: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction;

Ordinance Adoption] Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

… 3 more paragraphs

Thank you once again for taking on the challenge of creating a rent stabilization program.

We needn't reprise the need for addressing the rental housing crisis, including meeting our RHNA requirements for affordable housing. As CLUESB has frequently testified, rental housing is unaffordable for Santa Barbara's workforce.

As the Niehaus Report documented, the median rent for a studio apartment is $2,350; to be affordable, an annual income of $94,000 is required (the annual one-person median income is $79,310). Rents become progressively less affordable as one moves up the ladder in terms of unit and family size: for example, a 4+ bedroom apartment serving a 5 person family costs roughly $6,000, requiring a family income of roughly $240,000 to be affordable (the actual median 5 person family income is half that amount).

CLUESB respectfully ask that tomorrow's hearing on item 14 be postponed until 5:00 so working people – who are directly affected by the vote to be taken – can be present, to share their personal experiences.

We urge the Mayor and City Council to adopt the proposed temporary rent increase moratorium, which will hold the line on future rent increases until the City adopts a final rent stabilization ordinance. This is necessary because, as we know from the experience of CLUE-SB is a network of interfaith community leaders and members organized to address the root causes of local economic and social injustices to those marginalized in Santa Barbara County 2 other jurisdictions, absent such protections some landlords will be tempted to raise rents by the maximum allowed under AB 1482, 5% plus the current CPI (2.7%), or 7.7%. This would clearly place an unfair burden on tenants who are already suffering from high rents.

We also support the proposed ordinance's strengthening of Ellis Act requirements for just cause evictions, since current provisions include allowances that make it possible to sidestep tenant protections.

CLUESB has great appreciation for the Council in taking this on, and for the City staff, for doing the hard work amidst the many pressing issues you face.

… 3 more paragraphs

Respectfully submitted, CLUE-Santa Barbara Housing Justice Workgroup by _________________________ [NAME] Ph.D.

_________________________ [NAME], Ph.D.

_________________________ [NAME], Ph.D., J.D.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, My name is [Name], and I [live/work/own a business] in Santa Barbara.

I support affordable housing for our workforce and urge you to adopt the temporary rent increase moratorium and just-cause Ellis Act protections. Building housing takes years, but displacement happens quickly. Without these protections, working residents—[teachers, healthcare workers, service workers, longtime tenants]—can be forced out by sudden rent hikes or no-fault evictions.

This affects more than individuals: local businesses struggle to hire, commutes increase, and our community loses stability and diversity. These ordinances are temporary, reasonable, and give us time to develop long-term housing solutions.

I respectfully urge you to support these protections to keep Santa Barbara livable for the people who keep it running. Thank you.

The item is #14 on the Agenda: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction; Ordinance Adoption] Recommendation: That Council:

A. Introduce and adopt, as an emergency ordinance after reading in full, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Establishing a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium During the Preparation, Consideration, and Potential Adoption of a Permanent Rent Stabilization Program; and B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by the Addition of Section 26.50.100 Relating to Additional Requirements for Just Cause Evictions for the Purpose of Permanently Removing a Unit from the Rental Market.

… 8 more paragraphs

image031326.png image795307.png image877546.png image581369.png image357997.png image140086.png image257230.png 1-13-2026 - PROPOSED RENT CONTROL LAW.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important This proposed ordinance, if passed, it will shut down ALL PROJECTS that are in the process of development. All though it excludes newer projects, the writing is on the wall.

It has been jam through in record time.

SLOW DOWN and understand the rippling potential effect.

Further review is absolutely necessary!!!

Send it back to staff for, more comprehensive study.

DO NOT PASSED ​ [NAME] Senior Vice President Lee & Associates | Central California D 805.560.3303 O 805.962.6700 C 805.729.3634 [EMAIL] Corporate ID 02215506 | License ID 0967865 109 E. Victoria Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 View Our Research | Join Lee & Associates Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, ​please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Any information, including third party information, shall be verified as the accuracy and recipient shall be responsible for verifying any and all information as to its accuracy.

​Electronic Communication: This email shall stand alone and cannot be consolidated or integrated with other correspondences to form a contract.

​ ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY RENT INCREASE MORATORIUM DURING THE PREPARATION, CONSIDERATION, AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF A

PERMANENT RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM

… 6 more paragraphs

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council finds and determines as follows:

A. Safe, decent, affordable, and sanitary housing is a human necessity and right.

B. The City Council reaffirms its General Plan Housing Element goal, first stated in 2005, of "ensuring affordable housing opportunities for all economic levels in the community, while protecting the character of established neighborhoods." (2015 Housing Element, p.57.) There is a critical shortage of low and moderate income housing within the City and on the south coast of Santa Barbara County. The City Council recognizes that providing a wide range of housing options is important to maintain an economically viable and socially diverse population, and to retain and house the City's local workforce.

The City's General Plan Housing Element identifies renter-occupied housing units as comprising nearly 60% of the housing available in the City. (2015 Housing Element, p.26.)

The Housing Element also documents that given local housing costs, nearly 44% of all households and almost 50% of renters are over-paying for housing. (2015 Housing Element, p.50.) Both the total percentage of City renters and the percentage of City renters overpaying for housing are higher than statewide averages. Therefore, the City Council desires to establish reasonable protection for City residents living in rental housing that recognize the important role that rental housing plays in the provision of affordable housing.

C. The City Council has previously adopted laws establishing reasonable protection for City residents living in rental housing including: Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapters 26.06 (establishing mobile home park lease regulations, including rent control), 26.40 (requiring one-year lease offers to residential tenants), 26.50 (requiring just cause for residential evictions), and 26.60 (protecting tenants from harassment and other abusive conduct).

D. On December 16, 2025, the City Council reviewed a comprehensive presentation and staff report outlining a proposed work plan for the development of a permanent residential rent stabilization program consistent with the limitations imposed by state and federal law. The City Council provided preliminary feedback on the proposed program, which includes a timeline for consideration and adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance in the summer of 2026. The City Council also took action directing staff to prepare appropriate ordinances to establish a temporary rent increase moratorium during the development and consideration of permanent rent stabilization regulations and to make certain amendments to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 26.50. The motion included direction to explore legal options to provide effective rent relief at the earliest possible date.

SECTION 2. Application.

… 16 more paragraphs

A. This ordinance applies to all residential rental units in the City for which a certificate of occupancy was issued on or before February 1, 1995, except:

1. Rental units that are alienable separate from title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in subdivision (b), (d), or (f) of Section 11004.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This exception does not apply to rental units that are described in subdivision (a)(3(B) of Section 1952.52 of the California Civil Code.

2. Rental units in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, lodging and rooming houses and boarding houses, or other similar temporary lodgings provided that at such time as an accommodation has been occupied as the primary residence of one or more of the same tenants for any period more than 30 days such accommodation shall become subject to this ordinance. The computation of the 30 days shall include days in which the Tenant was required to:

(a) Move into a different guestroom or efficiency unit before the expiration of 30 days occupancy; or (b) Check out and re-register before the expiration of 30 days occupancy if a purpose was to avoid application of this ordinance, or (c) Enter into successive or overlapping rental agreements, extensions, or renewals, whether for the same or a different unit, before the expiration of 30 days occupancy.

3. Rental Units in any hospital, convent, monastery, extended medical care facility, asylum, non-profit home for the aged; dormitory owned and operated by an accredited institution of higher education, or rental units in a facility that has the primary purpose of operating a treatment or recovery program, where such rental units are provided incident to a client's participation in the treatment or recovery program and where the client has been informed in writing of the temporary or transitional nature of the housing at the inception of his or her participation in the program.

4. Rental units owned or operated or managed by a public agency or not-forprofit organization and subject to a recorded covenant or other restriction that limits rental of the unit to rents affordable to low- or moderate income households.

5. Rental units which a government unit, agency or authority owns, operates, or manages, if applicable federal or state law or administrative regulation specifically exempt such units from municipal rent control.

6. Rental units leased to tenants assisted under the Section 8 program (42 U.S.C. Section 1437f) or the Continuum of Care Rental Assistance (42 U.S.C. 11381 et.

seq.) or similar rent subsidy program where the tenant's portion of the rent is determined based on their household income and a specific formula. This exemption applies only for so long as the rent demanded does not exceed the authorized payment standard minus the applicable utility allowance as determined by the City the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, as applicable.

7. Permitted short term vacation rentals for a rental period of 30 days or less.

SECTION 3. Definitions.

The following definitions apply to the interpretation of this ordinance:

Base rent. Base rent means either: (1) the rent for a rental unit in effect on December 16, 2025, for tenancies commencing on or before December 16, 2025, or (2) the rental rate established upon initial occupancy of a rental unit for tenancies commencing after December 16, 2025, provided the rental rate is established in accordance with state law.

Housing services. Housing services include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, painting, providing light, hot and cold water, elevator service, window shades and screens, storage, kitchen, bath and laundry facilities and privileges, janitor services, utility charges that are paid by the landlord, refuse removal, furnishings, telephone, parking, common areas, recreational facilities, the right to have a specified number of occupants, and any other benefit, privilege, arrangement, or facility provided or contracted for in connection with the use or occupancy of any rental unit. Housing services to a rental unit shall include a proportionate part of services provided to common facilities of the building in which the rental unit is contained.

Landlord. An owner, lessor, sublessor or any other person entitled to receive rent for the use and occupancy of any rental unit, or an agent, representative, predecessor, or successor of any of the foregoing.

Rent. All periodic payments under a rental housing agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a rental unit, including all payments and other consideration demanded or paid for housing services. Rent does not include refundable security deposits or avoidable fees imposed by a landlord such as fees for late payment of rent or for checks returned for insufficiency of funds.

Rental unit. Any building or structure, or part thereof, or land appurtenant thereto, or any other property rented or offered for rent for residential purposes, whether or not such unit possesses a valid certificate of occupancy for use as rental housing, together with all housing services connected with use or occupancy of such property.

SECTION 4. Temporary prohibition of rent increases.

A. So long as this ordinance is in effect, a landlord shall not increase the base rent of a rental unit.

… 10 more paragraphs

B. If rent for a rental unit includes housing services, then any reduction of such services or initiation of a requirement for direct payment by a tenant to a service provider (e.g. new requirement for direct payment by tenant to a utility service provider) is considered a rent increase unless there is a corresponding reduction in rent paid to the landlord.

C. It is the City Council's intent to use the base rent as defined in this ordinance as the stabilized reference for the determination of lawful rent under the permanent residential rent stabilization program described in Section 1. D. of this ordinance.

Therefore, if a landlord increases the rent for a rental unit after December 16, 2025, but before the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with applicable law, the base rent for the unit will not change and the amount of the increase will be counted against future rent increases authorized under the rent stabilization program when adopted.

SECTION 5. Expiration. This ordinance automatically expires on December 31, 2026, or on the operative date of a permanent rent stabilization program as established pursuant to ordinance, whichever is earlier.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance of any part hereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that, on the basis of the whole record and exercising its independent judgment, this ordinance is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Sections 15060(c)(3) pertaining to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and 15061 (b)(3) because this ordinance has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment directly or indirectly in that it merely regulates existing physical development.

SECTION 8. Emergency Measure Finding. This ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety under City Charter Section 511. The City is currently experiencing a local homelessness emergency and suffering an acute shortage of affordable housing. Housing insecurity experienced by tenants is heightened by rent increases, including rent increases regulated by California Civil Code Section 1947.12. The City's older multi-unit housing stock, which are the units regulated by this ordinance, are a substantial portion of the City's affordable rental housing inventory. Immediate limitations on rents of such units is necessary to preserve the public health and safety and prevent displacement of residents who comprise a substantial portion of the community workforce.

INTRODUCTION DRAFT 1/13/26 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE SANTA BARBARA

MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION

26.50.100 RELATING TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF

… 10 more paragraphs

PERMANENTLY REMOVING A UNIT FROM THE RENTAL

MARKET

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 26.50 of Title 26 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to add Section 26.50.100 as follows:

26.50.100. Additional Requirements and Limitations Applicable to Just Cause Evictions to Permanently Remove a Rental Unit from the Rental Market.

A. This Section applies to no-fault just cause evictions to recover possession to permanently withdraw a rental unit from the rental market.

B. An owner shall not withdraw from the rental market less than all of the rental units from a property. Notices of termination shall be given concurrently to all tenants, provided, however, that eviction dates stated in the notices may vary to coincide with the termination dates of leases or rental agreements of affected tenants. All evictions must be in accordance with this Chapter and completed within one year.

C. Property that has been withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to this Chapter may not be used for residential rent purposes for a period of 5 years following the date of the last eviction under subsection [NAME]. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to proceedings to terminate a tenancy or recover possession of a unit that has not been fully completed before the effective date of this Ordinance. If a final judgment awarding possession of a INTRODUCTION DRAFT 1/13/26 unit has not been entered or the owner has not otherwise lawfully obtained possession of a unit under Chapter 26.50 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code as it existed before the effective date of this Ordinance, then the owner must comply with the provisions of this Ordinance, including giving a new notice of termination, before termination of the tenancy or recovery of possession of a unit.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter or any part hereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter of any part hereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds that, on the basis of the whole record and exercising its independent judgment, this Ordinance is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Sections 15060(c)(3) pertaining to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and 15061 (b)(3) because this Ordinance has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment directly or indirectly in that it merely regulates existing physical development.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council, I am writing to urge your council's support for Item 14, a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and ordinance amendments relating to the Ellis Act. The City is on the right track pursuing rent stabilization, but these protections are crucial to ensure tenants do not suffer during the months the City is working on the rent stabilization program. Please vote to SUPPORT the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium as an emergency measure so it can take effect as soon as possible. If the overall goal is to protect tenants, tenants need to be protected at every step of this process.

Thank you for standing up for the tenants of Santa Barbara. Your support for rent stabilization is critical in ensuring a stable, vibrant, and healthy community.

Sincerely, [NAME] 6

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important I support affordable housing for our community, and I urge you to adopt the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and the additional requirements for the Just- Cause Ellis Act Evictions.

Without a temporary ordinance that protects working people, tenants could experience sudden rent increases or no-fault evictions. These ordinances would give the city time to discuss and eventually adopt a permanent rent stabilization program without tenants being displaced.

Thanks for your consideration, [NAME] (805) 452-2862

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hi, Please see attached my public comment for tomorrow's meeting which highlights the impacts of eviction protection and rent stabilization on mortality and mental and physical health.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks. [NAME] 805-453-6240 Public Comment on Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections: For Santa Barbara City Council Meeting on January 13, 2026 TO: Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, Santa Barbara City Clerk FROM: [NAME] DATE: January 12, 2026 SUBJECT: Public Health Rationale for Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Executive Summary Housing has a profound impact on physical health, mental health and mortality. In short, the research shows that evictions kill people and unstable housing causes profound physical and mental health problems. The impact on children and racial and ethnic minorities is especially concerning.

As the Council considers the adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance and strengthened eviction protections, it is critical to view these policies as urgent public health interventions.

Peer-reviewed research indicates that housing instability is a primary driver of mortality and chronic disease. In Santa Barbara, where 60% of residents are renters and 50% of renters are cost-burdened (HUD Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy (CHAS) data), these ordinances function as an essential preventative health measure for 30% of our residents.

… 18 more paragraphs

I. Mortality: The Lethal Cost of Housing Insecurity Recent longitudinal data has established a direct, quantified link between rent costs, eviction threats, and the risk of death.

• The 2.6x Mortality Factor: A landmark study found that during the pandemic, the mortality rate for renters threatened with eviction was a stunning 2.6 times higher than the general population—specifically 238.6 vs. 91.6 per 100,000 person- months ([NAME], 2024, JAMA).

• Rent Burden and Mortality: Renters paying 70% of their income toward rent (common among Santa Barbara's Low-Income earners) have a 12% higher 2 mortality rate over a 20-year period than those paying 30% ([NAME], 2024, Social Science & Medicine).

• Eviction Judgments: An eviction filing without judgment was associated with a 19% increase in mortality and an eviction judgment was associated with a 40% increase in mortality. ([NAME], 2024, Social Science & Medicine).

II. Eviction Protections and Mental Health Eviction protections directly mitigate the psychological trauma and biological "weathering" caused by chronic stress, both of which can increase health care costs.

• Hospitalization Spikes: In the immediate aftermath of an eviction filing, hospital visits for mental health-related conditions increase by 130% (Institute for Research on Poverty, 2024).

• Clinical Depression and Anxiety: Individuals facing housing instability have 2.37x higher odds of clinical depression and 2.65x higher odds of anxiety compared to stably housed peers (Acharya et al., 2022, Preventive Medicine Reports).

• Stability Dividend: Rent stabilization ordinances have been shown to make tenants 19% less likely to move over a 10-year period (Diamond et al., 2019, American Economic Review). Housing stability is a proven buffer against psychological distress. People who reported that they frequently worried about being able to pay their rent or mortgage experienced psychological distress at nearly twice the proportion of those who did not, 39% versus 21%. Racial and ethnic minorities experience housing instability at far higher rates than the general California population (UCLA California Health Interview Survey, 2024).

III. Physical Health: Chronic Disease and Medicaid Savings Economic stability provided by rent caps allows residents to invest in health rather than survival.

• Impact on Children: A study specifically examining the impact of eviction on children noted that "children who went on to experience eviction showed signs of poor health and socioeconomic disadvantage already at birth" and that "Interventions to prevent eviction can protect children from hunger and adversity" (Leifhiet, K., 2020, Population Health).

3

• Medi-Cal and Healthcare Savings: Addressing "Social Drivers of Health" is the key focus of the California's CalAIM Medi-Cal program. Housing is one of the strongest social drivers of health. Providing housing stability for low-income residents results in a 12% decrease in total Medicaid expenditures, driven by an 18% decline in emergency department visits and a 20% increase in primary care engagement (Center for Outcomes Research and Education).

Using the 12% anticipated decrease, it is possible to provide a very rough guesstimate of the scale of potential Medi-Cal spending decreases as follows.

Metric Component Data Value Calculation Step Total Households (City) 36,618 Starting baseline Percent Renters ~60.2% Households that rent [NAME] 22,044 (Total Households ×

0.602) Percent Cost-Burdened

51.0% Spending >30% on housing Cost-Burdened Renter Households 11,242 ([NAME]

0.51) Percent on Medi-Cal (Medicaid) ~40.0% Est. enrollment in low- income brackets Medicaid-Enrolled [NAME] 4,497 (Cost-Burdened Households × 0.40) Avg. Annual Medicaid Spend/Member $9,000 Baseline state/local per- member cost Total Annual Spend (Pre- Stability) ~$40.5 Million (Targeted Households × $9,000) Estimated Savings (12% Reduction)

**~$4.86 Million** Projected Annual Healthcare Savings 4 While this analysis is for illustrative purposes, there should be some level of reduced Medi-Cal spending arising from the rent stabilization and eviction protections.

• Local Health Disparities: In Santa Barbara, housing-insecure residents are 2.2x more likely to report "fair or poor" health compared to those in stable housing (Santa Barbara County Community Health Needs Assessment, Health Indicator Profile: Housing Insecurity ).

Conclusion The data is clear: rent stabilization and robust eviction protections will save lives, improve physical and mental health in Santa Barbara and potentially reduce health care spending. By adopting these measures on January 13, the Council will take a key step in supporting the health of the community.

Vote YES to support rent stabilization and strengthened eviction protections Referenced Research Sources

1. Graetz, N., et al. (2024). Examining Excess Mortality Associated With the COVID-19 Pandemic for Renters Threatened With Eviction. JAMA. Link

… 9 more paragraphs

2. Graetz, N., et al. (2024). The impacts of rent burden and eviction on mortality in the United States, 2000–2019. Social Science & Medicine. Link

3. Diamond, R., et al. (2019). The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality. American Economic Review. Link

4. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2024). California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Housing and Mental Health Data. Link

5. Institute for Research on Poverty (2024). Eviction Prevention: Reducing Harm to Households and Society. Link

6. Center for Outcomes Research and Education (2016). Health in Housing:

Exploring the Intersection between Housing and Health Care. Link

7. Leifhiet, K., et al. (2020). Eviction in early childhood and neighborhood poverty, food security, and obesity in later childhood and adolescence: Evidence from a longitudinal birth cohort Population Health. Link 5

8. Acharya, B., et al. (2022). The risk of eviction and the mental health outcomes among the US adults Preventive Medicine Reports. Link

9. Santa Barbara County Community Health Needs Assessment, Health Indicator Profile: Housing Insecurity (2019). Link

Mayor Rowse and Members of the Council, My name is [NAME] I'm here to speak specifically on the proposed Ellis Act amendment to the Just Cause Ordinance. Having been the subject of an attempted Ellis Act eviction for the better part of the last two years, has compelled me into a working, practical understanding of how these State and Local laws operate - not just in theory, but in practice. I speak today not as an expert or attorney, but as a tenant navigating the civil processes, and consequences, of these policies as applied in real life.

I do have some serious concerns, with the proposed Ellis amendment to our Just-cause Ordinance, as written. I am quite honestly bewildered by Mr. Henstchke's inclusion, of a requirement that all evictions, be completed within one year. Not only is there no such language in the Government Code, but it also effectively criminalizes a civil process, and appears legally dangerous, as written.

For reference, Government Code § 7060.4(b) addresses procedural requirements for withdrawal from the rental market, not a deadline by which tenants must be physically removed. That section exists as a safeguard against bad-faith Ellis filings; it does not impose a one-year eviction mandate.

… 1 more paragraph

A "completed withdrawal" under the Ellis Act is about intent and conduct, not possession and would include items such as, not advertising or offering the unit for re-rental, and compliance with all notice, procedural, and recording requirements – Ensuring that the landlord actually carries out the withdrawal without pretextual delay. It does not, and under state law cannot, condition compliance on the outcome or speed of mutually agreed-upon landlord/tenant negotiations, or a civil unlawful detainer process.

This appears legally untenable as written, for the separate and fundamental reason that it would essentially require the landlord to begin unlawful detainer proceedings, prior to the expiry of the notice term in order to guarantee "completion" within one year. Filing a UD before the notice period has expired is unlawful under California law and renders that action subject to dismissal. As drafted, this has the potential to criminalize landlords - while also interfering with the tenant's due process rights and ability to fully exercise statutory defenses. For a City that is as risk-aversive as Santa Barbara this is an alarming oversight.

Finally, we need to be honest, and call this "rent freeze" what it is: The beginning of our Rent Stabilization Ordinance. By doing so, and removing these arbitrary and illusory end-dates, it will allow us the full array of tenant protections under Ellis, including, extended notice periods of 120 days, with a year allowable for senior and disabled tenants, the right of the displace tenant to return at the rate during which the accommodations were withdrawn plus legally allowable adjustment, for five years, liability and punitive damages to the tenant, for failure to comply in good faith, with withdrawal requirements, the withdrawal recorded on the property record with the County, and finally, the applicability to successor in interest. In the absence of Ellis-in-full, the door remains wide open to pretextual withdrawals, and what is effectively, regulatory laundering.

By invoking this urgency moratorium with continued review dates instead, as our "any control or system of control", under Government Code §7060.2 and recognizing it as the initiation of our RSO, all of this both quite simple, and quite possible.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hello I am saying , "Please do not consider this item any further!'

Subject: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction;

Ordinance Adoption] This is not a solution. It creates more problems. Look at other cities who have incorporated rent control and you will see how it works out.

… 3 more paragraphs

This is against rights to own real property. By passing this, it will be difficult for individuals to continue to own rental units and offer much needed housing.

Solution: Help tenants to make purchases of their own. Offer grants, low interest rate loans for low to moderate income earners in our County. Help the renters graduate to becoming owners. Help landlords to continue to offer quality housing for our people.

[NAME] 805-315-5828

Council Members and Mayor Rowse, I am unable to attend this meeting due to work commitments.

Instead I am writing to support the temporary moratorium on tenant rent increases.

I urge you to vote for this moratorium to protect our working class citizens who contribute to the vitality of our community and struggle to make ends meet in order to live here.

That struggle is destined to worsen given the current administration's policies that have stripped programs and increased insurance premiums. Housing is a basic right.

This temporary measure would allow time to develop a more permanent solution.

Thank you.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] Santa Barbara 93103

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hello City Council, I am a Santa Barbara renter and voter, and I oppose the proposed rent control ordinance and emergency rent freeze. Based on lived experience in rent-controlled cities, these policies lead to deteriorating housing quality, reduced investment, and a "lock-in effect" that limits vacancies and turnover, often benefiting higher-income tenants rather than those most in need.

State law already provides strong tenant protections, including caps on rent increases and just- cause eviction requirements, making an emergency measure unnecessary. A more effective approach would be targeted assistance for those truly in need, rather than broad controls that risk long-term harm to the housing supply.

Thank you, [NAME] Santa Barbara

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Santa Barbara City Council members, I cannot attend today's meeting, nor can I watch it via Zoom because I must work during that time. Therefore, I would like you to know my position regarding item number 14 Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium on today's agenda.

I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this measure.

You cannot legislate a fix to the housing problem. If you approve this measure, it will eventually become permanent. These things always do. The only fix to the problem is the construction of additional housing. If you have a rent moratorium or rent control in place, no builder, big or small, will build more units here. Why would they?

A measure such as this seeks to punish the housing providers for a problem they did not create. Study after study after study in countries around the world show that these types of laws do not work and actually exacerbate the problem, and the problem lasts for many years.

… 2 more paragraphs

I oppose this measure and I urge you not to approve it.

Sincerely, [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council, My family and I have been providing 7 units of housing in Santa Barbara for over 80 years.

Our rents are reasonable, and our tenants are happy.

The changes that are being proposed have made us seriously consider closing our rental business altogether. If landlords cannot keep rents in line with expenses, there is really no point in continuing to rent.

While the intention of the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium is to make life in Santa Barbara more affordable, I believe this proposal will result in fewer housing units being available. People like me will simply put our property to other uses than housing.

Thank you for your attention, [NAME]

Please pause on this "Emergency Rent Moratorium". I believe this is NOT an emergency. Data shows rent control does not work. California has voted against rent control numerous times. The state already has 1482 in place.

Legislators already have AB 1157 to vote on. Wait to see how this plays out.

… 3 more paragraphs

Slow down and do it right. Collect the necessary data, work with local landlords. It is unfair to landlords to bare the burden when everything is going up and we won't be able keep up with costs. Santa Barbara will never be the same.

I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS.

[NAME]

[ Dear City Council, As a recent Santa Barbara transplant, I'm well aware of just how challenging it is to find affordable rent in this area on a middle-income salary. I moved from Boston, where my salary was greater but my rent was less. I'm a well- educated (Master's) individual with a robust work history, but I'm nearly 30 and doubt I'll be able to get my own place anytime soon here. That said, I also realize that I am privileged to have a salaried role and can't imagine how it would be possible to live here on minimum wage.

For myself and for my neighbors, I urge you to support the temporary rent increase moratorium.

Thank you for your consideration, [NAME] 4653 Tajo Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93110

Mayor Rowse and City Councilmembers;

We remember your commitment to protecting the small mom and pop housing providers of our community. We see no provision for this protection in the proposed ordinance. Some of you are abandoning your constituents and your commitments to us. Shame on you.

-Michele Carbone

Rent Freeze/ Moratorium Increases is at 500 PM. Then it appears that Mr. Rowse changed the Item to 2:00 PM.

OH NO! This is causing a lot of con...

… 2 more paragraphs

Date:

Thursday, January 8, 2026 11:18:15 AM

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I do not support Items 14 A and 14 B on the City Council Agenda today.

I am not a housing provided now, but I used to be. As a single homeowner, I continuously rented out my small single family home on the Westside for 16 years, until I moved back from the Bay Area to Santa Barbara in 2020. I moved back because my last tenants, who were excellent, gave me notice in early 2020, and being early 2020, I decided to move back to spend the Covid lockdown days back in my old home in beautiful Santa Barbara. And I've stayed since.

Last year, I had an opportunity to live elsewhere and rent out that home again. However, with all the pro-tenant ordnances that have been enacted in the City of Santa Barbara since 2020, I decided I didn't want to become a landlord again. I know a lot of these rental restrictions (both City and State) didn't apply to single family "ma and pop" landlords like me, but I could see where things were headed and before long even us small homeowners would be caught in the regulations. While I sympathize with renters over lack of affordability, I also sympathize with housing providers, who are faced with regulations that make being a landlord unaffordable, unviable economically. Where's the balance?

So I got cold feet over the idea of being a landlord again, even with a property manager, and I ended up selling the house that I had previously rented out for 16 years (owned for 25). So that's one less single family home that could have been on the rental market in one of the most affordable neighboodhoods in Santa Barbara, the Westside. And I know several other friends who also rent out places, and they are also similarly thinking of bailing as housing providers. And why not? There seems to be no shortage of people from other areas who area able to buy homes in order to live here!

I respectfully ask the Council to slow down this process, examine the economics of such ordinances, and engage all types of housing providers before adopting measures that could permanently impact our housing market.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] Santa Barbara, CA

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident and renter of 13 years, a single mother who works full time as an Operations Director for a non-profit organization, as well as a full time acupuncture Master's student.

I often tell my family members who live across the state, country, and world that every year my son and I get to live in Santa Barbara feels like a miracle. Even as a well-educated working professional, rent in this city is unaffordable, let alone homeownership. Is this the kind of city that this council wants? If you do not take action toward rent stabilization and an eviction moratorium, this is certainly the message you send-- that you want a city exclusively for the extremely wealthy elite.

If that is the case, I challenge you to have the integrity and backbone to simply state, publicly and directly, that you want Santa Barbara to be exclusively for the wealthy elite. That everyone else can come here to work for and serve the rich, and then go home to their residences far outside of city limits. If that is your vision, then say it plainly.

If that is not the case, then you MUST ACT NOW!! If you want a city that also includes working families, then pass Rent Stabilization and an Eviction Moratorium NOW!

Along with so many residents, I am very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

… 3 more paragraphs

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

With sincerity, [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93103

[ Hello, I am hoping that after you read my email you will take what I'm saying into consideration.

My name is [NAME], I'm born and raised here in Santa Barbara. My parents came from modest means, wher I spent my childhood living in apartments, with that I am very sensitive to how challenging it can be to live not only here in Santa Barbara, but in Southern California.

My husband is also a native along with our two adult children, and while our children don't live here anymore, they still consider this "home".

I'm sharing this because I do not want to give any impression that we come from deep pockets or are disconnected from real life we remember what Santa Barbara used to be, and genuinely miss it.

With this being said, I have spent my life in the printing industry and my husband spent his life as a union concrete carpenter out of the local 805.

We worked our rear ends off and invested our money into real estate. We have watched so much change, some for the better and some for the worse. I am very pro rent control within reason, as yes there is a lot of greed out there.

… 11 more paragraphs

But here is what is not ever discussed (or maybe I just haven't seen it in print and I read a lot.)

The insurance companies (all of them) are choosing to not insure apartments anymore. This is forcing the property owners to go to the California Fair Plan or anywhere else that will take them on. They are not allowed to go out to bid, because they have no one to bid with, the monthly premiums are horrendous to say the least, and to say that it's scary is an understatement. Imagine not being able to afford your insurance premium and the result is your house gets foreclosed or your car gets repossessed? How would that affect your family who are dependent upon you.

And while there is a great divide between the tenants and the landlords, these landlords still have a responsibility for their tenants and their property. I'm sure it's easy to say "we'll give the tenant back their rent money and the building goes up for sale or whatever" but that's easy, what does this leave the tenant do?

Utilities have increased more than 10 fold, anyone who owns their own home, will attest to this. First it was the water rates have increased because of the water shortages. But the shortages have resolved themselves and the rates have skyrocketed why?Tenants who are paying for their own Gas and Electricity bills will also agree with this view, as the same principle applies.

These two very important factors does not give any corporate entity or small business such as myself the right to increase rent more than 7.7% in a year as that is what the state has put into place. These are not excuses, these are facts.

It must be recognized that freezing the rent isn't the answer.

Saying that if one unit of a building that is in need of maintenance will result in the entire building being emptied and remaining empty for 5 years, is crazy and will increase homelessness and can also create phantom housing.

(Where the landlord chooses to keep a building empty, this is a huge problem in NY) I say this because while that would devastate a person like myself, there are other people in this community who do have the ways and means to say, "I choose to keep my property empty" More housing needs to be built, where there is volume, the prices will naturally reduce or stabilize. (due to simple supply and demand) The easier the city makes the permitting process, the less expensive it will be to build, and hence less expensive to rent. We still have an insurance crisis, this too must be addressed recognized.

Until the underlying issues are addressed the problem will not go away. Rent Freezes will create more problems, buildings will fall into disrepair, the individuals who live there will be left to live in substandard conditions this does not help anyone. The City of Santa Barbara must work with the local property owners most of whom are small mom and pop businesses, not corporate entities.

Invite them to be a part of the solution.

Thank You, [NAME] [EMAIL] Sent from my iPad

Santa Barbara City Council, I wanted to give you a real life impact of your proposed ordinance in this agenda item.

My daughter is 33 and is a manager at Cottage Hospital. She has lived in SB for 7 years working at Cottage, moving up the ranks. Renting around town until last February.

She is a good saver and lives pretty frugally, so last year she decided that she was going to try to buy a place instead of renting her whole life. With her income and what she had for a down payment she could only find a place in Goleta. She didn't want to live in Goleta. She works in SB. She wanted to live in SB. She loves SB.

On her realtor's recommendation, she started to look at duplexes in SB, where the renter could help pay the mortgage. Last February she found one that was built in 1929 and had a lot of deferred maintenance but had great yard. It also had a very small studio unit behind the detached garage that could be rented out. (All spaced properly permitted...what a nice surprise!)

… 5 more paragraphs

By some kind miracle, she got that place last February. Even with getting current market rate rent for the two other units, she still had to take on two roommates in her 2BR 1BA downstairs half of the duplex to make ends meet. She personally pays way more than market value for half of the duplex, but since she is the owner, she knows it will be worth it long term. But she is tapped out.

With this rent freeze, she absolutely has no room to cover the cost of any kind of improvement on the property. Can barely cover small repairs.

She just recently got a property insurance renewal increase of $3000 per year. The roof is old and should be replaced (about $30K). The old water heater is on its last legs and she would like to put in an energy efficient tankless water heater with water filter. She got a bid to add insulation to the roof of the second story half of the duplex for $6K which would really improve the summertime sweltering in the upstairs unit.

With no ability to raise the rents to cover these costs, she can do none of these property improvements/repairs. The quality of her rental units will definitely deteriorate over time.

The other impact of the rent freeze is that she will be motivated to select tenants that are likely to be relatively short term, like students. Will not be able to afford the risk of getting someone who might be there for more than about 2 yrs.

If a permanent draconian rent cap goes into place in SB, she will end up having to sell the place. She isn't wealthy. Just a working person trying to get established and survive in SB.

With her professional skill set, she can really work just about anywhere. She will not be a forever renter. If she can't cover the cost of keeping her property in SB, she will sell it at market rate, pocket the profit and move to another city and invest her life there.

Cottage Hospital will lose a valuable employee, the city will lose a young person who might get married, have a family and wanted to make SB her forever city.

My request is that the SB City Council, PLEASE find a way for people who are small mom- and-pop landlords, like my daughter, to be able to raise rents in her rental units enough to cover the documentable cost of actual property improvements and other costs, like property insurance, property tax increases and repairs.

… 2 more paragraphs

I hope you find a way to incorporate this kind of reasonable accommodation into your rent stabilization ordinance.

[NAME] (760) 920-4888 Virus-free.www.avast.com

[ Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to you as a concerned Santa Barbara tenant to urge you to support the implementation for a strong rent stabilization ordinance in our city. I am in the meeting room, but writing rather than speaking since there are so many people waiting to share.

I grew up in Santa Barbara and am a 1st grade teacher at a title 1 school. I love my community and hope to continue to live here through out my life and continue to educate the next generation. Unfortunately, the specter of losing my housing always hangs over me and my husband and I feel we are just one rent increase away from needing to move out of town. Many friends and family members have already had to move away, to great detriment to our shared connection. I don't know where we would go, with all our friends and extended family here. It is an emergency, we need stability.

Santa Barbara is becoming increasingly unaffordable—especially for working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and renters from historically marginalized communities. Without immediate action, we will see even more displacement, more homelessness, and deeper economic strain on our city and region. This isn't just a housing crisis, it's a direct threat to the diversity, stability, and long-term economic health of Santa Barbara.

… 9 more paragraphs

Rent stabilization is a proven, practical policy that protects tenants from sudden and excessive rent hikes, keeps families in their homes, and ensures landlords continue to receive steady and fair returns on their investments. By stabilizing rents, our city can:

- Safeguard the local workforce so essential workers can afford to live where they work.

- Support small businesses that rely on stable communities and local spending.

- Invest in long-term solutions for new affordable and innovative housing options.

- Strengthen trust and transparency between tenants and landlords.

It is also important to note that community stabilization ordinances are typically cost-neutral for cities after initial implementation investment. Across California, no cities currently fund their rent boards through the general fund or Local Housing Trust Fund. Instead, they are paid for by modest per-unit fees shared between landlords and tenants.

Housing is a basic human right and ensuring its stability is essential for a thriving and resilient local economy.

Please take action and support a strong rent stabilization ordinance and other necessary measures to prevent the displacement of working families. Our community depends on it – and you – to make it happen.

Thank you for your leadership, [NAME]

Good Afternoon City Council.

As always I want to thank you all for what you do for our community. I know the work is not always fun and glamorous but I know you all put in a ton of time for the greater good. So Thank you.

I was reading this article today, https://www.sbcurrent.com/p/santa-barbaras-cost-recovery- double, and have been communicating with a lot of tenants and landlords on the lead up to today's meeting.

The word "Emergency" gives me pause. And it should you as well. If this has been a topic of discussion for over a decade and we have rent controls already in place across the state of california, why have we let ourselves decide that this has to be passed through an emergency path.

landlords cannot just charge whatever they want, unless they want to have empty apartments. I recently had a tenant of many years leave one of my 4 units downtown and because of the fear of a rent freeze I raised the rent after doing some research on rents to see if the market would support it. But it did not rent right away so I quickly reduced it back to the same rent as before. We have large loans on this place, and property insurance has tripled and cost of repairs has doble in the last couple of years, so an empty unit scares me. That's how this works. This Emergency ordinance will make it harder for locals to own a few units here or there. You will end up with more large corporations or wealthy oligarchs who can afford to buy up properties here. And those owners do not care if their places are empty and not rented and that will do the opposite of what you are trying to do here , is help people in need. I would think we want to protect local SB families in having some ownership in the apartment stock, they seem uniquely suited for caring for our community and its apartment stock.

Some ideas for helping tenants with a financial need:

… 5 more paragraphs

- Continue to bolster the housing authority to grow its housing stock in the community. This specifically targets need and does not give a windfall to those that do not need assistance.

- Offer stipends for qualified renters to get a monthly aid for rent. This specifically targets need and does not benefit those that do not need help.

- bolster commuter buses and trains to the area. (free or reduced methods)

- Educate independent business owners on how to raise their rates to keep up with cost of living increases seen today.

Thanks [NAME] 805-637-3564

Re: the rent freeze moratorium Good evening mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME] and I'm a Santa Barbara native. My wife and I are raising our 18- month-old son here, and like many people who grew up in this city, staying here as a young family has been incredibly difficult.

We were only able to buy a home this past year because we purchased a small duplex, and rent out the other unit. That rental income isn't extra—it's what makes the mortgage, insurance, and ongoing maintenance possible. Without it, we wouldn't have been able to put down roots here at all.

That's why I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze.

Like many housing providers in Santa Barbara, we're not a large company. We're a young family trying to stay in the city we love, who rents out one unit. Our costs continue to rise— insurance, utilities, repairs, taxes, and interest rates—but a rent freeze would limit income without limiting expenses. That imbalance makes it harder to maintain properties and harder for families like ours to remain here long-term.

It's not just about me and my family, I'm also worried about the bigger picture. Policies like this often reduce housing supply over time, especially when small, local owners decide they can't make the numbers work anymore. That leads to fewer rentals, less investment in existing homes, and ultimately more pressure on renters.

We all want stability and fairness for tenants. But there are no simple fixes in housing, and rushing a decision (this does not constitute an emergency) can create unintended consequences that hurt the very people we're trying to help. Not to mention that there are already restrictions in place regarding how much rent can increase each year.

… 6 more paragraphs

Santa Barbara already struggles with housing availability. Before making a decision this significant, I urge the Council to not pass this moratorium.

At the very least, I would suggest implementing a unit minimum. Example: only owners with X+ amount of units are subject to this moratorium.

This moratorium would make more sense for landlords who own a large amount of units, but would greatly hurt small families like mine.

Thank you.

[NAME]

-- [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

[ Dear Mayor Rowse and Councilmembers, We are owners of a small 105 year old apartment building. On either side of us are apartment buildings that are even older. Across the street is an old hotel. Our block adds to the historic charm of Santa Barbara. Our antique building requires constant and often costly maintenance. Old electrical, and plumbing have required repairs and improvements on a regular basis. We also recently completed substantial work to improve our stairways and upper walkways to comply with Senate [NAME]. There has even been foundation and roofing improvements completed in prior years. Yes, we do this to comply with State laws, but most importantly, we are willing to do all this, because of our concern for the safety and comfort of our tenants. We also do it for the love and pride we have for this lovely old building. We've been able to absorb these costs over the last few years, by not increasing our income form this rental. We have also rarely raised rents in many years, and are well below market rate. Our tenants often comment on how much they enjoy living in our building and are very appreciative. We are fortunate to have a nice community of tenants. We now find ourselves struggling to keep up with the ever rising costs of labor, materials and yes, City of SB utilities. We are currently needing to raise our rents, well under state law.

At a bare minimum, please utilize the same cost recovery calculations you use within the city, when raising utility rates, fees, licenses, etc.

Let us all sit down in the months ahead and work together towards a solution that works for everyone.

PLEASE DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH A RENT FREEZE, OR THE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE/REGISTRY.

Seems like the City of Santa Barbara could spend the money needed to create this ordinance and related programs on projects and programs for all of Santa Barbara.

If this moves forward, we WILL need to sell. What a shame to lose this beautiful old part of Santa Barbara to a big company wanting to build luxury condos (we have been approached multiple times).

Kindly, [NAME], LLC - Alyson Nethery - [NAME]

> Hello, > > I am a tenant in Santa Barbara. I choose to be a Tenant in a very expensive yet beautiful town. It is my choice to pay these rates. I work remotely, I could live anywhere. There are many cheaper places, but I choose to live here in expensive Santa Barbara. This is not my landlord's fault. These proposed ordinances are absurd! They are not well thought out.

> > In my building, we had a very disruptive tenant/neighbor, who my landlord had to ask to leave with the appropriate notice. The other five tenants, plus myself, were so relieved that our landlord made this change. We can live in peace and safety once again! When he rented to this tenant, he had no idea of his addictions, if he was restricted to remove him from the building or was afraid to do so because he would have to evict the rest of us, is absolutely out of this world insane. There should be NO such ordinance EVER! There should be no such limitation of years to rent the space again if an eviction occurs.

… 2 more paragraphs

> > If we have plumbing issues, roof leaks, fencing problems or any other issues on the property, our landlord reacts quickly. Getting the proper service men is expensive yet this property is well-maintained- All of the time it is safe. It is secure. It is our home and our landlord respects that! I can speak for myself and my fellow neighbors we expect a rent increase annually and in return we know we're going to have a place we can call home. Utilities go up annually, are you going to ask those companies to stop there increases?!

> > What should be changed in this town is no more Airbnb's, that is causing disruption, low hotel vacancies, congestion to neighborhoods and taking away from property that our workers in this town could live in permanently.

The issue is NOT the long term renters. The issue is the short term or even 30 day rentals.

> > Once again, it is a choice to live here, and Santa Barbara is noted to be one of the most expensive coastal towns in the world. If you cannot afford to live here, then that is a fact that the individual will have to work with. It is not the landlord's fault.

> > Do not mess around and bring in any rental control or ordinance to this beautiful town or it will become a slum and full of conflict. Fine the landlords that don't keep up the properties and get rid of Airbnb's!

… 1 more paragraph

> > Thank you, > Miss Hattie > 805-284-4569

… 2 more paragraphs

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who is very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

As a working, paying member of this community since 1969, I strongly support an eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW. I have had to pay economically burdensome rents here my entire adult life, even as I was spending my earnings here and supporting the local economy.

It has always been disproportionately difficult to deal with the demands of this rental market, but it is now grossly out of control. That needs to change. Working people here deserve better.

By the way, I am now 75 years old. And still working. And still paying into this community. I also vote.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] [EMAIL] 420 E De La Guerra St, Apt 108 (Presidio Park Apartments) Santa Barbara, California 93101

City Clerk, Please, for the love of God, don't make it this hard for the hard working people of our town to participate in the political process and tell you how nearly impossible it is to rent in this town now. I am a current homeowner, but rented here for decades before that. I work in education.

We will not have functioning schools, medical system, firefighting, or police force at this rate.

Working people need a place to live in this town and WE NEED THEM. Millionaires are not the ones showing up to classrooms every day to teach or working the front office in the doctor's office.

The vast majority of us can't attend city meetings during the workday. This is because we're working so we can pay most of our income to our landlords so we can have housing so we can go to work. For this reason it was great that you put rent stabilization on the city agenda on Dec. 16 at 5pm. Many more of us than usual were able to attend this meeting, since we usually cannot attend these kinds of meetings, because we're at work.

… 3 more paragraphs

But it appears that you have not agendized the "rent freeze" agenda item on Tues Jan. 13 for 5pm, so that it may fall anywhere between 2:30pm and 4:00pm, so that the majority of us cannot plan to exercise our democratic right to influence that which impacts us most. This is irresponsible and undemocratic and we ask that you do what you did again on Dec. 16:

Put the "rent freeze" agenda item on for 5pm again on Tuesday, January 13 so that working people can attend and exercise their democratic right to participate in this discussion.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 945 Ward Drive SPC 193 SPC 193 Santa Barbara, California 93111-2978

City Clerk, My name is [NAME] I'm 73 years old. I moved to Santa Barbara in 1989, and I've lived in the same one bedroom the entire time. I had a good job in the semiconductor industry, but it was cut short by multiple sclerosis. My savings are running out. Due to my disease, I won't survive being homeless.

My landlord has made improvements to this apartment building, but those are no longer taking place. Nevertheless, she raises the rent by the maximum allowed by law every year. I won't survive at this rate. Please help me.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] [EMAIL] 260 W Alamar Ave, Apt 16 Santa Barbara, California 93105

[ Dear City Council, As a recent Santa Barbara transplant, I'm well aware of just how challenging it is to find affordable rent in this area on a middle-income salary. I moved from Boston, where my salary was greater but my rent was less. I'm a well- educated (Master's) individual with a robust work history, but I'm nearly 30 and doubt I'll be able to get my own place anytime soon here. That said, I also realize that I am privileged to have a salaried role and can't imagine how it would be possible to live here on minimum wage.

For myself and for my neighbors, I urge you to support the temporary rent increase moratorium.

… 1 more paragraph

Thank you for your consideration, [NAME] 4653 Tajo Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93110

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hello I am saying , "Please do not consider this item any further!'

Subject: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction;

Ordinance Adoption] This is not a solution. It creates more problems. Look at other cities who have incorporated rent control and you will see how it works out.

This is against rights to own real property. By passing this, it will be difficult for individuals to continue to own rental units and offer much needed housing.

Solution: Help tenants to make purchases of their own. Offer grants, low interest rate loans for low to moderate income earners in our County. Help the renters graduate to becoming owners. Help landlords to continue to offer quality housing for our people.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] 805-315-5828

… 4 more paragraphs

Honorable Mayor and Esteemed Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Tenant Protection measures scheduled for consideration on Tuesday: the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and the ordinance adding new requirements for so‐called "Ellis Act" just cause evictions (proposed SBMC §26.50.100).

1. The emergency rent increase moratorium is not justified Declaring an "emergency" to freeze rents citywide is an extraordinary step that should be reserved for clear, immediate, and demonstrable harms that cannot be addressed through existing law or normal legislative process. That threshold has not been met.

Santa Barbara already has robust tenant protections, including just cause eviction rules and state‐level limitations on rent increases under AB 1482.

The staff report does not show a sudden, documented surge of abusive rent hikes that would justify an emergency intervention.

Adopting this as an emergency ordinance sidesteps the usual deliberative process and invites legal challenge, which the City will have to defend at taxpayer expense.

Many small local housing providers operate on thin margins. A blanket moratorium on rent increases ignores differences between large corporate owners and small, local landlords who rely on rent not as speculative profit, but as basic income to cover mortgages, taxes, insurance, utilities, and necessary maintenance. When policy does not distinguish between these realities, it threatens to push small providers out of the market altogether, shrinking the already limited pool of local, non‐institutional housing.

2. The moratorium undermines basic maintenance and long‐term housing quality Predictable, lawful rent increases are how responsible owners keep up with inflation in property taxes, insurance, utilities, and the rising costs of repairs and capital improvements.

… 2 more paragraphs

When the City freezes this revenue:

Necessary maintenance and upgrades are deferred or cancelled.

Older buildings become harder to keep safe, code‐compliant, and energy‐efficient.

Long‐term reinvestment in the housing stock is discouraged exactly when Santa Barbara should be encouraging owners to preserve and improve existing units.

If the Council's goal is stable, quality housing, it makes little sense to adopt a policy that directly undercuts the ability of conscientious owners to maintain that housing.

3. Additional "Ellis Act" requirements risk backfiring The second ordinance, adding new local requirements for just cause evictions when an owner removes a unit from the rental market, is similarly troubling.

State law already strictly regulates when and how an owner may withdraw a property from the rental market, and it provides substantial protections to tenants. By layering on additional local requirements and procedural hurdles, the City risks:

Creating uncertainty and confusion about what is legally required.

Making it effectively impossible for small owners to reclaim their property for legitimate reasons (for example, family use, retirement, or sale).

Discouraging owners from ever entering or remaining in the rental market in Santa Barbara in the first place.

When a jurisdiction sends a clear message that once a unit is rented it is nearly impossible ever to lawfully exit the rental market, rational owners respond by selling, converting, or avoiding renting altogether. That outcome reduces long‐term rental supply, drives more units into high‐end or non‐rental uses, and ultimately harms the very tenants the City intends to protect.

4. Unintended consequences for affordability and supply Policies that treat every landlord as a bad actor, and every regulation as costless, have predictable consequences:

Fewer mom‐and‐pop providers: Small, local owners are the least able to absorb sudden freezes and new legal risks. When they sell, buyers are more likely to be larger, less flexible institutions.

Less naturally affordable housing: Modest, older units provided by small owners are often the most affordable rentals in a city. Driving these owners out shrinks this segment of the market.

Higher long‐term rents: When supply falls and risk rises, future asking rents go up to compensate. New investment in rental housing becomes less attractive relative to other uses of capital.

If Council is serious about long‐term affordability, the focus should be on increasing supply and reducing the barriers and costs that make housing scarce in the first place. These ordinances move in the opposite direction.

5. Better alternatives Instead of emergency measures that paint all owners with the same broad brush, I urge the Council to consider more targeted and balanced approaches, such as:

… 10 more paragraphs

Enforcing existing state law against actual bad actors who impose unlawful rent increases or engage in harassment.

Providing clear, accessible education for both tenants and landlords about their rights and obligations under current law.

Prioritizing policies that add to the housing stock—through streamlined permitting, adaptive reuse, and incentives for maintaining and upgrading existing rental units—rather than policies that make owning and operating rentals riskier and less sustainable.

6. Request For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to:

Vote no on the emergency Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium ordinance.

Vote no on the ordinance adding additional local requirements for "Ellis Act" just cause evictions.

Santa Barbara needs thoughtful, balanced housing policy that protects tenants from abuse while also recognizing the crucial role that responsible, local housing providers play in keeping people housed. These ordinances, as drafted, fail that test and risk doing lasting damage to the availability and quality of rental housing in our city.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME]

-- [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council Members, I am writing to follow up on my previous correspondence from Saturday regarding tomorrow's vote on the emergency rent freeze. As a local housing provider, I want to provide a clear picture of the "ground-level" economic realities that will be triggered if this measure passes.

If you choose to ignore the actual costs of maintaining housing in Santa Barbara, I—and many others like me—will be forced into a corner. Specifically:

Forced Divestment: I will be forced to sell both my home and my rental property. I simply cannot keep up with the economics of maintaining an income property under these artificial constraints while also managing my own household costs. When small providers like me sell, these properties are often snatched up by out-of-town speculators, further eroding the "local" housing stock.

Decaying Housing Stock: When the numbers no longer work, maintenance is the first thing to suffer. This freeze will lead to a visible decay in rental quality across our city.

Shrinking Inventory: This scenario will have a cascading effect throughout the community. Small, independent providers will exit the market, leading to a smaller rental inventory and higher barriers to entry for new residents.

The Deficit Ripple Effect: As the tax base shrinks and property values are impacted, the city's deficit will continue to grow. We have already seen the trend: the city then turns to raising sales tax, which disproportionately hurts the poorest members of our community—the very people this measure claims to protect.

Furthermore, please consider that the vast majority of economists who study housing consistently produce research showing the negative long-term impacts of rent controls. It is a proven disincentive to the very housing stability you are trying to achieve.

There are viable, productive alternatives to this measure. Instead of implementing price controls that stifle supply, the Council should do everything humanly possible to expedite the building of new housing units. This includes aggressively reducing permitting times, lowering development fees, and making it truly easy for people to build. We need to provide incentives to developers to increase our housing stock, not disincentives that freeze the market in place.

Let's keep Santa Barbara vibrant and thriving. I urge you to look past the short-term optics and vote wisely for the long-term stability of our city.

Sincerely, Kiki Foote Santa Barbara Resident & Housing Provider

… 3 more paragraphs

[ Dear Mayor Rouse and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, We are writing again regarding the proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the suggested rent freeze. We are Santa Barbara "locals", in fact third generation local. We are homeowners who live in one unit on our property and rent the other. The income from our rental unit is what has made homeownership in Santa Barbara possible for our family.

As currently proposed, the RSO and rent freeze would impose significant and disproportionate financial hardship on small, "mom-and-pop" landlords such as ourselves—particularly we feel those with three units or fewer. While we fully support the goal of fair, stable, and sustainable housing in Santa Barbara, we believe the current approach does not adequately balance the needs of tenants with the realities faced by small property owners.

We support reasonable rent increase limits, restrictions on the frequency of rent increases, and just-cause eviction protections. These measures can be fair and effective for both tenants and landlords. However, proposals such as rent freezes or rollbacks, prohibitions on utility cost recovery, and caps at 60% of CPI are overly aggressive— especially for small landlords. These measures fail to account for the rapidly rising costs of homeowners insurance, property taxes, utilities, labor, repairs, and inflation overall. Many small landlords are not generating excess profit;

we are simply managing to cover expenses and remain solvent.

If any of these measures are adopted without meaningful differentiation between the type of landlord, many small property owners may be forced to remove units from the long-term rental market, convert them to short-term rentals, or sell their properties altogether—outcomes that would further reduce housing availability rather than improve it.

In our view, a significant contributor to Santa Barbara's housing challenges is the prevalence of short-term rentals, which remove otherwise viable long-term housing from the market. If fewer STR's were allowed the majority of those units would be back on the market and with more units available the rents would come down. Additionally, large corporate and out-of-town investors purchasing substantial portions of the local housing stock have dramatically altered the housing landscape. These factors deserve greater scrutiny.

Small landlords like us—local residents who have lived here our entire lives, worked hard to achieve homeownership, and who treat our tenants fairly and respectfully—should not be vilified or financially penalized.

… 4 more paragraphs

We respectfully ask the Council to recognize the important distinctions among landlords and to tailor regulations accordingly.

Treating all landlords identically regardless of scale or ownership structure, fails to recognize the meaningful differences between large landlords/corporate entities and individual homeowner landlords. More aggressive regulations or potential rent freezes should apply to large landlords/corporate entities with many multiple units while providing appropriate exemptions or alternative standards for small local property owners.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Zane and [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Santa Barbara City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rent freeze and my deep concern about the direction this policy takes our city. While I understand the intention is to protect tenants, history shows that rent freezes and strict rent control policies consistently make housing problems worse for both renters and property owners in the long run.

Cities like San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles provide clear examples. Studies have shown that rent control:

- Reduces the supply of rental housing by discouraging new construction and pushing landlords to remove units from the market.

- Leads to higher rents for new tenants because fewer units are available.

- Encourages landlords to convert rentals into condos or short-term rentals.

- Results in poorer maintenance and building quality over time because owners cannot recoup costs.

… 1 more paragraph

- Ultimately benefits a small group of tenants while hurting future renters and overall affordability.

A well-known Stanford study on San Francisco's rent control found that it reduced rental housing supply by about 15% and increased citywide rents by more than 5%. That is the opposite of what our community needs.

Santa Barbara's housing crisis is a supply problem. Freezing rents does not create a single new unit of housing. It only discourages the very people who build, maintain, and invest in long- term rental homes. If we truly want affordability, the focus should be on:

- Building more housing, especially multi-family and workforce housing

… 1 more paragraph

- Easing and speeding up the building permit and approval process

- Reducing regulatory barriers and costs that make construction financially impossible

- Banning or heavily restricting Airbnb and short-term rentals that remove housing from the long-term market Other cities that have addressed housing shortages successfully did so by increasing supply, not by freezing prices. Artificially controlling rent treats the symptom while worsening the disease.

Santa Barbara should be encouraging development, protecting long-term housing stock, and making it easier—not harder—for responsible owners to provide quality rental homes. A rent freeze sends the message that our city is hostile to housing investment, which will only deepen the crisis for years to come.

… 2 more paragraphs

Please reconsider this approach and shift the focus toward real, lasting solutions that expand housing availability and stabilize rents naturally through supply.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA [NAME] (805) 698-6949

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council Members, I'm writing in response to a recent Noozhawk article and the city staff report discussing the proposed changes to rental market removal requirements.

From what I understand, the first proposal would require that if a landlord removes one rental unit from the market, all rental units on that property must be removed. The second proposal would prevent those units from being placed back on the rental market for five years.

My grandfather is a small property owner with four properties in Santa Barbara, we're concerned about how damaging this could be to both small owners and the overall rental market. Several of his properties are showing their age, and half have been deemed of historical interest. That designation requires a substantial investment to modernize units, including remediation of years of layers of lead paint and asbestos, upgrading electrical systems that are over 80-100 years old, and rebuilding subfloors due to decades of water damage and sweaky floors. As a reference point, a previous required remediation alone cost approximately $85,000.

… 1 more paragraph

Under the proposed policy, if we needed to take one unit offline to complete necessary work or move an owner or manager onsite, I would be forced to evict five other tenants who otherwise would not need to be displaced. He 90+ years old and his mobility and independence is requiring assistance. He's considering moving into one of his unit closer to me or onsite, in town rather than behind APS. As a small owner, he simply couldn't afford to complete this level of work without rental income.

Annually he collect less then $600,000 and a loss of $100,000 a year would prevent work on other projects. Losing six apartments for a full five years would reduce available housing in our local community, not increase it.

Additionally, with rent control tied to values from five years ago, being limited to only a 5% increase after such a long removal period feels unrealistic and financially unworkable. At the same time, utilities and operating costs continue to soar, and tenants are increasingly being required to absorb additional utility fees on top of rent just to keep properties operating. Policies that further limit flexibility may unintentionally increase financial pressure on both owners and renters.

In many cases, regulations like this could push owners toward selling properties as condos instead, which further reduces long-term rental housing. The policy could be improved by limiting its application to large- scale owners earning over one million dollars annually, allowing owner or staff occupancy, enabling phased construction for older properties needing substantial work, and offering bans/prevent evictions for properties acquired within the first five years of ownership. If an owner wants or needs to live onsite, it's difficult to understand why that would require removing and displacing multiple other tenants.

I appreciate the city's efforts to protect renters, but I hope these impacts on small property owners and overall housing availability are carefully considered before moving forward.

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] from my iPhone

A rent freeze is a great way to prevent the clutter of new units being built.

These two great, beautiful Trumpian measures are a sure way to remove the clutter of old units and to get the city into court battles:

The first is that if a landlord wanted to remove one rental unit on their property from the market, they would have to remove all the units on that property off the market, according to the city staff report.

The second requirement proposed is that if a landlord does pull their property from the rental market, they can't put it back on the market for five years.

Best, Ernie

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important To All City Council Members & Mayor, I am writing to share my comments on Item #14 of todays' agenda.

I have been managing property in the City of Santa Barbara since the late 70's. I currently manage over 80 residences within the City and work extremely hard to balance the cost of maintenance, repairs, replacement, insurance - against affordable rents. We have seen insurance costs as well as labor & materials costs at least double over the past few years. That being said, the solution is not as simple as the landlord bearing the burden of "emergency rent freezes" against increased costs. We need to look at all possible solutions and NOT just stop at the landlord. Threatening the viability of rental housing with this "gotcha" moratorium may backfire badly - causing further sell off of rental housing as well as units being pulled from the market. The supply of rental housing has dwindled and should not be further impacted by what appears to be a very politically motivated ordinance.

I urge you to VOTE NO on the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and work within the community to find a better solution. We need long-term solutions!

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Tele: (805) 689-2170 Emergency: (805) 882-2070 DRE License #00777051 [EMAIL] PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) may be privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this email and permanently delete the message from your computer.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing to oppose Item 14, the proposed emergency rent freeze and expanded tenant protection ordinances.

I am a Santa Barbara property owner who provides long-term rental housing and has invested in an ADU to help increase local housing supply. Like many small, local owners, I am managing rising insurance, maintenance, and regulatory costs.

While housing stability is important, emergency measures that impose immediate rent freezes and expanded restrictions risk discouraging continued investment in long-term rentals and ADUs. These actions create uncertainty and may ultimately reduce housing supply by pushing small property owners out of the rental market.

I respectfully urge the Council to oppose Item 14 and instead pursue thoughtful, data-driven housing policies through a transparent public process.

… 3 more paragraphs

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA

-- [NAME] (916)801-1450

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City council members - Please do the right thing for this city and do NOT implement any sort of rent stabilization/ rent control. Landlords need to be able to make rent increases as needed to cover the horrific expenses they are forced to pay. You have no control over their property taxes or other expenses they are forced to bear. Nor do you have any control over the cost of homeowners insurance which is increasing at horrific rates and often cancelled, forcing them to identify replacement insurance often 2-3 times the prior rate. You say you want more housing for tenants in Santa Barbara. All this rent " stabilization" idea will do is take rentals off the market. Landlords should be able to pass on the increasing costs they are forced to pay. This will only cause deferral of required maintenance and reduce number of available units. Stay out of their business. Research how other cities that have implemented rent control have been ruined. Do not punish landlords. You need more, not fewer, of them in this city.

[NAME]

Please consider exceptions for landlords that have only a few rentals or less that have been renting them out well below market level when you discuss rent freezes. There are some of us out there that rent well below market and sometimes we incur maintenance costs that we should be able to at least partially recoup.

Sincerely, [NAME]

Good Evening, My name is [NAME], I'm a member of the Hawkes family. We've been landlords in Santa Barbara for over 60 years. We are a small, family run business and we are very concerned about the measure being voted on tonight. We feel the unintended consequences of this measure will be families like ours selling their properties, taking them off the rental market. Our costs continue to rise and if we are handcuffed we will be forced to sell to the highest bidder - which often times is an out of towner looking for a second home. Please consider all the consequences of this action and ask for an economic analysis before voting.

Thank you for your time, [NAME]

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council, My family and I have been providing 7 units of housing in Santa Barbara for over 80 years.

Our rents are reasonable, and our tenants are happy.

The changes that are being proposed have made us seriously consider closing our rental business altogether. If landlords cannot keep rents in line with expenses, there is really no point in continuing to rent.

While the intention of the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium is to make life in Santa Barbara more affordable, I believe this proposal will result in fewer housing units being available. People like me will simply put our property to other uses than housing.

Thank you for your attention, [NAME]

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who is very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

Pass as rent freeze now! Although I believe THE RENT FREEZE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 14TH 2025 -- two months before the proposed date of December 16, 2025

-- I ask you to pass a rent freeze now! Days after your October 14th meeting, my landlord informed me that my rent would increase the maximum amount and that I would be be facing a no-fault eviction from my home of 13 years. My landlord cited the discussion of a rent stabilization ordinance at your October 14 meeting as the reason for the increase and his plans for eviction. I also believe you shoul implement additional requirements for ALL forms of no-fault evictions, for example, requiring landlords to keep units off the the market for 5 years if tenants have been evicted for any no-fault reasons. That said, it is most urgent that you pass a rent freeze as soon as possible, before even more people are forced out of the community.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between October 14, 2025 and when the RSO is implemented, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented. Although so-called "mom and pop" landlords have shown up in force at your meetings to claim rent stabilization will drive them out of business, there remains a lack of transparency in terms of how actual profits have been impacted, but you have heard from local educators, health care workers, and service providers who have told you over and over that they spend 50% or more of their income on housing. If mom and pop landlords are truly in alliance with the local community and want to provide affordable housing, this is when they should be building coalition with renters, as we can agree that corporate ownerships and luxury short term rentals take over more and more units in our city. Rent stabilization is not multually exclusive of other initiatives that could also benefit small landlords who are committed to providing affordable housing. If this is true, why would they oppose efforts to stabilize conditions for the community they claim to serve. My landlord is a "mom and pop"; but one month of my rent covers the cost of property taxes for the entire multi-unit property where I live, which is only minimally maintained. I have been an educator in our community for decades. I have always spent at least half of my salary on rent, and I have a stable job and steady income. But So many more in are community are at risk for homelessness, living in crowded conditions, or in poorly maintained units. And so many are already living in homelessness already. Rent stabilization is but a teeny step in creating more stabilization for our community.

Santa Barbara is at risk of losing many of its community, not only to this, but also the terrorism of ice, increasing costs, and crises in health care. Who will provide education, care, and service to the wealthy 1%, as more and more of regular working folks can no longer afford to live here?

… 1 more paragraph

Thank you for your attention to this matter, [NAME] [EMAIL] SANTA BARBARA, California 93105

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident and renter of 13 years, a single mother who works full time as an Operations Director for a non-profit organization, as well as a full time acupuncture Master's student.

I often tell my family members who live across the state, country, and world that every year my son and I get to live in Santa Barbara feels like a miracle. Even as a well-educated working professional, rent in this city is unaffordable, let alone homeownership. Is this the kind of city that this council wants? If you do not take action toward rent stabilization and an eviction moratorium, this is certainly the message you send-- that you want a city exclusively for the extremely wealthy elite.

If that is the case, I challenge you to have the integrity and backbone to simply state, publicly and directly, that you want Santa Barbara to be exclusively for the wealthy elite. That everyone else can come here to work for and serve the rich, and then go home to their residences far outside of city limits. If that is your vision, then say it plainly.

If that is not the case, then you MUST ACT NOW!! If you want a city that also includes working families, then pass Rent Stabilization and an Eviction Moratorium NOW!

Along with so many residents, I am very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

With sincerity, [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93103

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who is very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

As a working, paying member of this community since 1969, I strongly support an eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW. I have had to pay economically burdensome rents here my entire adult life, even as I was spending my earnings here and supporting the local economy.

It has always been disproportionately difficult to deal with the demands of this rental market, but it is now grossly out of control. That needs to change. Working people here deserve better.

… 2 more paragraphs

By the way, I am now 75 years old. And still working. And still paying into this community. I also vote.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 420 E De La Guerra St, Apt 108 (Presidio Park Apartments) Santa Barbara, California 93101

City Clerk, Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to you today, as a 3rd generation Santa Barbara resident, to ask you to pass the Eviction Moratorium and Rent Freeze. I apologize for not emailing you sooner, so I will keep this brief. Your constituents and renters, who make this beautiful city run, are concerned about exploitive rent hikes and unfair evictions. Keeping our community housed must be our top priority in these unprecedented times.

We currently have a system that celebrates making profit by squeezing as much as one can from hard working citizens, with the only safe guard we have against exploitation is our government. Fortunately or unfortunately, you can do something to protect the renters of Santa Barbara today, by not allowing landlords to raise rent when wages have not been kept up. Taking advantage of desperate people in need of shelter is not good business, and will not result in a thriving community. We need to prioritize the people who could lose shelter, not landlords who have assets to depend on. If a teacher or nurse gets priced out of their ability to pay rent, our community suffers greatly. People's profits are not more important than people's lives. Until there can be a different system in place that does not exploit your constituents, passing the eviction moratorium and rent freeze is the only ethical thing to do.

As a young working professional with a MA, I would not be able to afford to live in my own hometown if I was not living with my parents. I know plenty of other peers I grew up with struggling in the same way. This isn't a problem unique to Santa Barbara because we have nice weather and views, it's systemic and needs to be addressed by the people who have the power to do something.

I will be noting how everyone votes on this, and it will impact my decision on who I vote and advocate for in upcoming elections. Please stand with the people and pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93105

City Clerk, As a Santa Barbara resident, I am concerned that unless City Council acts, landlords may evict tenants, claiming rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This is a serious threat. City Council should immediately pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and temporarily freeze rents, to protect renters until the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

I am told that [NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20, "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting] . . . they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, Santa Barbara needs anti-displacement measures in place as well as a retroactive rent freeze.

Sincerely, [NAME] 1124 E de la Guerra Street Emeritus professor of city planning at Cornell University Author of numerous books and scholarly articles on poverty and inequality in US cities [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93103

… 1 more paragraph

City Clerk, I am writing to you as Chair of the Santa Barbara County Democratic Party, and as a Santa Barbara renter deeply concerned about housing stability in our community. At the October 14 City Council meeting, several landlords stated that they may pursue evictions in response to the City's consideration of rent stabilization. Whether intended as a negotiating tactic or a sincere position, these statements raise serious concerns about the risk of tenant displacement in the period before a rent stabilization ordinance is fully implemented.

At the City Council Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20, [NAME] rightly noted that the City must prepare for both possibilities: that landlords are bluffing—or that they are not. In either case, the uncertainty itself creates real fear for tenants and underscores the need for clear, proactive policy measures to prevent displacement.

Between now and the anticipated implementation of a rent stabilization ordinance in 2026, tenants remain vulnerable not only to evictions, but also to steep rent increases that can force families out of their homes just as effectively. For that reason, we believe it is essential for the City to adopt interim anti-displacement protections, including a no-fault eviction moratorium and a temporary rent freeze, to ensure stability during this transition period.

I urge the City Council to act promptly to protect renters and maintain housing security while the rent stabilization framework is finalized. Taking these steps now will help prevent unnecessary displacement and demonstrate the City's commitment to fairness, stability, and responsible governance during this critical moment.

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] [EMAIL] 415 1/2 E [NAME] Santa Barbara,

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, My name is [Name], and I [live/work/own a business] in Santa Barbara.

I support affordable housing for our workforce and urge you to adopt the temporary rent increase moratorium and just-cause Ellis Act protections. Building housing takes years, but displacement happens quickly. Without these protections, working residents—[teachers, healthcare workers, service workers, longtime tenants]—can be forced out by sudden rent hikes or no-fault evictions.

This affects more than individuals: local businesses struggle to hire, commutes increase, and our community loses stability and diversity. These ordinances are temporary, reasonable, and give us time to develop long-term housing solutions.

… 3 more paragraphs

I respectfully urge you to support these protections to keep Santa Barbara livable for the people who keep it running. Thank you.

The item is #14 on the Agenda: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction; Ordinance Adoption] Recommendation: That Council:

A. Introduce and adopt, as an emergency ordinance after reading in full, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Establishing a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium During the Preparation, Consideration, and Potential Adoption of a Permanent Rent Stabilization Program; and B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by the Addition of Section 26.50.100 Relating to Additional Requirements for Just Cause Evictions for the Purpose of Permanently Removing a Unit from the Rental Market.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City council members - Please do the right thing for this city and do NOT implement any sort of rent stabilization/ rent control. Landlords need to be able to make rent increases as needed to cover the horrific expenses they are forced to pay. You have no control over their property taxes or other expenses they are forced to bear. Nor do you have any control over the cost of homeowners insurance which is increasing at horrific rates and often cancelled, forcing them to identify replacement insurance often 2-3 times the prior rate. You say you want more housing for tenants in Santa Barbara. All this rent " stabilization" idea will do is take rentals off the market. Landlords should be able to pass on the increasing costs they are forced to pay. This will only cause deferral of required maintenance and reduce number of available units. Stay out of their business. Research how other cities that have implemented rent control have been ruined. Do not punish landlords. You need more, not fewer, of them in this city.

[NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important I support affordable housing for our community, and I urge you to adopt the Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium and the additional requirements for the Just- Cause Ellis Act Evictions.

Without a temporary ordinance that protects working people, tenants could experience sudden rent increases or no-fault evictions. These ordinances would give the city time to discuss and eventually adopt a permanent rent stabilization program without tenants being displaced.

Thanks for your consideration, [NAME] (805) 452-2862

City Clerk, Santa Barbara demands a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93101

… 1 more paragraph

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME]. For decades, my family has been a local housing provider in beautiful Santa Barbara. My great grandparents built a small apartment building here in 1962, my grandparents owned and operated it themselves until they were in their late 80's, and since they have passed, I now personally manage the property. We still have a tenant residing on our property that knew my GREAT grandparents personally. Our family is the definition of family built, owned, and operated.

I have deep concerns about the proposed emergency rent freeze and related tenant protection measures. I understand that affordability is a serious issue; however, emergency actions taken without full analysis have the potential to do serious harm long term.

My last remaining grandparent passed in 2021, and in the 5 years since then we experienced an enormous increase in property taxes, our insurance premium has tripled, maintenance and material costs have skyrocketed, all in addition to the continuous changes to the regulatory requirements mandated by the State of California, and even more so coming from Santa Barbara specifically.

… 1 more paragraph

We are very fair with our rents, but a rent freeze removes our ability to adjust based on the costs we incur to provide desirable and safe housing.

A rent freeze will likely discourage reinvestment in existing rental housing, and a reduction in housing supply or quality only hurts renters as well.

I respectfully ask the Council to slow down this process, conduct a full economic study, and engage all stakeholders before adopting measures that could permanently impact Santa Barbara's housing market.

I would be MORE than happy to participate in conversation should you want the point of view of a family owner/landlord.

… 2 more paragraphs

Thank you for your consideration.

-- [NAME] cell/text: 805-444-2256 dedicated fax: 805-985-0997 [EMAIL]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important  Item 14–Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium By the time I arrived at the City Council meeting after work, I was told they were no longer accepting speaker slips, so I'd like to submit my comments here:

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is [NAME], and I have been a local housing provider for more than 20 years.

I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze and related tenant protection measures.

There are certainly landlords who charge whatever the market will bear. But there are many small, local landlords--like me-- who intentionally keep rents significantly below market to support our tenants and our community. My tenants rarely see increases, and when they do, they are extremely modest.

I rented in Santa Barbara at a time when safe, comfortable housing didn't consume most of a paycheck. I was fortunate to eventually buy a property, and have tried to pay thatforward by providing well-maintained, affordable housing. I believe deeply that housing affordability is one of Santa Barbara's most serious challenges, and I often vote against my own financial interests as a landlord to protect a sustainable rental market. No one should have to choose between basic needs and rent.

That said, responsible, community-minded housing providers shouldn't be forced into that sort of position either. Just as costs have risen for tenants, they've risen dramatically for landlords. Property taxes, utilities, and maintenance costs have all skyrocketed. Just this morning, I spent $1000 --just for the materials, not counting installation--on a new water heater that cost $400 a year ago. The new roof that I have been planning and saving for has tripled in price. My insurance has done the same. And without the ability to make modest, periodic rent adjustments to what are already modest rents, it becomes impossible to maintain safe, quality housing.

… 1 more paragraph

For me personally, freezing rents at pre-October levels would roll my tenants back to the rents they were paying in 2022-- which were already far below market-- because that's the last time they saw an increase, even as my costs have continued to climb.

I don't believe that, in the long run, these proposed measures are sustainable for renters, either. As small landlords leave the market, corporate interests snap up properties, aggressively increasing rents to levels that prompted these proposals in the first place. I'm concerned that these proposals risk accelerating the very trend they aim to stop.

I respectfully ask the Council to slow down this process, conduct a full economic data study, and engage allstakeholders before adopting measures that could permanently affect both landlords and renters. Thanks for your time.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Please share this in the public comment period during the rent stabilization talks.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing as a local property manager who works daily with both tenants and small "mom-and-pop" housing providers throughout Santa Barbara. I respectfully wish to share concerns regarding the proposed rent freeze and to request an opportunity for meaningful participation in the policy discussion.

First, I believe it is important to acknowledge that the challenges surrounding housing affordability are not new, nor do they constitute an emergency requiring rapid, one-size-fits-all action. Both the State of California and the City of Santa Barbara have been aware of these pressures for many years, and existing regulations—most notably AB 1482

—already impose highly restrictive limits on rent increases.

In practice, these constraints have created unintended consequences.

Because owners know increases may be limited or eliminated in the future, many feel compelled to raise rents annually simply to keep pace with rising costs such as insurance, utilities, labor, and building materials. This often removes the flexibility to keep rents stable for good long-term tenants, even when an owner would otherwise choose to do so.

… 8 more paragraphs

Rather than a blanket rent freeze, I encourage the City to consider more nuanced, data-driven approaches. For example:

Limiting rent increases that exceed reasonable thresholds relative to median market rents in the area Allowing modest increases for units that are demonstrably under market rent Providing clear pathways for approved increases when owners invest in meaningful unit upgrades, safety improvements, or deferred maintenance These types of policies would better reflect real-world conditions and help preserve housing quality, while still protecting tenants from excessive rent increases.

Property managers are uniquely positioned to contribute to this conversation. We serve as the go-between for tenants and owners, understand local market dynamics, and manage the delicate balance of keeping rents reasonable, maintaining buildings, reducing vacancy and turnover costs, and ensuring that rental housing remains economically viable. Many current rent stabilization discussions unintentionally leave out this perspective, despite its relevance to outcomes on the ground.

Our company would welcome the opportunity to engage in collaborative problem-solving. Addressing housing affordability requires thinking outside the box—not simply limiting owners' ability to carry their investments, but designing policies that sustain long-term rental housing, protect tenants, and encourage responsible ownership.

If there is a sign-up sheet for upcoming workshops, working groups, or opportunities for public input beyond standard public comment, we would be happy to sign up and would greatly appreciate information on how to stay informed and participate in a more substantive way.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. We look forward to being part of a thoughtful, balanced dialogue on this important issue.

Respectfully, [NAME] Cochrane Property Management, Inc.

102 [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93101 P: (805) 965-2887 x116 | Direct: (805) 456-8778 F: (805) 966-6468 [EMAIL] www.cochranepm.com For all repairs and maintenance, please contact our 24-7 maintenance line at (805) 965-2887 x1

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing to oppose Item 14, the proposed emergency rent freeze and expanded tenant protection ordinances.

I am a Santa Barbara property owner who provides long-term rental housing and has invested in an ADU to help increase local housing supply. Like many small, local owners, I am managing rising insurance, maintenance, and regulatory costs.

While housing stability is important, emergency measures that impose immediate rent freezes and expanded restrictions risk discouraging continued investment in long-term rentals and ADUs. These actions create uncertainty and may ultimately reduce housing supply by pushing small property owners out of the rental market.

I respectfully urge the Council to oppose Item 14 and instead pursue thoughtful, data-driven housing policies through a transparent public process.

Thank you for your consideration.

… 2 more paragraphs

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA

-- [NAME] (916)801-1450

… 2 more paragraphs

Re: the rent freeze moratorium Good evening mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is [NAME] and I'm a Santa Barbara native. My wife and I are raising our 18- month-old son here, and like many people who grew up in this city, staying here as a young family has been incredibly difficult.

We were only able to buy a home this past year because we purchased a small duplex, and rent out the other unit. That rental income isn't extra—it's what makes the mortgage, insurance, and ongoing maintenance possible. Without it, we wouldn't have been able to put down roots here at all.

That's why I'm concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze.

Like many housing providers in Santa Barbara, we're not a large company. We're a young family trying to stay in the city we love, who rents out one unit. Our costs continue to rise— insurance, utilities, repairs, taxes, and interest rates—but a rent freeze would limit income without limiting expenses. That imbalance makes it harder to maintain properties and harder for families like ours to remain here long-term.

It's not just about me and my family, I'm also worried about the bigger picture. Policies like this often reduce housing supply over time, especially when small, local owners decide they can't make the numbers work anymore. That leads to fewer rentals, less investment in existing homes, and ultimately more pressure on renters.

We all want stability and fairness for tenants. But there are no simple fixes in housing, and rushing a decision (this does not constitute an emergency) can create unintended consequences that hurt the very people we're trying to help. Not to mention that there are already restrictions in place regarding how much rent can increase each year.

Santa Barbara already struggles with housing availability. Before making a decision this significant, I urge the Council to not pass this moratorium.

At the very least, I would suggest implementing a unit minimum. Example: only owners with X+ amount of units are subject to this moratorium.

… 4 more paragraphs

This moratorium would make more sense for landlords who own a large amount of units, but would greatly hurt small families like mine.

Thank you.

[NAME]

-- [NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council Members, I am writing to follow up on my previous correspondence from Saturday regarding tomorrow's vote on the emergency rent freeze. As a local housing provider, I want to provide a clear picture of the "ground-level" economic realities that will be triggered if this measure passes.

If you choose to ignore the actual costs of maintaining housing in Santa Barbara, I—and many others like me—will be forced into a corner. Specifically:

… 4 more paragraphs

Forced Divestment: I will be forced to sell both my home and my rental property. I simply cannot keep up with the economics of maintaining an income property under these artificial constraints while also managing my own household costs. When small providers like me sell, these properties are often snatched up by out-of-town speculators, further eroding the "local" housing stock.

Decaying Housing Stock: When the numbers no longer work, maintenance is the first thing to suffer. This freeze will lead to a visible decay in rental quality across our city.

Shrinking Inventory: This scenario will have a cascading effect throughout the community. Small, independent providers will exit the market, leading to a smaller rental inventory and higher barriers to entry for new residents.

The Deficit Ripple Effect: As the tax base shrinks and property values are impacted, the city's deficit will continue to grow. We have already seen the trend: the city then turns to raising sales tax, which disproportionately hurts the poorest members of our community—the very people this measure claims to protect.

Furthermore, please consider that the vast majority of economists who study housing consistently produce research showing the negative long-term impacts of rent controls. It is a proven disincentive to the very housing stability you are trying to achieve.

There are viable, productive alternatives to this measure. Instead of implementing price controls that stifle supply, the Council should do everything humanly possible to expedite the building of new housing units. This includes aggressively reducing permitting times, lowering development fees, and making it truly easy for people to build. We need to provide incentives to developers to increase our housing stock, not disincentives that freeze the market in place.

Let's keep Santa Barbara vibrant and thriving. I urge you to look past the short-term optics and vote wisely for the long-term stability of our city.

Sincerely, Kiki Foote Santa Barbara Resident & Housing Provider

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important [NAME] and I are a small Mom and Pop housing provider here in Santa Barbara. We are concerned about the proposed emergency rent freeze and the tenant protection measures being discussed today. We ask that you slow down this process so that proper discussion and solutions can be made. We agree and honor housing affordability in Santa Barbara and in doing so we have good relationships with our tenants and provide reasonable and fair rents to them. This continues to get tougher with rising insurance costs, property tax and overall maintenance on the property. Things that tenants do not have to concern themselves with, but we are diligent about so that our tenants have a safe, reliable place to live.

I encourage the Council to take a look at Item 14 and slow down the process. Have real conversations with housing providers and tenants in our town so that we can all work together to provide the best options for our community.

My Husband and I both have work today and are unable to be at the council meeting in person, but would be willing to meet at any time to discuss our position and concerns in regards to a rent freeze.

… 1 more paragraph

All our best, [NAME]

Good Evening, My name is [NAME], I'm a member of the Hawkes family. We've been landlords in Santa Barbara for over 60 years. We are a small, family run business and we are very concerned about the measure being voted on tonight. We feel the unintended consequences of this measure will be families like ours selling their properties, taking them off the rental market. Our costs continue to rise and if we are handcuffed we will be forced to sell to the highest bidder - which often times is an out of towner looking for a second home. Please consider all the consequences of this action and ask for an economic analysis before voting.

Thank you for your time, [NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I urge you not to adopt rent control as an emergency ordinance. Housing affordability is a serious, long - term challenge, not a sudden emergency.

Please follow the normal process allowing full public input and carefully consider the impact on small property owners, renters and future housing.

… 1 more paragraph

Sincerely, [NAME] East

City Clerk, Dear Council members and Mayor, I am writing today to advocate for your constituents who deserve their voices to be heard. The vast majority of us can't attend city meetings during the workday. This is because we're working so we can survive. Your constituents pay most of their income just to have a roof over their head. For this reason it was a positive show of solidarity and consideration that you put rent stabilization on the city agenda on Dec. 16 at 5pm. You were able to hear from many more of your constituents, the people who you represent and need to hear from, than usual, because they were able to attend the meeting and not miss work. Missing work is not a luxury many can afford in this city.

Unfortunately, it appears that you have not scheduled the "rent freeze" agenda item on Tues Jan. 13 for 5pm. This means that it may fall anywhere between 2:30pm and 4:00pm, when the majority of us cannot plan to exercise our democratic right to influence that which impacts us most. This is irresponsible and undemocratic and we ask that you do what you did again on Dec. 16:

Put the "rent freeze" agenda item on for 5pm again on Tuesday, January 13 so that working people can attend and exercise their democratic right to participate in this discussion. It is your duty to advocate for and hear from the people of Santa Barbara, not prevent them from participating in the democratic process.

Thank you for your consideration and for listening to your community members.

… 1 more paragraph

Sincerely, [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93105

City Clerk, The vast majority of us can't attend city meetings during the workday as we need to work to continue to be able to afford to pay our rents and stay here. For this reason, it was great that you put rent stabilization on the city agenda for the Dec. 16 meeting at 5pm. Many more of us than usual were able to attend this meeting and get civically engaged, an opportunity that we usually don't have the option to participate in when these items are scheduled to be discussed in the middle of a workday.

But it appears that you have not agendized the "rent freeze" agenda item on Tues Jan. 13 for 5pm, instead it may fall anywhere between 2:30pm and 4:00pm, so that the majority of us cannot plan to exercise our democratic right to influence that which impacts us most. This is irresponsible and undemocratic and we ask that you do what you did again on Dec. 16:

Put the "rent freeze" agenda item on for 5pm again on Tuesday, January 13 so that working people can attend and exercise our democratic right to participate in this discussion. We should want more citizens getting involved in local politics and you, as our elected officials, need to be prioritizing creating opportunities to listen to your constituents, not putting up even more barriers between yourselves and the people you are supposed to represent. Thank you.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 1407 Bath Street, Unit 5 Santa Barbara, California 93101

City Clerk, Most of your constituents cannot attend city meetings during the workday. I work a 9-5 job every day Monday-Friday and will only be able to attend if I use PTO. One of my colleagues used a week's worth of PTO last year just so she could attend city council meetings! And importantly, many others do not even have the choice to take PTO or unpaid leave during the work day to attend. For this reason, it was great that you put rent stabilization on the city agenda on Dec. 16 at 5 PM. This made the meeting much more accessible for working-class constituents like myself to attend and make our voices heard, since we would otherwise be working.

However, it appears that you have not agendized the "rent freeze" agenda item on Tuesday, January 13th for 5 PM, meaning its relevant discussion may fall anywhere between 2:30 PM and 4:00 PM. This will prevent the majority of us from exercising our democratic right to express our views on a policy which impacts us the most!

This is irresponsible and undemocratic and we ask that you do what you did again on Dec. 16:

Schedule the "rent freeze" agenda item for 5 PM again on Tuesday, January 13 so that working people can attend and exercise their democratic right to participate in this discussion!

[NAME] [EMAIL] 80 Sycamore [NAME] GOLETA, California 93117

… 2 more paragraphs

City Clerk, Please, for the love of God, don't make it this hard for the hard working people of our town to participate in the political process and tell you how nearly impossible it is to rent in this town now. I am a current homeowner, but rented here for decades before that. I work in education.

We will not have functioning schools, medical system, firefighting, or police force at this rate.

Working people need a place to live in this town and WE NEED THEM. Millionaires are not the ones showing up to classrooms every day to teach or working the front office in the doctor's office.

The vast majority of us can't attend city meetings during the workday. This is because we're working so we can pay most of our income to our landlords so we can have housing so we can go to work. For this reason it was great that you put rent stabilization on the city agenda on Dec. 16 at 5pm. Many more of us than usual were able to attend this meeting, since we usually cannot attend these kinds of meetings, because we're at work.

But it appears that you have not agendized the "rent freeze" agenda item on Tues Jan. 13 for 5pm, so that it may fall anywhere between 2:30pm and 4:00pm, so that the majority of us cannot plan to exercise our democratic right to influence that which impacts us most. This is irresponsible and undemocratic and we ask that you do what you did again on Dec. 16:

Put the "rent freeze" agenda item on for 5pm again on Tuesday, January 13 so that working people can attend and exercise their democratic right to participate in this discussion.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 945 Ward Drive SPC 193 SPC 193 Santa Barbara, California 93111-2978

City Clerk, A vast majority of people who live as renters, can't attend city meetings during the workday.

For this reason it was great that you put rent stabilization on the city agenda on Dec. 16 at 5pm; many more renters were able to attend that meeting as a result.

For some reason, this item has been put at some time between 2:30 and 4:00 for the January 13th City Council meeting which limits the voice of renters being heard. This topic is at a critical juncture, so this change feels intentional since the views of Mayor Rowse on this topic are clearly opposed to rent stabilization. This is irresponsible and undemocratic and we ask that you do what you did again on Dec. 16:

Put the "rent freeze" agenda item on for 5pm again on Tuesday, January 13 so that renters can attend and exercise their democratic right to participate in this discussion.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 148 Hemlock Ln Santa Barbara, California 93111

City Clerk, Hello, I'm a renter from the 93105 zip code, and I was so disheartened and frustrated to hear that the upcoming discussion regarding a rent freeze was rescheduled.

The vast majority of people impacted by these discussions can't attend city meetings during the typical workday (9am-5pm). I urge you to shift the discussion back to 5pm so that renters have a higher likelihood of attending.

Please prioritize folks who work 9am-5pm so that they can exercise their democratic right to participate in these discussions!

[NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93105

… 2 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council Members, I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to protect tenants in our community by supporting a strong eviction moratorium and implementing a rent freeze. Rising housing costs and economic instability are putting immense pressure on working families, seniors, and vulnerable residents, pushing many to the brink of displacement.

Housing stability is essential to community health, safety, and equity. I ask that you prioritize people over profit and use the tools available to you to keep residents housed and prevent further harm.

Our community is watching and counting on your leadership. Please act now to protect tenants.

I also want to share that I am deeply disappointed by Mayor Rowse's decision to backpedal on discussing rent-related agenda items after 5:00 p.m. This decision sends a clear message that he does not care about the voices of working community members, and it undermines the Councils stated commitments to equity and inclusion.

I urge you to move the rent-related agenda items and hold discussion and votes after 5:00 p.m., when more residents are able to participate.

Meaningful public engagement requires meeting people where they are— not excluding them through inaccessible meeting times.

Our community deserves transparency, accountability, and genuine opportunities to be heard. I ask you to act accordingly.

[NAME] She/Her/Ella (why pronouns matter?)(a how-to guide) e: [EMAIL]

City Clerk, Please move the rent freeze discussion to a 5pm time slot so that most renters can make the conversation.

Thank you!

… 1 more paragraph

[NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93105

Rent Freeze/ Moratorium Increases is at 500 PM. Then it appears that Mr. Rowse changed the Item to 2:00 PM.

OH NO! This is causing a lot of con...

Date:

Thursday, January 8, 2026 11:18:15 AM

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who is very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

Pass as rent freeze now! Although I believe THE RENT FREEZE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 14TH 2025 -- two months before the proposed date of December 16, 2025

-- I ask you to pass a rent freeze now! Days after your October 14th meeting, my landlord informed me that my rent would increase the maximum amount and that I would be be facing a no-fault eviction from my home of 13 years. My landlord cited the discussion of a rent stabilization ordinance at your October 14 meeting as the reason for the increase and his plans for eviction. I also believe you shoul implement additional requirements for ALL forms of no-fault evictions, for example, requiring landlords to keep units off the the market for 5 years if tenants have been evicted for any no-fault reasons. That said, it is most urgent that you pass a rent freeze as soon as possible, before even more people are forced out of the community.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between October 14, 2025 and when the RSO is implemented, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented. Although so-called "mom and pop" landlords have shown up in force at your meetings to claim rent stabilization will drive them out of business, there remains a lack of transparency in terms of how actual profits have been impacted, but you have heard from local educators, health care workers, and service providers who have told you over and over that they spend 50% or more of their income on housing. If mom and pop landlords are truly in alliance with the local community and want to provide affordable housing, this is when they should be building coalition with renters, as we can agree that corporate ownerships and luxury short term rentals take over more and more units in our city. Rent stabilization is not multually exclusive of other initiatives that could also benefit small landlords who are committed to providing affordable housing. If this is true, why would they oppose efforts to stabilize conditions for the community they claim to serve. My landlord is a "mom and pop"; but one month of my rent covers the cost of property taxes for the entire multi-unit property where I live, which is only minimally maintained. I have been an educator in our community for decades. I have always spent at least half of my salary on rent, and I have a stable job and steady income. But So many more in are community are at risk for homelessness, living in crowded conditions, or in poorly maintained units. And so many are already living in homelessness already. Rent stabilization is but a teeny step in creating more stabilization for our community.

Santa Barbara is at risk of losing many of its community, not only to this, but also the terrorism of ice, increasing costs, and crises in health care. Who will provide education, care, and service to the wealthy 1%, as more and more of regular working folks can no longer afford to live here?

Thank you for your attention to this matter, [NAME] [EMAIL] SANTA BARBARA, California 93105

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident and renter of 13 years, a single mother who works full time as an Operations Director for a non-profit organization, as well as a full time acupuncture Master's student.

I often tell my family members who live across the state, country, and world that every year my son and I get to live in Santa Barbara feels like a miracle. Even as a well-educated working professional, rent in this city is unaffordable, let alone homeownership. Is this the kind of city that this council wants? If you do not take action toward rent stabilization and an eviction moratorium, this is certainly the message you send-- that you want a city exclusively for the extremely wealthy elite.

… 1 more paragraph

If that is the case, I challenge you to have the integrity and backbone to simply state, publicly and directly, that you want Santa Barbara to be exclusively for the wealthy elite. That everyone else can come here to work for and serve the rich, and then go home to their residences far outside of city limits. If that is your vision, then say it plainly.

If that is not the case, then you MUST ACT NOW!! If you want a city that also includes working families, then pass Rent Stabilization and an Eviction Moratorium NOW!

Along with so many residents, I am very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

… 1 more paragraph

With sincerity, [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93103

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who is very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented.

… 4 more paragraphs

As a working, paying member of this community since 1969, I strongly support an eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW. I have had to pay economically burdensome rents here my entire adult life, even as I was spending my earnings here and supporting the local economy.

It has always been disproportionately difficult to deal with the demands of this rental market, but it is now grossly out of control. That needs to change. Working people here deserve better.

By the way, I am now 75 years old. And still working. And still paying into this community. I also vote.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 420 E De La Guerra St, Apt 108 (Presidio Park Apartments) Santa Barbara, California 93101

City Clerk, As a Santa Barbara resident, I am concerned that unless City Council acts, landlords may evict tenants, claiming rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This is a serious threat. City Council should immediately pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and temporarily freeze rents, to protect renters until the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

I am told that [NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20, "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting] . . . they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between now and when the RSO is implemented in 2026, Santa Barbara needs anti-displacement measures in place as well as a retroactive rent freeze.

Sincerely, [NAME] 1124 E de la Guerra Street Emeritus professor of city planning at Cornell University Author of numerous books and scholarly articles on poverty and inequality in US cities [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93103

City Clerk, I am writing to you as Chair of the Santa Barbara County Democratic Party, and as a Santa Barbara renter deeply concerned about housing stability in our community. At the October 14 City Council meeting, several landlords stated that they may pursue evictions in response to the City's consideration of rent stabilization. Whether intended as a negotiating tactic or a sincere position, these statements raise serious concerns about the risk of tenant displacement in the period before a rent stabilization ordinance is fully implemented.

At the City Council Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20, [NAME] rightly noted that the City must prepare for both possibilities: that landlords are bluffing—or that they are not. In either case, the uncertainty itself creates real fear for tenants and underscores the need for clear, proactive policy measures to prevent displacement.

Between now and the anticipated implementation of a rent stabilization ordinance in 2026, tenants remain vulnerable not only to evictions, but also to steep rent increases that can force families out of their homes just as effectively. For that reason, we believe it is essential for the City to adopt interim anti-displacement protections, including a no-fault eviction moratorium and a temporary rent freeze, to ensure stability during this transition period.

I urge the City Council to act promptly to protect renters and maintain housing security while the rent stabilization framework is finalized. Taking these steps now will help prevent unnecessary displacement and demonstrate the City's commitment to fairness, stability, and responsible governance during this critical moment.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 415 1/2 E [NAME] Santa Barbara,

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who opposes rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances beyond what is already in place state-wide.

In Los Angeles my 93 year old mother recently spent $43,000 in legal fees and 6 visits to the courts and a year of lost rent to evict tenants who stopped paying their rent after a modest rent increase. The property is now being kept vacant rather than house people.

… 1 more paragraph

Los Angeles has gone too far and what the state has in place is already too tenant-favorable at the expense of landlords [NAME] [EMAIL] Santa Barbara, California 93105

City Clerk, My name is [NAME] I'm 73 years old. I moved to Santa Barbara in 1989, and I've lived in the same one bedroom the entire time. I had a good job in the semiconductor industry, but it was cut short by multiple sclerosis. My savings are running out. Due to my disease, I won't survive being homeless.

My landlord has made improvements to this apartment building, but those are no longer taking place. Nevertheless, she raises the rent by the maximum allowed by law every year. I won't survive at this rate. Please help me.

[NAME] [EMAIL] 260 W Alamar Ave, Apt 16 Santa Barbara, California 93105

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am sending a Pdf Report for your review and to help with your upcoming efforts in Rent Regulation. This is available online, but I did not want to quote directly from it.

There are 5 pages alone of extensive references for research, as well as charts, graphs and many City case studies and outcomes, as well as a very in-depth history of Rent Regulating.

Most of all, there is a wealth of concluding suggestions with very relevant and useful ideas.

… 11 more paragraphs

If you are familiar with this Report, my apologies for the duplication, Thank you, [NAME] Thanks, David BY [NAME], Ph.D., FAcSS, FAICP Emeritus Professor, University of Arizona Emeritus Presidential Professor, University of Utah LITERATURE REVIEW | JANUARY 2024 Rent Regulation Policy in the United States

AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024

1. Executive Summary

2. Overview

3. Part 1: A Brief History of Rent Control in the United States

4. Part 2: Making Sense of the Rent Regulation Debate

5. Part 3: Rent Control as a Symptom of Deeper Issues

6. Conclusion

7. References

8. Appendix

CONTENTS 2 4 8 10 24 30 35 40 RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Rent regulation regimes, sometimes known as rent control, interfere with the rental housing market—indeed, that is their very purpose. This regulation leads to negative impacts on rental housing, such as declining housing supply and increased cost of rent, especially for those whom the policy intends to serve. Despite a largely conclusive body of research illustrating negative outcomes for renters, rent regulation is increasingly being proposed by politicians to their constituents as a solution to housing affordability challenges when, in fact, it exacerbates the problem.

A previous literature review by Dr. [NAME] in 20181 found several main impacts of rent control:

• Reduces the available supply of rental housing in a community;

• Raises rents in uncontrolled communities within the same larger market area;

• Forces residents into units that do not meet their needs, perhaps depriving other residents of units they need;

• Significant cost of rent control programs to states and localities; and

… 3 more paragraphs

• Deterioration or lack of investment in rent-controlled buildings.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 This work was completed by Dr. Sturtevant with funding from the National Multifamily Housing Council.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 3 2 Adapted loosely from Plato's Laws, available from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1750/1750-h/1750-h.htm.

This paper updates and expands on the earlier work. While central findings are reinforced—notably rent regulation reduces housing supply and has significant fiscal costs that can offset any benefits— additional nuanced insights are gleaned from this new research:

• Rent regulations reduce the value of rent-regulated properties as well as nearby unregulated rental properties, thereby reducing real estate tax revenue to the locality.

… 3 more paragraphs

• The imposition of rent regulations accelerates the loss of rental units from the housing stock.

• In several cases, new construction is exempted from rent regulations for a period of time. Oregon, for instance, exempts new units from state rent regulations for 15 years. Nonetheless, economic theory would hold that long-term rental housing production will be reduced in part because investment portfolios will include future rent regulation in the discounted cash flow valuation for new projects, thus lowering their value at an increasing rate for every year toward removal of the exemption with the overall effect of reducing long-run supply.

• Rent regulation inhibits mobility, thus creating a barrier to entry for new renters seeking housing in rent-controlled communities while inhibiting potential opportunities for existing renters. As there is no means testing, rent regulations do provide some benefit to a very small number of low-income households in regulated units in certain communities, but higher-income households receive the lion's share of the benefit. This makes higher-income renters more likely to remain in the property, keeping those homes unavailable to lower-income households and impeding access to certain communities.

• Some research also indicates that white residents are more likely to occupy rent-regulated units than minority residents, thus white renters receive the majority of the benefit of rent regulation.

These new insights from the literature further reinforce years of prior research from both the United States and other countries demonstrating that rent control, as policy, fails to meet its purported objective of creating a more affordable rental housing market, especially for those of more modest means. Instead, these insights indicate there are more effective, alternative ways in which to service households most in need of affordable rental housing, including expanding supply to meet market needs.

Laws are made by accidents or misfortunes—Plato2 RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Rent control arises from politicians trying to address the concerns of their constituents about rising rents. Few housing policies in America are more controversial than rent control and the agreement among economists to the ineffectiveness of rent regulation is almost unanimous. Despite this, politicians continue to raise the concept as a solution, as it retains much popular appeal. While intended to shelter low- and moderate-income populations from escalating rents beyond their means, virtually all research shows that rent control has significant perverse outcomes (Sturtevant 2018):

While some research, also reviewed below, seems to show that rent control can deliver benefits to some small segments of society who benefit from enhanced housing stability, rent regulation does not deliver such benefits equitably and limits the benefits that housing mobility could have on those households.

… 7 more paragraphs

At the beginning of New York City's rent control era in 1950, [NAME], then a law professor at the University of Toronto, wrote in the Columbia Law Review what may be the fundamental policy rationale for rent control:

"In few if any cases has rent control been adopted because of an abstract idea that state regulation would bring better results than the operation of the laws of economics. Rather, in almost every instance the hand of the legislator has been forced by some calamitous event or situation which has upset the normal state of affairs–war, depression, earthquake, fire, plague, or some other vagary of history which either destroys the balance of supply and demand, thereby creating a housing shortage, or makes it impossible for residents to continue to pay their contractual rents." (Willis 1950: 54.)

OVERVIEW

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 5 3 One exception was the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) eviction moratorium for renters during the COVID-19 pandemic (https://nlihc.org/coronavirus-and-housing- homelessness/national-eviction-moratorium). For details, see https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Overview-of-National-Eviction-Moratorium.pdf. However, once the congressionally approved moratorium ended, the CDC's second eviction moratorium was deemed without authority and was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, 21A23 (Aug. 26, 2021).

4 https://sf.freddiemac.com/working-with-us/affordable-lending/guide-to-home-possible-mortgage?gclsrc=ds&gclsrc=ds.

5 https://www.veteransunited.com/lp/dark/?src=adw&adg=126157240716&cmp=genloan&desc=zerodown-2&matchtype=p&adid=658152387803&targetid=aud- 323696887139:kwd-297158598841&label=&campaignid=1769033697.

Unfortunately, there is no credible assessment of whether these limited benefits outweigh the costs.

Nonetheless, one can infer from the literature that abandoning rent control rapidly could have short- term negative impacts on those small, selected populations. It appears that those can be addressed through government subsidy, such as Section 8 vouchers and the like. One can also infer from the literature that sustaining and certainly expanding rent control reduces housing supply leading to large societal costs and hurts the increasing number of potential renters that cannot access the rental housing market.

By whatever their name and design, rent control, rent stabilization and rent regulation all have as their claimed purpose ensuring housing stability and improved benefits for vulnerable persons, families and households. Vulnerability includes economic, accessibility, social, health and other dimensions. Until recently, the economic dimension has dominated academic literature. As a result, there is little credible data that tie rent control policies to advancing these other societal benefits.

… 2 more paragraphs

It has long been the implicit policy of the federal government and perhaps most states to advance homeownership over renting, and homeowner stability and benefits over that of renters.3 Since the Great Depression, the United States has sought housing stability and increased benefits for homeowners through a wide range of federal policies and programs. Before the housing finance innovations of the Great Depression, homeownership required a large down payment, often half of the purchase price, a short payoff period, usually five years, and a "balloon" payment at the end.

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt reasoned that recovery would be possible through real estate development, starting with meeting the demand for homeownership. In 1934, federal programs were created to stimulate homeownership, such as the creation of the Federal Home Loan bank system and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). These programs enabled qualifying banks to accept just 20% down, with the balance due over 20 years. But since there was little money to lend, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created in 1938 to borrow money from individuals and entities offering interest based on the full faith and credit of the nation (Integrated Financial Engineering, Inc. 2006). Fannie Mae lent money to qualifying banks by buying their mortgage "paper," thereby reinjecting new capital for banks to lend. Although these inventions did little to bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression, they set up the machinery that fueled post- war homeownership (Jackson 1985). The unseemly downside of federal efforts to reduce mortgage risk were such federally encouraged efforts as redlining, exclusionary covenants and restrictions against minority groups (Rothstein 2017). Fast forward nearly a century and not only are 30-year mortgages common but, up until recently, so were down payments as low as 3%4 or even 0%.5 RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT M oreover, the nation's tax and fiscal policies generally prioritize the economic stability of homeowners over renters through such devices as tax deductions for home mortgage interest and property taxes as well as exclusion of the first $250,000 ($500,000 for joint filers) from capital gains taxes (Pastor, Carter and Abood 2018). State property tax laws also give homestead and other breaks to homeowners, which shift the tax burden to renters, as renters pay for the increasing cost of state and local services not through a separate tax bill but through rent.6 There is the concern that federal (and state) homeownership policy bias has renters missing out on comparable benefits and even acts in ways to destabilize them as rents and other costs rise.

The federal government has incentivized homeownership stability through the mortgage interest deduction, and federally backed loans provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Farmers Home Administration and other programs. State and local governments have similarly offered homestead exemptions and other tax breaks as well. In effect, an argument can be made that rent regulation is a local (and increasingly state) effort to level the field in attempting to extend a measure of housing stability benefits to renters. There is a significant difference, however, in that federal, state and local homeownership stabilization efforts are paid for by all taxpayers, rent stabilization costs are borne by exclusively rental housing providers. While the federal Section 8 voucher program and a few state and local programs attempt to provide more housing stability to low-income renters by providing a subsidy, these too are a financial investment by these governments in advancing a government good. Unlike homeowners, however, qualified renters are not entitled to these housing stability benefits because governments have failed to provide sufficient funding. For example, currently only 1 in 4 households nationally that are qualified for the Section 8 housing voucher program are able to access it due to a lack of funding.7 One might infer that if governments made rental housing subsidy to promote renter stability universally available, rent control would lose its appeal.

This paper acknowledges that despite the widely acknowledged failure of rent regulation to deliver on the purported outcomes, this policy approach has continued to be popular among politicians looking for a politically expedient way to respond to constituent concerns about the increasing cost of housing. As a result, a key objective here is to introduce constructive approaches that meet the needs of those households that the policy aims to serve, while expanding overall supply which, in the absence of needed government investment in rental subsidy programs, such as Section 8, will create more renter stability for the target population.

This paper is separated into the following segments: first, a brief history of rent regulation in the United States and explanation of the current forms of rent regulation (Part 1); second, the actual counterproductive impacts of rent regulation policies (Part 2); and finally, a discussion of the actual causes of the problems rent regulations purport to address and other, more effective policy choices (Part 3).

… 21 more paragraphs

6 See https://itep.org/property-tax-homestead-exemptions/. Although landlords can deduct property taxes from gross income, the fact that property taxes are higher for rental property because homestead exemptions shift the incidence means total rental property expenses increase, thereby stressing income unless rents are increased to compensate.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 7

TERMINOLOGY Rent regulation is the umbrella term used to characterize government intervention in the private rental housing market through rent control, rent stabilization, vacancy decontrol and eviction control. The umbrella term applies to rental housing that is privately owned and not subject to federal, state and local development, finance and other agreements that bind units to conditions under which units are built, financed and rented.

Rent control (also known as rent freeze) means absolute caps on rents that limit landlords as to what they can charge for protected rental units. It typically also includes measures that reduce the ability of landlords to evict residents. It was used throughout World War II for more than 80% of the nation's rental housing stock. It was continued after the war by New York City, which applied the policy to units built before 1947. Rent control in its original form remains for only those residents who have resided since 1971 in units built before 1947. For all other units, modern rent control policies allow for periodic increases based on formulas.

Rent stabilization allows for annual rent increases subject to limits usually applied to the prior year's rent. Parameters vary as seen among the New Jersey examples summarized later. This version of rent regulation has been more popular since the early 1970s. It applies to specific units that might otherwise have been subject to strict rent control.

Vacancy decontrol allows rents to be reset toward the prevailing market rate when the resident vacates a unit. These units become subject to rent stabilization rules once they are reoccupied.

Forced vacancy (also known as forced mobility) occurs when a resident is forced to leave a unit in which they would rather stay for several reasons, such as: (1) eviction for cause, which sometimes requires review pursuant to local rent regulation procedures—this can include inability to pay rent that is increased as allowed by local or state law; (2) local officials deem the unit uninhabitable; (3) the building is being converted into condominiums; (4) the building is vacated of all residents even if there are no replacement uses stated; (5) the building is anticipated to be demolished and even if replaced with rental apartments may escape rent regulation because it is a new structure; and (6) other means landlords may pursue.

Adapted from Pastor, Carter, and Abood (2018).

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Research tends to divide rent regulation into three post-war generations. The first was dominated by New York State and headlined by New York City; the second was characterized as rent stabilization over rent control, as it aimed to limit increases to all qualified rental housing units based on formulas. This became popular especially in the supply-constrained markets of Boston, metropolitan Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, among others, where rent control was used to preserve housing options for lower income residents (Arnott 1995). The third generation shifted the emphasis to residents, where rent increases were limited in ways similar to the second generation, but once vacated (rent decontrol), units could be reset to more closely match market conditions (Arnott 2003).8 By the end of the 2010s, the three post-war regimes had evolved to share many of five (5) operational features, all except the second being reviewed by Asquith (2019):

1. Rents are no longer dictated and capped as they were during World War II or in places like New York City during the first generation of rent control (this new version is also known as "vacancy decontrol")." Rental housing providers now could reset rent for the next resident that is close to the market rate at that time. This also enables the rental housing provider to cover the cost increases in state and local taxes, insurance and other "pass-through" costs that are largely beyond the owner's control. This can range from modest increases in New York City and Washington, D.C., to completely overhauled rents in newly vacated units in the states of California, New Jersey and Oregon. In effect, rents are highly regulated while the resident occupies the unit, but new residents' rents can be reset. None of these programs are means tested, thus benefiting wealthy and low-income renters equally.

PART 1: A BRIEF HISTORY OF RENT

CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES 8 A more detailed historical timeline of rent regulation can be found in the Appendix.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 9

2. Rents can increase based on formulas during tenancy. These are done to prevent perceived excessive rent increases that would be enticing if markets tightened to the point where rents would exceed the means of certain residents. Oregon is an interesting statewide case. Its 2019 rent regulation formula allowed for increases on many units to no more than 7% plus the rate of inflation.9 The 2019 law was changed in 2023 providing for increases to be the lesser of 10% or 7% plus the CPI.10 Unfortunately, as of writing this, there has been no scholarly assessment of Oregon's statewide program. A more detailed breakout of all similar laws, sometimes called "anti- gouging" laws, meant to prevent perceived excessive rent increases, can be found in [NAME]

3. Under most state laws, rental housing providers are generally required to renew leases when they expire. Rent regulation regimes also highly restrict evictions, limiting evictions for "just cause."

In practice, this means landlords must make their case to local regulators or special housing tribunals, and the list of allowable offenses is often narrow. This is designed to prevent property owners from using evictions to escape rent regulation.

4. Most modern rent regulation laws do not apply to new buildings. There are usually provisions where new buildings can or even must enter the rent regulation pool in return for such subsidies as tax abatement, grants and other concessions.

5. Rent regulations usually include opportunities for landlords to raise rents to help cover the cost of renovations or unexpected increases in operating costs. These formulas or other mechanisms are not always designed to keep pace with the actual costs of maintaining and operating rental housing, however.

9 In 2023, rents could be raised as high as 14.6%. https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/03/oregon-lawmakers-ponder-stricter-rent-control-laws-after-14-6-increases/ 10 https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB611/Enrolled.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT The venerable economist and Nobel Laureate [NAME], himself a champion of many progressive economic policies, is no fan of rent regulation:

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and—among economists, anyway—one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.''11 This section recounts the theories upon which rent regulation policies are based and the many studies showing the ineffectiveness and indeed the detrimental social consequences of rent regulation. This second part also explores the dimensions of limited resident stability and benefits that rent regulations attempt to provide. It also assesses the extent to which those objectives are met based on literature.

Justifications for Government Regulation of Rental Markets In many ways, the housing market responds to supply and demand just like the markets for other consumer goods. For example, if there's more demand for gasoline (or pizza or beer, for that matter) at the current price than there is supply, shortages will occur. The market will raise the price to the point where the willingness to pay for gas just equals the marginal cost of supplying that additional gas.

… 31 more paragraphs

Price will change daily, if not hourly, depending on supply and demand interactions.

But housing is not gasoline or pizza or beer. It is expensive and complex to supply. While it is consumed/rented in the moment like gasoline, pizza and beer, it is also a durable good that is built to last for decades and eventually be occupied by other residents. On an average annual basis, the United States will build about 1.5 million homes, but this is only about 1% of the nation's housing stock. This type of housing is also generally built for the current generation, not the past or the next. Sometimes it takes so long to build a home that the market has fundamentally changed by the time it's finished. Homes built in expensive areas draw high rents for a generation; but, as the area ages, it may become less favored resulting in lower rents over the next generation, only to be updated in another generation as the area is "rediscovered" by the market, resulting in higher rents.

PART 2: MAKING SENSE OF THE

RENT REGULATION DEBATE 11 https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 11 During the down-cycle, aging housing is "filtered" from higher to lower incomes, but during the up- cycle it becomes re-filtered or "gentrified." This process helps ensure that there is a supply of more affordable housing at various moments in time in different neighborhoods.

Filtering is an important element of a dynamic housing market. Myers and Park (2020), for example, found filtering during the period 2000-2006 added 69,000 low-income occupied units annually as higher income households moved up into newer stock. After 2011, however, the filtering process turned negative because of tighter residential lending after the Great Recession and reductions in federally subsidized housing programs.

Herein lies one of the key troubling elements of rent regulation: it suspends the filtering process of housing, whether intended or not. It does so by applying rent regulation to older rental properties that were built for an earlier generation. Some examples:

New York City

• The nation's oldest rent control program applies to rental stock built before 1947, which now numbers only areound 16,000 homes..12

• New York City's broader rent stabilization program applies to rental units built between 1947 and 1971 that now number about 1 million homes of more than about 2.2 million rental units.13 Los Angeles

• In Los Angeles, the cutoff year is 1978 although some units built to replace those lots from the pre-1978 inventory may also be included. There are now about 624,000 units covered by rent regulation in Los Angeles14 out of nearly 900,000 rental units.15 Oregon

• In Oregon, with one of the nation's newest programs, rent regulation applies to all units in cities with the 15-and-older population numbering more than 10,000, affecting about 500,00016 of the state's roughly 650,000 rental units.17 12 https://www.nytimes.com/article/rent-stabilized-apartments-nyc.html.

13 https://www.nyc.gov/content/tenantprotection/pages/fast-facts-about-housing-in-nyc.

14 https://housing2.lacity.org/residents/what-is-covered-under-the-rso.

15 https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/los-angeles/.

16 https://bungalow.com/articles/oregons-rent-control-law-explained.

17 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT I n jurisdictions where rent regulation applies to units built before a certain date, in theory it should not reduce the production of new units. Indeed, from that perspective, it would be incorrect to assign low housing production and high rents to rent control in such places as New York City and Los Angeles because new stock is exempt. In those places, other factors are at work that constrain new supply, such as planning and development regulations, NIMBYism (Not In [NAME]), infrastructure and terrain limitations, and so forth. But if rent regulation reduces returns to rental housing investors, without compensation from the government that imposed the regulation, they become less able to leverage returns into new rental stock, thus the supply of rental housing is reduced.

Rent Regulation Regimes Reduce Housing Supply and Options for Renters Rent regulation is both operationally restrictive for housing providers in the short-term and disadvantgeous for renters' housing opportunities in the long-term. As will be seen below, housing providers in rent-regulated regimes will slowly but surely remove stock from regulation over time, as they are incented to do so when the cost of operation increases with the age of the building. While some units are converted into for-sale condominiums, others are taken off the market for lack of sufficient revenue to cover the cost of maintenance or renovation. Rent regulation is imposed when supply isn't sufficient to meet the demand in all submarkets. When supply is insufficient to meet demand, rents (and prices) rise. Without removing various barriers to housing production, which add significantly to the cost of financing and constructing new housing, supply will not meet demand and rents will rise. In effect, governments use rent regulation to provide for the housing needs of a class of residents that government itself will not provide for fully. As discussed previously, governments at all levels have failed to provide the financial resources necessary to create opportunities for renters to be given the same housing stability incentives afforded to homeowners. Private property owners, not the government, then become the responsible party for applying this housing policy to their rental units, and then must determine how to still reinvest in the upkeep, pay uncontrollable "pass- though" costs and receive a financial return for their unit (a more detailed account of the economics behind this can be found in the Appendix). In effect, a small group of private citizens becomes financially and operationally responsible for providing a public good.

Indeed, this very outcome was confirmed by Diamond, McQuade and Qian (2019a) in their analysis of San Francisco's rent regulation program (Diamond, McQuade and Qian 2019a: 3393):

In sum, we find that impacted landlords reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15 percent. Further, we find that there was a 25 percent decline in the number of renters living in units protected by rent control, as many buildings were converted to new construction or condos that are exempt from rent control.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 13 Rent regulation can also discourage demand in other ways. In the face of insufficient supply of rent- regulated units and rents for non-regulated units rising because of overall reduced supply relative to demand, some households give up and move elsewhere. If they incur longer commutes to work in the city, there are adverse environmental, financial, social and health outcomes.

Although a certain relatively small number of residents benefit from rent regulation, as will be seen below, the aggregate market incurs efficiency losses that are borne by all.

Units Are Removed from the Rental Stock There is the concern that rent regulation will induce landlords to remove regulated units from the market. For instance, Heskin, Levine and Garrett (2000) investigated changes in the number of rental units based on resident demographics in four California cities that adopted rent regulations that included vacancy controls between 1980 and 1990. They included six controls called "border areas" within the four cities that did not have vacancy control. Rent regulations and vacancy controls incentivized conversions to owner properties resulting in an overall reduction of 7% in rental units over the study period.

Echoing findings on the opposite coast is Sims' (2007, 2011) study of Boston, Cambridge and Brookline, Massachusetts. These studies compared rental and ownership data during and after the state's elimination of rent regulation in 1995. Sims found that after rent regulations were removed, housing units in formerly rent-regulated areas were 7% more likely to become rental units than units in uncontrolled areas, thereby increasing rental housing choices.

During times of rapid rent increases, housing providers may be tempted to raise rents to a point that would displace certain residents and replace them with new ones at higher rents as allowed in most rent regulation programs. The research has shown that housing providers may also be tempted to remove their units from the supply by converting them into for-sale property, usually condominiums.

In a study of San Francisco during a time of strong rental and owner market demand, 2004-2013, Asquith (2019) found there was some evidence that property owners converted some units to homeownership through condominium conversions, even though the city limited these conversions through an onerous lottery process. Based on this research, one can infer that the cost and risk of continuing to operate a rent-controlled property in San Francisco outweighed the cost and risk of going through this difficult conversion process for many property owners.

Across the San Francisco Bay, Berkeley voters adopted rent regulation in 1980. Its ordinance covered all the roughly 46,000 rental units. In response, the city lost more than 1,000 rental units through condominium conversions between 1980 and 1990 (Barton 1998), despite increasing demand for rental housing and a growing student population.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT G affney (2021) assesses the rental housing supply effects of East Palo Alto's—a lower-income and racially diverse area—rent control policy adopted in 2010. Using Census data for the years 2010-2019, Gaffney found that while rent control had no statistically significant effect on the availability of rental units, rents continued to climb, as it did little to offset increases in median rents compared to a control city (Fairfield) or California as a whole. One interpretation is that while housing demand increased in the East Palo Alto market area, rent control policies may have inhibited private sector willingness for risk investment in a low-income market where the politicians have shown their willingness to adopt policies, like rent control, that inhibit housing supply expansion.

Diamond, McQuade and Qian (2019a) studied rent regulation in San Francisco from 1994—when the 1979 rent control ordinance was expanded to include formerly exempt, smaller complexes—to 2012.

They found that regulation benefited mostly the relatively small number of older residents and long- term residents because they were incentivized to remain in their units regardless of their income. Those affected adversely are newcomers who are mostly minority, working households. Their entry into the local market became even more restricted because of rent regulations. Other key findings include:

• Rent regulations decreased renter moves, especially for minorities who were a small group of renters impacted, with reduced mobility of 20%;

… 20 more paragraphs

• Rent-regulated buildings were 8% more likely to convert to a condo than buildings in the control group, further reducing the supply of rental housing;

• Rent-regulation led to a 15% reduction in the number of renters living in regulated buildings and a 25% reduction of residents overall in rent-regulated units compared to 1994 levels; and

• Reductions in rental housing supply were due, in part, to owner-occupied condominium conversions through an onerous city-run process or demolitions of rental buildings, which owners found more economically viable than recapitalizing and preserving the property as rental housing.

.

It is worth noting that California law allows rental housing providers to relocate all the residents of their building at any time if they plan to convert the rental units into condominiums, renovate the entire structure or demolish the building to build new rental units that would then be exempt from rent regulation. It is for these and other reasons that Diamond, McQuade and Qian (2019b) conclude, starkly, that "the expansion of rent control in San Francisco led to a long-run decrease in the supply of rental housing" (Diamond, McQuade and Qian 2019b: 380).

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 15 Rent regulation formalizes two housing markets where only one existed before. Before rent regulation, the rental housing market performs as most competitive markets do, with units being rented to a price that the market commands.18 If demand exceeds supply, rents go up, but so does net revenue, which becomes a signal to the market that more units are needed. That need will be met based on supply/demand features of market niches or segments. Rents vary by unit type, size, location and quality, with lower rents often indicative of older, smaller, less maintained units in less desirable locations while units with higher rents are often newer (or refurbished/renovated), larger, maintained better and in quality locations. That is the nature of housing markets and corollaries can be made to the prices of food, gas and other commodities. Unserved or underserved market segments cope by finding alternatives farther away, doubling up and so forth.19 While this is the problem rent regulation purports to address, rent regulation actually restructures, even bifurcates, the housing market in several ways:

• The long-run supply of units in the rent regulation regime dwindles. It is often a fixed supply to begin with, usually comprised of units built before a certain year, such as New York City or all units of a certain age or older, such as Oregon. The fixed supply of housing units will fall over time because of age, obsolescence, destruction, repurposing or replacement, among others, which makes it even more difficult to maintain an adequate supply of housing especially in areas where the population is growing. Among those "other" reasons can be the practice of landlords in some situations to compensate their residents for leaving (which would allow the housing provider to rent the unit at the prevailing market rate and allow renters to benefit financially from the transaction) (D.C. Policy Center 2020).

• Where local regulations allow (and most do), existing units subject to rent regulation can be removed and converted into condominiums or co-ops for homeownership. While this removes the cash flow advantage of rent income to housing providers, it allows some owners to cash out and reinvest their return elsewhere, or even in the same community, through the construction of new rental units that are exempt from rent regulation.

• The overall supply for non-rent regulated residents falls immediately with rent regulation as it impacts the valuation of the property. While this does not affect residents seeking rent regulation, market-rate residents may be dissuaded because of perceived disinvestment and reduced quality over time. Related to this is the prospect that residents in regulated units will remain longer than they would have otherwise, thereby distorting normal market cycling and limiting mobility.

• Higher income residents will continue to be served through existing stock or new stock that is likely out of the reach of residents who cannot (or will not) move into rent-regulated units and cannot afford new stock.

18 This need not be the highest rent. For instance, in choosing between a resident who appears "low maintenance" in terms of wear and tear on the unit and one who is "high maintenance," the low maintenance resident may be selected even if that resident seeks concessions resulting in somewhat lower total rent.

19 The mostly spurious assertion that rent regulation causes homelessness is addressed below.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT T he long-run outcome is that a group of residents in the middle, between the higher-end market and the rent-regulated markets, are squeezed out of the market. As will be seen below, it is possible that a disproportionate share of this "middle market" are minorities, working households and lower-income residents.

Housing Stability Is Achieved for a Small Number of Rent Regulation Recipients at the Expense of Mobility and an Often Larger Number of Residents Who Cannot Yet Access the Rental Housing Market The rent regulation literature shows that rent regulation improves housing stability for a limited number of residents in certain communities, which is a key objective. However, it comes at the expense of potentially greater economic opportunity for this group that housing mobility would provide and a usually much larger number who cannot access the rental housing market due to increased costs and lack of supply brought about by rent regulation.

Ault, Jackson and Saba (1994) use 1968 rent control data from New York City to ask whether that policy reduced mobility inefficiently even if it did advance stability. The study is notable since its data precedes the changes in 1971 referenced earlier and thus addresses rent control in about as pure a form as possible in the U.S. They found that while housing stability was achieved for this group, the cost was loss of mobility to a far greater extent than would be expected without rent control. The inference is that rent control removes the ability of residents to move to other locations to improve their well-being if it means losing the rent control benefit. This is similar to results reported by Gyourko and Linneman (1989).

In the rental market, long-term residents usually enjoy a discount in paying lower rent than the prevailing market. Rental housing providers of rent-stabilized properties can avoid the costs of renovations for the next resident and sustain cash flow. These savings are passed on to residents, thereby inducing them to stay put even if they sacrifice mobility, and subsequently well-being, for stability. This phenomenon was studied by Clark and Heskin (1982) in the context of a 2-year rent freeze imposed by Los Angeles on certain rent-controlled units and limits on rent increases for rent-stabilized units during the late 1970s. Two key findings relevant to this paper are offered. First, as expected, they found a sizable rent discount for market-rate residents who stay in their unit for several years. For rent-regulated residents, this discount is about 30% over 3 years. Because rents will escalate toward the market if rent-regulated residents move to another qualifying unit, residents lose mobility. This leads to a distributional outcome regarding the effect of rent regulation on the ability of lower income households to move to locales where there might be greater economic opportunity and they may be better served. Increased renter stability for some also means reduced turnover, so units are not as available for those who are seeking access to rental housing.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 17 The loss of mobility as a tradeoff for stability is found in international studies. For instance, a study by Oust (2018a, 2018b) investigated the relationship between rent control and mobility in Norway.

Oust used removal of the Norwegian rent control program in 1982 as a natural experiment to assess whether rent control influenced mobility of rent-controlled households in Oslo. It appears that Norway had a rent regulation regime much like what is found in the U.S. The study indicated that it is more costly for a potential resident to find a rent-controlled home during the rent control regime than it is to find a decontrolled rental home afterward. The author concluded that rent control decreases the chances of finding a home in the preferred location and with desired features for residents who decide to move. In another European study, Munch and Svarer (2002) found that rent control adds an average of six years to the change in residential units among rent-controlled residents, relative to non-controlled ones, comparing the most regulated 10% of the population to the 10% least regulated. As a result, rent regulation both limits the ability of current renters to take advantage of new economic opportunities and makes it more difficult for those seeking rental housing to do the same.

Distribution by Income and Racial/Ethnic Group May Not Be Equitable One of the purported policy purposes of rent regulation is to help create a more even playing field between wealthier households and lower-income residents. Research shows clearly that this does not happen under rent regulation. One reason is that rent regulation is not based on income tests. Unlike public housing, Section 8 rental vouchers, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and the like, rent-regulated units are not required to be rented based on income. Inasmuch as white households, on average, earn more than minority households, they are the ones who often benefit most from rent regulation regimes.

For instance, Glaeser's (2002) study of New York City and New Jersey found that rent regulation allowed some poorer as well as older residents to live in Manhattan while rent regulation in economically lagging cities of New Jersey increased the isolation of the poor. These findings indicate that a more economically effective and equitable solution would be to use housing vouchers to support the actual cost of rent for lower-income renters or supply-side incentives that would lower the overall cost of housing. Unfortunately, all levels of government have historically failed to make the financial investments needed to make these programs available universally to qualified renters, but instead, some politicians have suggested that the cost be borne by private property owners through rent regulation.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT C hen, Jiang and Quintero (2023) simulated what might have been the outcome without rent regulation. In their study of New York City over the period 2002-2017, Chen, Jiang and Quintero estimated hypothetical rents and predicted the quality-adjusted rent discount for rent-regulated units. They found that rent regulation confers a discount to residents of about 34% with the aggregate savings to residents being about $4.0 to $5.4 billion per year across the city. This is equivalent to about 10-14% of the federal budget allocated to means-tested housing programs in New York City. Second, they found that discounts:

… 6 more paragraphs

• Increase linearly with housing years of tenure, not true market costs;

• Are not progressively distributed with respect to income;

• Are larger in the Manhattan borough and increase gentrification in neighborhoods; and

• Are three times larger for households that are aware of the discount.

They further found that rent regulation benefits white residents disproportionately. Indeed, not only are white households more likely to occupy rent-regulated units, but they also realize higher discounts. In contrast, on average, Black, Hispanic and Asian American/Pacific Island residents receive, respectively, $150, $135 and $43 lower monthly rent discounts (in 2022 dollars) than whites, all else equal.

Earlier studies have shown that older households are the primary beneficiaries of rent regulations (Clark and Heskin 1982; Glaeser 2003; Gyourko and Linneman 1989) regardless of their income. The incentive for older residents to remain may mean that they forego the opportunity to live in a unit that is more suitable to their needs and supports their ability to effectively age in place. It also means that families that could better utilize the size and amenities the unit has to offer do not have access.

Rent regulation is often found in jurisdictions that are dominated by lower income households (Ambrosius et al., 2015; Gilderbloom and Ye 2007; Glaeser 2003; Gyourko and Linneman 1989). For instance, Ambrosius et al., (2015) found that New Jersey cities with rent regulation had about 25% lower median incomes and 70% more Black residents than control cities. Rent regulation was not found to increase housing supply commensurate with demand.

On the other hand, a perverse outcome to rent regulation was found in New York City. Gyourko and Linneman (1989) showed that based on benefit-to-income ratios, rent regulation benefits tended to accrue more to white households than others. Another study of New York City found that "rent control is not targeting the people who are likely to gain the most from integration" (Glaeser 2003:199).

Moreover, given that other research indicates that rent regulation often deters investments in new multifamily housing, it could be inferred that lower-income communities with rent regulation are foregoing opportunities for more new housing investment and the economic benefits that go with it.

… 1 more paragraph

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 19 A key concern is the effect of rent regulation on other housing in the local market. Pastor, Carter and Abood (2018) reviewed studies showing how rent regulations were sometimes associated with increasing rents elsewhere, and sometimes not. Aside from the San Francisco studies, their review of research concluded that non-regulated rents stayed about the same or were even lower than regulated units in the same neighborhood. They reasoned that areas impacted by rent regulation were already older, in need of upgrading and had already been sorted by the market as lower rent options.

Some policymakers continue to push for the expansion of rent control with the argument that rent regulation is an important policy tool in the absence of meaningful expansion of the rental housing supply. The fact remains that virtually all academic studies find flaws with rent regulation. On the other hand, regulating rents through various subsidized housing programs has been found to have positive outcomes. Favilukis, Mabille and [NAME] (2021) found in one recent study that these government-funded rental housing initiatives reduce housing inequality, but the findings of this study do not necessarily imply rent regulation policies that require property owners to bear the entire cost and upend rental market dynamics to achieve the same results. Their simulated study evaluated the effects of rent regulation, zoning, housing vouchers and tax credits for developers, and found that adding an income requirement and subsidy to rent stabilization reduces inequality and improves stability for households that face loss of income. However, these findings do not necessarily translate to rent regulation policies given that rent regulation does not include government subsidy or other incentives.

Rent Regulation Misallocates Housing Resources Rent-regulation can also lead to misallocation of housing resources. This occurs when residents in rent regulated units do not move so as to benefit from ever-increasing discounts from market rents accrued the longer they stay in the unit. The result is housing misallocation (Ault, Jackson and Saba 1994; Bulow and [NAME]; Glaeser and Luttmer 2003; Hardman and Ioannides 1999; Sims

2011). Rent regulation thus induces residents to remain in place rather than move to units that meet their needs better. While this may be a rational decision on the part of the renter, in the short term, given the perverse incentives created by rent regulation, it could have negative consequences down the road (Dreier 2017).

Of course, much the same can be said for homeownership. Many millions of homes have fewer people living in them now than when children were being raised in them. The owners do not want to leave because that incurs search (the process of finding a new home), transaction (selling/ buying) and transition (moving) costs, not to mention severing their social networks. More recently, the desire on the part of homeowners to preserve historically low interest rates on long-term home mortgages has dramatically limited the supply, driven up costs and put even more pressure on the rental market. Research has shown that such other market factors continue to result in increases to the cost of rental housing even in rent-regulated communities, further distorting the housing market and misallocating housing resources.

… 16 more paragraphs

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Rent Regulation Is Costly to Local Revenues Policymakers often do not consider the effect of policies on those who are not targeted for benefits (or punishment)—the proverbial unintended consequences. Economic incidence analysis tries to determine who receives benefits and who incurs the costs from a change. Diamond (2018) recounts a study of Cambridge, Mass., reviewed here, that does this.

Between 1970 and through 1994, all rental units in Cambridge were subject to rent regulation.

In November 1994, Massachusetts voters outlawed rent regulation by a narrow 51-49% margin, although Cambridge voters were 60% against. Nonetheless, from 1995 forward, rent regulation was outlawed in the state. Before it was outlawed, however, some residents enjoyed up to a 40% discount on their rent relative to the market. Moreover, Autor, Palmer and Pathak (2014) estimated that during the rent control era, rent-regulated properties were valued at a discount of about 45 to 50 percent relative to comparable properties in the same neighborhood that were not regulated. The sudden removal of rent regulation created a "natural experiment" to investigate how such a sudden change in policy affected residents, landlords, investors and the local housing market broadly. In conducting the natural experiment, Autor, Palmer and Pathak found that:

• Newly decontrolled market values rose by 45%, which, in turn, increased the tax revenue for the jurisdiction and is used to make community-wide investments;

• Removing rent regulation boosted neighboring property values as well; and

• Residential properties at the 75th percentile of rent regulation exposure (meaning the share of properties subject to rent regulation) gained about 13% more in value than properties at the 25th percentile of exposure.

The researchers reasoned that the effect of rent regulation was to reduce entire neighborhoods' investment desirability. They concluded (Autor, Palmer, and Pathak 2014:703):

The contribution of decontrol to the capitalized value of the Cambridge residential housing stock in this period corresponds to a total of $1.8 billion.

About $300 million of this gain was attributable to the direct decontrol of rent-regulated properties.

It is a measure of the direct benefit enjoyed by rent-regulated residents. One interpretation is that while the few rent-regulated residents enjoyed a $300 million benefit through below-market rents, the rest of Cambridge incurred a $1.7 billion cost.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 21 Diamond, McQuade and Qian's (2019a) analysis of San Francisco rent regulation led them to conclude that such policies led to a long-term reduction of the very supply of rental units for whom rent regulation is intended. But how is the reduction distributed and, ultimately, who pays the price?

Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2019b) show that there was a greater reduction in housing supply among larger landlords managing multifamily communities. These are the very rental housing providers that had the most capacity to build more needed rental housing but were disincentivized to do so due to rent regulation. In contrast, individual landlords were more likely to hold onto their inventory. In effect, San Francisco's policies had little effect on "mom and pop" operations perhaps because their alternative opportunities were much more limited. (See also Pastor, Carter, and Abood

2018.) It can be assumed that larger housing providers who had more choices as to where to invest their resources chose to build in other jurisdictions.

Ahern and Giacoletti (2022), in their study of rent control adopted by St. Paul, Minnesota, in 2021, found that rent control reduced property values by 6-7%, or $1.6 billion, across the city resulting in lost tax revenue to the city. They then show that higher income residents gained the most from rent regulation, and they were more likely to be white. Residents who lost the most tended to be minorities. Ahern and Giacoletti conclude that where rent control may have intended to transfer wealth from higher- to lower-income households, the reverse occurred.

Economic Mobility for Residents Is Harmed by Rent Regulation While one would expect that a key reason for rent regulation is to broaden job opportunities for residents, especially in job-rich areas where housing may be the least affordable, Jiang, Quintero, and Yang (2023) found otherwise. Using data from 2002 through 2017, they found that rent regulation was associated with a five-percentage point increase in residents' unemployment status. They reason that while rent regulation can discourage job-search efforts because the pressure for working is reduced somewhat, rent regulation provides a buffer that creates the opportunity for longer searches for current residents. They surmise this occurs especially in the finance, insurance, and real estate industries where unemployment rates are often lower than average. Moreover, rent regulation in expensive cities incentivizes workers to remain in the city between jobs, even if there are better opportunities for them in other locations.

However, Chen, Jiang, and Quintero (2023) again show that rent regulation with their associated rent discounts favors white and somewhat higher-income groups disproportionately. One reason may be that they have the means to be more aware of rent-regulation opportunities. They argue that rent regulation may "deter those who would benefit from a buffer for a job search from accessing the benefit" (Chen, Jiang, and Quintero 2023: 22).

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT International Perspectives Show Similar Negative Impacts of Rent Regulation While this paper focuses on United States policy, important comparative international research has emerged in recent years that sheds new light on the relationship between rent regulation and rental housing production in other economies.

The first global perspective is offered by Kholodilin and Kohl (2020), who present analysis of long-run data on rent regulation and housing construction for 16 developed countries over the period 1910-2020 and 44 developing countries from 1980 to 2017. Their findings generally confirm economists' views that rent control suppresses new rental housing production, which ultimately most hurts renters seeking affordable housing options. These negative outcomes can be offset somewhat through exemptions for new construction and increased government provision of housing directly or through incentives. Nonetheless, even these offsetting efforts appear to dampen new rental residential construction overall.

[NAME] and Kohl's international analysis is another comparative international work reported by Weber and Lee (2020). Using data for 18 developed countries from 1973 to 2014, they find that stringent rent control regimes may lead to lower real rent growth rates than market rate regimes. However, resident "soft rent-control regimes" may cause rents to move higher than the market. In the absence of rent control or soft control, market rents have not risen higher than would be expected. They conclude that rent control and to a lesser extent soft control regimes reduce the supply of rental housing. Their solution would be to incentivize more rental housing with public incentives to create increased housing supply.

Kholodilin and Kohl (2023) also show that rent regulation and housing-rationing measures, especially since the global financial crisis of 2008-09, led to increasing owner housing and decreasing private rental housing. They surmised that the combination of generous homeowner subsidies and policies that stifle rental housing production through rent regulation crowd out additional capital investment in the creation of more needed rental units (see also Kholodilin, Kohl, Korzhenevych, and Pfeiffer (2021)).

… 4 more paragraphs

Rent Regulation Negatively Impacts Neighborhood Quality The neighborhood life cycle is not only one of aging and filtering of housing stock but can include changes in levels of amenities and public safety. In turn, aging, filtering, amenities, and safety affect prices in the housing market. If rent regulation suspends the filtering process, then controlling for other factors, to what extent does it also affect neighborhood amenities and public safety?

Autor, Palmer, and Pathak (2019) address this question in the context of Cambridge, MA, where Massachusetts voters repealed rent-regulation laws in 1995. The authors show how ending rent regulation increased demand for locating in Cambridge—resulting in higher rents and home prices, and fewer crimes. Indeed, reduced criminal activity accounted for about 10% of the capitalized value of rent regulation removal (see also Autor, Palmer, and Pathak "2014," "2017").

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 23 The bottom line is that rent regulation reduces the ability of the local housing market to produce new, affordable or moderately priced housing. Overall, research shows that while rent regulation indeed keeps rents from rising too quickly for a small number of covered residents, the tradeoff is reduced quantity and quality of the regulated stock over time. Some property owners who cannot afford to maintain older properties on limited income and thus decide to convert their rental buildings into condominiums, decide to spend less on maintenance or renovations, or even take units off the market that require higher maintenance costs than justified by the rent revenue (Mitchell and Schmidt 2015).

Rent Regulation Does Not Further Eviction Prevention, Well-Being and Educational Attainment There is a large body of literature on the adverse effects of housing instability on residents across several dimensions, including education and health. One perceived rationale for rent regulation is to reduce housing instability. This runs in contrast to other research, however, that shows that rent- regulated residents are 2.4 times more likely to face eviction proceedings than non rent-regulated residents (Gardner 2022; see also Geddes and Holz 2023). Asquith's (2019) analysis of eviction records found no statistically significant evidence that evictions or attempted evictions increased for rent-regulated units in San Francisco when there was an increase in demand. Together, this evidence suggests that rent regulation is not an eviction prevention tool and, in turn, does not support educational attainment or increased well-being, but instead, either makes eviction more likely or has no statistical impact.

Rent Regulation Is Not the Answer to Our Housing Challenge Rent regulation is not favored in the literature, especially among economists. Regardless of the research and the data, politicians seeking to gain favor with potential voters continue to offer this failed policy to voters without disclosing the negative consequences.

The idea that rent regulation is not an effective option is suggested bluntly by Pastor, Carter, and Abood (2018). Whereas various safety net policies related to Social Security and Medicare are available to everyone based on means testing—which leads to efficient resource allocation—this is not the case with rent regulation since (a) it applies to all qualifying residential property and (b) residents are not means-tested to gain access to subsidized rents. Those subsidies are also borne not by the larger pool of taxpayers to further the government's goals but by the much smaller pool of private housing providers. This, in turn, disincentivizes this group from making more investments in needed new housing units. It would be far more effective to supplement wages for lower-income households (such as through a guaranteed minimum income program) to improve their ability to compete for housing.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Part 3 advances the theme that the imposition of rent regulation is a symptom of deeper issues in America's willingness to confront the need to make the financial investments needed to create a stock of safe and decent housing for its citizens. This part begins with a review of the rental housing challenge. It continues with an outline of the barriers to the production of rental housing, especially apartments, and a discussion of how these barriers are not addressed, and often impaired, by rent regulation.

The Rental Housing Challenge by the Numbers Several recent studies report that the U.S. needs as many as 7.3 million homes to meet its housing needs now and even more in the near future.

Both Freddie Mac,20 a government-sponsored enterprise, and Up for Growth,21 a D.C.-based think tank, separately estimate that the nation is short of about 3.8 million housing units to meet current demand (using two different methodologies). But these are only those units that are missing to meet demand.

… 8 more paragraphs

A report issued in 2022 by NMHC and NAA (Hoyt Advisory Services and Eigen10 Advisors, LLC

2022) estimated that the nation needs to add 3.7 million new apartments22 by 2035. However, these projections assumed a homeownership rate that spiked during the low-mortgage interest years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher interest rates will reduce home ownership and thus increase demand to 4.8 million new units in properties with 5+ units by 2035.

Considering pent-up demand for both owner and renter housing, this author prepared a study showing that the nation was missing about 5.8 million homes when accounting fully for "missing households" (Nelson 2023).23 At the high end is a 2023 study by [NAME], (for the National Low Income Housing Coalition) reporting that the nation is short of up to 7.3 million homes that are affordable and available. This shortfall suggests that roughly 15 million Americans could gain improvement in financial security, PART 3: RENT CONTROL AS A

SYMPTOM OF DEEPER ISSUES 20 https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20210507-housing-supply.

21 https://upforgrowth.org/apply-the-vision/housing-underproduction/.

22 Defined as units within structures of 5 or more units.

23 These are households that have not formed because of persons living with their parents or doubling up. The Pew Research Center, for instance, shows that whereas 29% of persons between the ages of 18 and 29 lived at home in 1960, that figure rose to 52% early in the COVID-19 pandemic. See https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 25 health, educational opportunities, and economic mobility if these homes were available to them.

It uses data from the 2021 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample to analyze affordable housing needs across the U.S. as well as for states. Key findings include:

• There are only about 7 million affordable units for 11 million households with extremely low incomes. Of those 7 million affordable units, more than 3 million are occupied by households with higher incomes.

… 38 more paragraphs

• The shortage of 7.3 million affordable and available rental homes is up 8 percent from 6.8 million in 2019.

• Among renters with extremely low incomes, about 2.6 million live in homes affordable to households with very low incomes, 3.5 million live in homes affordable to households with low incomes, and 1.3 million live in homes affordable to households with middle and higher incomes.

• Renter households with extremely low incomes spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing.

• The shortage of affordable rental units disproportionately affects Black, Hispanic and Indigenous households. While about 6% of white households have extremely low incomes, for Black households that share is 19%, for American Indian or [NAME] renter households it is 17%, and for Hispanic households it is 14%.

• In all 50 of the largest metropolitan areas, more than 60 percent of renters with extremely low incomes are severely cost-burdened.

The demand research conducted for NMHC and NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services and Eigen10 Advisors, LLC (2022) found that the nation lost 4.7 million affordable housing units between 2015 and 2020.

In the face of rental housing shortages that could steepen if not addressed quickly with more supply, rent regulation has the perverse effect of reducing rental housing production for reasons discussed earlier. In addition, there are other factors at work that point toward the underlying causes for the existing housing shortage and can provide indications of solutions that could actually be successful.

Land Use, Regulatory Cost, and Property Tax Barriers Impede the Development of More Rental Housing While there are many reasons for the observed underproduction of rental housing relative to demand, three are highlighted here: land use, regulatory cost, and local tax barriers. Approaches to addressing these barriers are also presented.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Land Use Barriers There are numerous land use barriers impeding the production of rental housing, including:

• Insufficient supply of land zoned for apartments based on local market needs both in terms of location and at sufficient density to meet market needs ([NAME], 2017);

• Unreasonable yard, bulk, and height barriers that reduce the financial feasibility of apartments (Knaap et al., 2007); and

• Unreasonable conditions of development approval that reduce or eliminate financial feasibility of apartments, perhaps intentionally.24 Regulatory Cost A joint study by the National Association of Home Builders and National Multifamily Housing Council (Emrath and [NAME]) estimated that regulations of various forms added an average of 40.6% to the total development cost of apartments (see Figure 1). When multifamily development costs rise, the results are higher rents that reduce rental housing affordability (Emrath and [NAME]), and fewer units.

While most regulations are well-meaning, such as impact fees to mitigate the impact of new development on public facilities, their effect on housing production is often not considered ([NAME], 2009). Impact fees are calculated based on the proportionate share impact of new development on facilities ([NAME], 2023). For instance, if new single-family residential homes generate an average of 0.50 public school students at a cost of $10,000 per new "student station," the impact fee is $10,000 per new home. However, Nelson et al., (2023) have documented where local governments charge all residential units the same impact fee regardless of the variation in impact between different types and sizes of residential units. Thus, in the example above, studio apartments that average fewer than one person per unit after accounting for vacancy rates, and no students, are charged full school (and other) impact fees. Indeed, Nelson, Nicholas and Merriam (2022) have documented that the imposition of these one-size-fits-all impact fees are associated with significant reductions in apartment units permitted. Yet the elected officials of these same jurisdictions decry the lack of affordable housing in their communities.

24 The author was an expert in a case where local zoning allowed apartments as a conditional use in higher-density single-family residential zones. The city approved the project subject to the installation of an inverted razor wire fence around the perimeter with a 24-7 manned gatehouse. As litigation was too costly to pursue, the developer withdrew plans and built single-family detached homes instead.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 27 FIGURE 1 Average Cost of Regulation as a Percent of Total Multifamily Development Cost Source: Emrath and Walter (2022).

Cost of applying for zoning approval, 3.2% Costs when site work begins (fees required, studies, etc.), 8.5% Changes to building codes over the past 10 years, 11.1% Development requirements (layouts, mats, etc.)

beyond the ordinary, 5.4% Cost of land dedicated to the govt. or left unbuilt, 2.4% Fees charged when building construction is authorized, 4.4% Total:

40.6% Costs of affordability mandates (e.g., IZ), 2.7% Complying with OSHA/other labor regulations, 2.6% RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Property Tax Barriers Property taxes are the largest operating expense in operating a rental property and are largely not controlled by the property owner.25 They are also the largest source of revenue available to local government.26 In theory, they are progressive in the sense that as one's wealth increases so does one's ownership of real property subject to property taxes in increasing proportion to wealth. In practice, they are regressive, for two key reasons:27

• First, in most states, homeowners often receive a "homestead" exemption, which reduces the assessed value by which property taxes are assessed. With few exceptions, this is not extended to residential rental property.28

• Second, in some states, residential rental property is assessed at "commercial" tax rates, which are higher than owner-occupied tax rates, then passed along to the renter as part of their monthly rent payment.

On a national average basis, residential rental properties pay about 23% more in property taxes based on market value than owner-occupied houses (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 2018).29 In effect, on a national basis, the property tax is regressive, meaning that lower income rental households pay a higher share of their income for income taxes than higher income owner households. This is illustrated in Figure 2. As a result, renters also pay a higher rate for real estate taxes than homeowners through their rental payment given that they are passed along by rental housing providers and given the higher rate paid by commercial properties.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, provides just one example of how this taxation inequity hurts renters and increases the cost of rent. Recall that in 1994, voters in Massachusetts eliminated rent regulation, which had the effect of raising residential property values (see Autor, Palmer, and Pathak 2014). In Cambridge, the homestead exemption in fiscal year 2022 was $470,823, meaning that property taxes are assessed at only the increment above that amount.30 In contrast, all apartment units are assessed full property tax rates, which amount to about 0.6% of market value. Thus, an apartment valued at $200,000 pays about $1,600 in property taxes, whereas an owner-occupied dwelling worth 2.5 times that pays nothing. Moreover, the revenue lost from the homestead exemption is shifted to all other property, including rental housing.

25 As distinguished from debt service, cash throw off, and other finance arrangements.

26 See data tables provided at https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2021/econ/local/public-use-datasets.html.

27 See https://itep.org/whopays/.

28 See list of homestead exemptions for states and territories at https://www.assetprotectionplanners.com/planning/homestead-exemptions-by-state/.

29 According to this study, the national average owner-occupied residential property tax rate for a home with an estimated market value of $600,000 was 1.495% in 2017 while the national average property tax rate for an apartment unit with an estimated market value of $200,000 was 1.834%.

30According to the Cambridge assessor Web site, scores of homes quality for zero property taxes.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 29 This leads to an interesting question: If rental apartments were given the same reduction in assessed value for property tax purposes or tax abatement in Cambridge, how many more apartments might become more affordable? More importantly, how many more units would be built—assuming land use, building code and other factors were not barriers? Rents would logically decrease or stabilize, there would be more housing options for renters to choose from and the purported purpose for rent regulation eliminated.

FIGURE 2 U.S. States' Average Property Tax Regressivity Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (2018), data files.

Low 20%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0% Property Taxes as Share of Income

1.0%

0.0% 2nd 20% 3rd 20% Mid 20% Next 15% Next 4% Top 1% RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT While rent regulation has been debated in this country and around the world for many decades, almost universally, the research shows that the real issue is that there is more demand than supply. This is especially true given our country's history of not providing sufficient financial investments and incentives to generate the construction of more needed rental homes, especially multifamily housing units.

Summary Observations At its heart, rent regulation interferes with the market. The literature reviewed in this report points to multiple negative outcomes:

Rent Benefits Are Not Equitably Distributed Under Rent Regulation The weight of the literature suggests that rent regulation does not benefit those of more modest means who may need the support. While a small number of rent-regulated residents enjoy substantial discounts from market-rate rents the longer they stay in the same place, the benefits are not evenly distributed or targeted. Long term, rent regulation does not reduce the cost of renting non-regulated units.

… 6 more paragraphs

Rent Regulation Significantly Reduces Property Value and, In Turn, Tax Revenue to Local Communities Based on the change in value of properties after rent regulations were removed, along with other indicators, the weight of the literature indicates that rent regulations reduce values of affected and nearby rental properties. As a result, they reduce tax revenue to communities that are used to pay for schools, parks and other community amenities.

Over Time, Rent Regulation Causes a Reduction in the Supply of Affordable Rental Housing in a Community Because most rent regulation regimes create a fixed supply of regulated units at the beginning, the supply of rent-regulated units dwindles over time. However, the weight of the literature suggests that rent regulation accelerates this trend as landlords, limited in their ability to raise revenue to

CONCLUSION

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 31 meet costs, take advantage of opportunities to increase the return on their investments through such means as: (1) condominium conversions (which can reduce total units when rental units are combined); (2) converting buildings into other uses; (3) vacating buildings because the costs of renovating for such things as code compliance are more than rents justify even if rents can be increased; (4) converting some units into short-term rentals if allowed locally; and (5) demolishing the building, among other actions.

Rent Regulation May Reduce the Likelihood of New Multifamily Construction Even though new rental residential units are sometimes exempt from rent regulation, rent regulation disincentivizes the construction of new multifamily rental housing. On balance, rent regulations, when not applied to new construction, may have somewhat more limited impact on reducing the number of new units that would have been expected to be built.

Rent Regulation May Have More Negative Impacts on "Mom-and-Pop" Landlords The San Francisco research suggests that small-scale "mom-and-pop" rent-regulated buildings do not have the options available to them that large-scale or institutional investors have, therefore, they are less likely to change the use or clientele of their buildings. But because they are less capitalized, mom-and-pops are more likely to incur deferred maintenance, which has the effect of lowering both rent, and value, as well as the housing quality for the renter.

Rent Regulation Does Not Generally Target Those Most In Need of Support Rent regulation regimes do not include an income test, so anyone can rent such units. While rent regulation in some lower income communities supports a relatively small number of residents who are the purported target of the policy, research shows that white and middle/upper-income residents occupied rent-regulated units disproportionately. Rent regulations are thus an ineffective attempt to serve those most in need.

Rent Regulation Disincentivizes Mobility and May, In Turn, Limit Economic Opportunity Rent regulation induces residents to stay longer in their units than may be effective. They may incur opportunity costs in not relocating to areas where economic opportunities would be improved.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Concluding Perspectives Despite a large amount of mostly conclusive literature, rent regulation persists. Based on the lessons learned from the research on the flaws with rent regulation, the following are some principles that federal, state and local government can consider in crafting effective housing policies with a broader group of renters that truly need assistance:

• Determine eligibility for rental housing assistance programs by using means-based testing.

… 3 more paragraphs

• Consider strategies that focus on the real issue, income, rather than housing affordability. For example, Cambridge, Massachusetts, had rent regulation until the state banned it in 1994. Research reported above notes that property values and, in turn, property tax revenue, increased following the change. Fast forward to 2023 when Cambridge implemented a guaranteed basic income program that provides $500 per month in unrestricted income to qualified households.31 The program cost $22 million in 2023, or just about the same as the estimated increase...were removed in 1994.

(Measured in 2023 dollars, the estimate increase in property tax revenue was actually signficantly higher.) To ensure that the right households are supported, a Cambridge-like basic income program might be crafted locally and has been considered by the City of Minneapolis and others.

• A key element of rent regulation is preventing perceived abuses of the eviction process by some landlords. While such abuses are not verified by the research reviewed, when combined with income means-testing, basic income, or other programs, non-payment evictions should be diminished greatly, providing more insight into other types of evictions.

• Rent regulations do not consider transportation cost savings in transit-rich areas. Literature clearly shows that accessibility to transit can generate meaningful savings to households that can be used to help pay for rent. The 30% of income benchmark for housing affordability was developed more than 50 years ago and needs to be refined to consider transit options, among other expenses impacting households today.

• Local land use and building code regulations need to be revisited to find ways in which to increase housing supply generally, and especially rental housing supply.

• States need to be called upon to help level the property tax playing field. In Utah, for instance, both owner and renter-occupied properties receive a 45% reduction in assessed value for property taxes. This does not extend to second homes or other short-term rental property.

… 1 more paragraph

31 Rise Up Cambridge (cambridgema.gov)

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 33 The broad conclusion from this research is that rent regulation hurts renters seeking affordable rental housing, as it undermines housing supply for the very people whom it intends to serve. The reason for this is that, in the absence of sufficient rental stock to meet demand, rents rise, which fuels calls for rent regulation. But rent regulation can reduce aggregate housing stock available to lower-income residents, thus undermining housing affordability and opportunity.

This can have the perverse effect of shifting demand to distant communities in the region where rent regulation does not exist and where transportation options, social services and job prospects are less abundant. The bottom line is that policies other than rent regulation are needed to bolster and not impede increasing the needed supply of rental housing, especially affordable units.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT The author discloses ownership of rental units not subject to a rent regulation regime although subject to state and city landlord/resident laws, further disclosing having never evicted a resident, and finally disclosing having never reset rent to the prevailing market until a vacancy occurred.

… 142 more paragraphs

The author additionally discloses de minimus ownership in other residential rental properties through investment portfolios managed by third parties.

AUTHOR DISCLOSURE

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 35

REFERENCES [NAME] and [NAME] (2022). The risk of eviction and the mental health outcomes among the US adults. Preventive Medicine Reports Sep 6;29:101981. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101981. PMID: 36161138; PMCID: PMC9502670.

Ahern, [NAME], and [NAME] (2022). Robbing Peter to [NAME]? The Redistribution of Wealth Caused by Rent Control.

National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ambrosius, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME] and [NAME] (2015). Forty Years of Rent Control:

Reexamining New Jersey's Moderate Local Policies after the Great Recession. Cities 49:121–33.

Arnott, Richard (1995). Time for Revisionism on Rent Control? Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(1): 99–120.

Arnott, Richard (2003). Tenancy rent control. Swedish Economic Policy Review 10: 89-121.

Asquith, [NAME] (2019). Rent Control: Affordable Housing's Dubious Solution. Milken Institute Review.

Asquith, [NAME] (2019). Housing Supply Dynamics Under Rent Control: What Can Evictions Tell Us? In AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109:393–96.

Ault, Richard, [NAME], and [NAME] (1994). The Effect of Long-Term Rent Control on Tenant Mobility. Journal of Urban Economics 35(2):140–58.

Aurand, Andrew, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME] (2023). The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Rental Homes. Washington DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Autor, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2014). Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence from the End of Rent Control in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Journal of Political Economy 122 (3): 661–717.

Autor, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2017). Gentrification and the Amenity Value of Crime Reductions: Evidence from Rent Deregulation. NBER Working Paper 23914.

Autor, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2019). Ending Rent Control Reduced Crime in Cambridge. In AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109:381–84.

Barker, Kim (2018). Behind New York's Housing Crisis: Weakened Laws and Fragmented Regulation, The New York Times.

Barton, [NAME] (1998). The Success and Failure of Strong Rent Control in the City of Berkeley, 1978 to 1995. In Rent Control, edited by [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME], 88–109. New York: Routledge.

Bloomberg, [NAME] (1947). Rent Control and the Housing Shortage: A Commentary on "Roofs or Ceilings?" by Friedman and Stigler. The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, 23(2): 214-218.

Burgard, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2012). Housing Instability and Health: Findings from the Michigan Recession and Recovery Study. Social Science & Medicine 75(12):2215–24.

Carlson, [NAME] (2004). A Brief History of Property Tax. Fair & Equitable February 2004: 3-10.

Carty, [NAME] (2014). [NAME]: Rent Control or Rent Assistance, 4 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 365.

Chamberlin, [NAME]. 1933. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Cambridge; Harvard University Press.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Chen, Ruoyu and Jiang, Hanchen and Quintero, Luis (2023). Measuring the Value of Rent Stabilization and Understanding its Implications for Racial Inequality: Evidence from New York City. Available at SSRN: or https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4077292 Clark, [NAME], and [NAME] (1982). The Impact of Rent Control on Tenure Discounts and Residential Mobility. Land Economics 58 (1): 109–17.

Diamond, Rebecca (2018). What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/.

Diamond, Rebecca, [NAME], and [NAME] (2019a). The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality. The American Economic Review 109(9): 3365-394.

Diamond, R., McQuade, T., and Qian, F. (2019b). "Who pays for rent control? Heterogeneous landlord response to San Francisco's rent control expansion." AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109, 377-380.

D.C. Policy Center (2020). Appendix II = Review of Literature on the Impact of Rent Control on Housing Quality and Quantity, Displacement, and Inclusion. Available at https://www.dcpolicycenter.org.

Dreier, Peter (2017). A Fix for LA's Housing Crisis -- Repeal the Ellis Act. HuffPost, July 27.

Duany, Andres (2000). [NAME]: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.

Emrath, Paul and [NAME] (2018). 40.6 Percent of the Cost of Multifamily Development. Washington, DC: National Association of Home Builders and National Multifamily Housing Council.

Favilukis, Jack, [NAME], [NAME] (2021). Affordable Housing and City Welfare. Working Paper 25906. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fetter, [NAME] (2013). The Home Front: Rent Control and the Rapid Wartime Increase in Home Ownership. Working Paper 19604.

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Flint, Anthony (2022). A State-by-State Guide to Zoning Reform. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available at https:// www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-12-state-by-state-guide-to-zoning-reform.

Fogelson, Robert (2013). The Great Rent Wars: New York, 1917-1929. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Friedman, Milton and [NAME] (1946). Roofs or Ceilings? New York City: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.

Gaffney, [NAME] (2021). Rent Control and Its Effect on the Availability of Rental Units. UC Santa [NAME] 196 Honors Thesis.

Gaffney, M. M. (1971). The Property Tax is a Progressive Tax. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Taxation under the Auspices of the National Tax Association, 64, 408–426. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23409847.

Gardner, Max (2022). The Effect of Rent Control Status on Eviction Filing Rates: Causal Evidence from San Francisco. Housing Policy Debate, 1–24.

Gasper, Joseph, [NAME], and [NAME] (2012). Switching Schools: Revisiting the Relationship Between School Mobility and High School Dropout. American Educational Research Journal 49(3):487-519.

Geddes, Eilidh and Holz, Nicole (2023). Rational Eviction: How Landlords Use Evictions in Response to Rent Control. Available at SSRN:

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4131396.

Gibb, Kenneth, [NAME] and [NAME] (2022). Rent contro:l A review of the evidence base. Glasgow: University of Glasgow, UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 37 Gilderbloom, [NAME] and [NAME] (2007). Thirty Years of Rent Control: A Survey of New Jersey Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs 29(2):

207–20.

Glaeser, [NAME] (2002). Does Rent Control Reduce Segregation? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Harvard Institute of Economic Research.

Glaeser, [NAME] (2003). Does Rent Control Reduce Segregation? Swedish Economic Policy Review 10:179–202.

Glaeser, [NAME], and [NAME] (2003). The Misallocation of Housing Under Rent Control. American Economic Review 93(4):1027–46.

Gray, Horace M. (1940). The Passing of the Public Utility Concept. The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, 16(1), 8–20. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3158751.

Gyourko, Joseph, and [NAME] (1989). Equity and Efficiency Aspects of Rent Control: An Empirical Study of New York City.

Journal of Urban Economics 26(1):54–74.

Hardman, Anna, and [NAME] (1999). [NAME] and the Housing Market in a Two-Sector Neoclassical Growth Model.

Scandinavian Journal of Economics 101(2):315–35.

Harvard Law Review Note (2022). [NAME] to Affordable Housing in Land Use Law: Recognizing Affordable Housing as a Right, Harvard Law Review 135: 1104-1125.

Herbert, Christopher, [NAME], and [NAME] (2018). Measuring Housing Affordability: Assessing the 30-Percent of Income Standard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Herriges, Daniel (2020). When Apartment Dwellers Subsidize Suburban Homeowners. Strong Towns. Available from https://www.

strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners.

Heskin, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2000). The Effects of Vacancy Control. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2):162–76.

Hoke, Morgan K. and [NAME] (2021). The health impacts of eviction: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent to adult health, Social Science & Medicine 273: 113742, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113742.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621000745) Hoyt Advisory Services and Eigen10 Advisors, LLC (2022). U.S. Apartment Demand Through 2035. Washington, DC: National Multifamily Housing Council and the National Apartment Association.

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (2018). Who Pays?: A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.

Washington, DC: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Integrated Financial Engineering, Inc. (2006). Evolution of the U.S. Housing Finance System: A Historical Survey and Lessons for Emerging Mortgage Market. Washington DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Jackson, [NAME] (1985). Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of the United States. New York, Oxford University Press.

Jiang, Hanchen, [NAME], and [NAME] (2023). Does Rent Regulation Affect Tenant Unemployment? Evidence from New York City.

Johns Hopkins Carey Business School Research Paper No. 22-04.

Kahlmeter, Anna (2020). Does housing instability matter for youths' educational attainment? Findings from Swedish longitudinal register data. [NAME]. 64. 000169932093962. 10.1177/0001699320939629.

Keating, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (1998). Rent Control: Regulation and the Rental Housing Market. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Kennedy, Duncan (1988). Reassessing Rent Control: Its Economic Impact in a Gentrifying Housing Market. (1988). [NAME], 101(8), 1835–1855. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341438.

Kholodilin, [NAME] (2020). Long-Term, Multicountry Perspective on Rental Market Regulations. Housing Policy Debate 30 (6):

994–1015.

Kholodilin, [NAME], and [NAME] (2020). Does Social Policy Through Rent Controls Inhibit New Construction? Some Answers from Long-Run Historical Evidence. Discussion Papers of [NAME] 1839.

Knaap, Garrett, [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2007). Zoning as a Barrier to Multifamily Housing Development. Chicago:

American Planning Association.

Kholodilin, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME] and [NAME] (2021). The Hidden Homeownership Welfare State: An International Long-Term Perspective on the Tax Treatment of Homeowners. DIW Berlin Discussion Paper 1972.

Kholodilin, [NAME] [NAME] (2023). Social policy or crowding-out? Tenant protection in comparative long-run perspective, Housing Studies, 38:4, 707-743.

Lawson, Ronald and [NAME] (1986). The Tenant movement in New York City, 1904-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence (2018). 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study.

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Mason, [NAME] (2019). Considerations on Rent Control. Available at https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/.

McPherson, Guy (2004). It's the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine): rent regulation in New York City and the unanswered questions of market and society. [NAME], 72(4), 1125-1169.

Meck, Stuart (2002). Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Micheli, Martin and [NAME], Welfare Effects of Rent Control — A Comparison of Redistributive Policies, Economic Modelling 48 (August 1, 2015): 237–47. https://doi.org/10.1016 /J.ECONMOD.2014.11.023.

Munch, [NAME], and [NAME] (2002). Rent Control and Tenancy Duration. Journal of Urban Economics 52(3):542–60.

Myers, Dowell and JungHo Park (2020). Filtering of Apartment Housing between 1980 and 2018. Washington, DC: National Multifamily Housing Council.

Nelson, [NAME] (2023). America's Missing Households. Washington, DC: National Multifamily Housing Council.

Nelson, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], and Newport Partners (2009). Environmental Regulations and Housing Costs. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Nelson, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2017). Market Demand-Based Planning and Permitting. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Nelson, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME] (2022). Preventing the Application of Nollan/Dolan/Koontz to Impact Fees in [NAME], ed., Zoning and Planning Law Report (October 2022).

Nelson, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2023). Proportionate-Share Impact Fees and Development Mitigation. New York, NY: Routledge.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 39 Pastor, Manuel, [NAME] and [NAME] (2018). Rent Matters - What are the Impacts of Rent Stabilization Measures?

Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

Oust, Are. 2018a. The Removal of Rent Control and Its Impact on Search and Mismatching Costs: Evidence from Oslo. International Journal of Housing Policy 18 (3): 433–53.

Oust, Are. 2018b. "The End of Oslo's Rent Control: Impact on Rent Level." Economics Bulletin 38 (1): 443–58.

Pastor, Manuel, [NAME] and [NAME] (2018). Rent Matters: What Are the Impacts of Rent Stabilization Measures? Los Angeles: USC Dornsife Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

Pelletiere, Danilo (2008). Getting to the Heart of Housing's Fundamental Question: How Much Can a Family Afford? A Primer on Housing Affordability Standards in U.S. Housing Policy. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1132551 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.1132551.

Rosillo-López, Cristina (2022). Rent Control Measures in the 40s BCE: Housing Costs, Public Intervention and Inequality in the Roman World. In M. Koedijk and [NAME] (eds.), Capital in Classical Antiquity.

Rothstein, Richard (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How our Government Segregated America." New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Schaub, [NAME] (1920). The Regulation of Rentals During the War Period. Journal of Political Economy 28(1):1–36.

Sims, [NAME] (2007). Out of Control: What Can We Learn from the End of Massachusetts Rent Control? Journal of Urban Economics 61(1):129–51.

Sims, [NAME] (2011). Rent Control Rationing and Community Composition: Evidence from Massachusetts. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 11(1):1-30.

Smith, Adam (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London; [NAME] and [NAME].

Stigler, [NAME]1983). The Economists and the Problem of Monopoly, University of Chicago Law Occasional Paper, No. 19.

Sturtevant, Lisa (2018). The Impact of Rent Control: A Research Review and Synthesis. Washington, DC: National Multifamily Housing Council.

Urban Institute (2019). Rent Control: What Does the Research Tell Us about the Effectiveness of Local Action? Washington, DC:

Urban Institute.

Urban Land Institute (2021). Stable Residents, Stable Properties: Perspectives on Rent Control, Eviction Moratoriums, and Other Contemporary Approaches. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Vásquez-Vera, Hugo, [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] (2017). The Threat of Home Eviction and Its Effects on Health through the Equity Lens: A Systematic Review. Social Science & Medicine 175(February):199–208.

Watson, [NAME] and [NAME] (2021). Is the Rent Too High? Land Ownership and Monopoly Power. Washington, DC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Earlier version available at CESifo Working Paper No. 8864, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3774672 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3774672.

Weber, [NAME], and [NAME] (2020). A New Measure of Private Rental Market Regulation Index and Its Effects on Housing Rents. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 13 (4): 635–59.

Willis, [NAME] (1950). Short History of Rent Control Laws, 36 [NAME] 54 (1950).

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Rent Control During and Between the Wars—1917-1950 This era extends from World War I (the Great War) through the Great Depression and a few years after the end of World War II.

When the Great War started32, construction of all kinds nearly came to a halt. This led to lower vacancy rates and higher rents (Schaub 1920). Fogelson (2013) notes that in New York City, the housing vacancy rate fell to below 1 percent. As rents rose precipitously, rent strikes followed. With little federal, state or local appetite to intervene in the rental housing market, 82 cities created "Fair Rent" committees consisting of local officials, landlords, residents, labor and representatives from the general public. Although lacking the legal authority to do anything, they were able to negotiate resident-landlord conflicts. They also threatened landlords with higher taxes, removal from real estate boards and commissions, redoubled enforcement of health and building codes, and on occasion even with shutting off fuel supplies (Willis 1950; Pastor, [NAME]). But there was some government intervention during the Great War, nonetheless. New York's state legislature, under Republican control, passed a rent-control program that aimed at keeping rents accessible and limiting evictions (Fogelson 2013). Similar laws were passed elsewhere, including in Washington, D.C.

For many cities, including New York, the end of the Great War saw continued housing shortages, rising rents, and large scale eviction of residents. New York City adopted peacetime rent regulations that were in effect from 1920 to 1929—the nation's first true rent and eviction control laws. These regulations were seen as necessary to prevent "unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive" increases in rent (Keating, Teitz, and Skaburskis 1998:152). Eventually, New York declared the housing "emergency" over and ended rent control in 1929, just in time for the Great Depression. Yet New York City did not reinstate rent and eviction controls during the Great Depression. Instead, considerable social unrest ensued, such as the "Great Rent Strike War of 1932" in the Bronx where thousands of residents refused to pay rent (Lawson and Naison 1986). These efforts in the Bronx and elsewhere did not lead to rent control, but they did plant the seeds for WWII and post-war rent control policies.

APPENDIX 32 The author's grandfather was a veteran of the Great War, which is what he always called it until his death. He passed away before retirement age, likely attributable to being gassed in the war and having no post-war traumatic stress disorder treatment.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 41 The second wave of wartime-related rent control swept most of the country during WWII. Fetter (2013) reports that over 80% of the nation's rental housing stock as of 1940 was placed under the jurisdiction of the Office of Price Administration (OPA) as part of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The method of control used by the OPA was "maximum rent date," which became the base date for freezing rents through the war and for the next year. Fetter found that to escape federal rent controls, many owners of rental property sold their units to home buyers thereby reducing the rental stock. Indeed, the homeownership rate increased by 10% more than would be expected without the program. Fetter does not, and could not, provide a counterfactual assessment of outcomes without rent control, especially since material and labor was committed to the war effort.

Moreover, he concedes that much of the increase in homeownership likely came from increased income and thus access to mortgages compared to the pre-war period.

The OPA was dissolved in 1947, but Congress enacted the Federal Housing and Rent Act to keep controls for buildings built before that year. Federal controls eventually ended in 1950. New York State enabled rent control authority for all cities in the state with New York City being the most prominent.

While the nation's largest rent control effort was over, New York City's efforts, along with those of scores of other cities around the nation over the next several decades, crystallized policy debate on rent controls. This is the subject of the next section, which reviews the first generation of rent controls.

First Generation—Post-War Rent Control This generation starts roughly when the Federal Housing and Rent Act ended in 1950, which is when New York State enabled rent control statewide. While New York City headlines this era (see McPherson 2004 for a detailed history of rent control and regulation in New York City), rent control is still in effect in parts of Albany, Erie (Buffalo), Nassau (Long Island), Rensselaer (Troy), Schenectady and Westchester (White Plains) counties.33 Rent control is the older of the two systems of rent regulation, as it dates to the end of World War II and generally applies to buildings built before 1947.

In New York City, rent control residents are usually in buildings built before February 1, 1947, and where the resident is in continuous occupancy prior to July 1, 1971.34 Rent control limits rent increases to formulas and procedures. It also limits evictions and provides residents with essential services.35 33 See https://www.pushbuffalo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Residents%E2%80%99-Rights-Guide.pdf.

34 See https://hcr.ny.gov/rent-control.

35 See https://hcr.ny.gov/rent-control.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT T his flavor of rent control drew the ire of no less than the venerable and Nobel Prize-winning economist, [NAME], and his colleague [NAME] (1946). From their vantage point of 1946 when virtually all the housing stock in New York City was subject to WWII- like rent controls, Friedman and Stigler argued that rent controls would suppress new housing construction, induce landlords to neglect maintenance of existing units and result in aggressive eviction strategies by landlords to reset rents to market rate.

By 2023, however, New York City-style rent control affected fewer than 20,000 units.

Second Generation—Rent Stabilization New York City is also a leader in regulating rent for housing stock that is not under rent control caps.

Rent stabilization is used in New York City for qualifying apartments that are: in buildings comprising six or more units built between February 1, 1947, and December 31, 1973; built before February 1, 1947, with residents who moved in after June 30, 1971; or with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated on or after January 1, 1974, with tax benefits. Nassau, Rockland and Westchester counties also have rent stabilization programs. Local Rent Guidelines Boards set annual maximum rates for rent increases that are effective for one- or two-year leases.36 Strictly speaking, even New York's early forms of rent control through hard caps has moved toward the rental stock stabilization model that applies to targeted units.

The 1970s saw similar rental stock stabilization ordinances pass in Boston, Cambridge, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as in several cities in housing supply-stressed areas of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey.37 Arnott (1995) characterizes these as "soft" rent control and rent stabilization measures. Arnott observes:

They entail a complex set of regulations governing not only allowable rent increases, but also conversion, maintenance, and landlord-resident relations. (These variations of) rent controls commonly permit automatic percentage rent increases related to the rate of inflation. They also often contain provisions for other rent increases: cost pass-through provisions which permit landlords to apply for rent increases above the automatic rent increase, if justified by cost increases; hardship provisions, which allow discretionary increases to assure that landlords do not have cash-flow problems; and rate-of-return provisions, which permit discretionary rent increases to ensure landlords a "fair" or "reasonable" rate of return. (Arnott 1995: 102).

While this form of rent stabilization applies to units, the next generation of rent stabilization applied to residents.

36 Ibid, "pushbuffalo".

37 I exclude examples of cities and counties in New York State noted in the post-war era because of overlap within many jurisdictions that also had rent control.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 43 Third Generation—Vacancy Decontrol Arnott (2003) characterizes the third generation of rent regulation as "tenancy rent control," which literature now characterizes as "vacancy decontrol" (Pastor, Carter and Abood 2018). Where rent control imposes a cap on rents and rent stabilization allows rents to increase based on formulas, vacancy decontrol allows landlords to reset rent often to the prevailing market; then when the unit is rented, it is subject to limits in rent increases.

Like the U.S., rent regulation regimes internationally thus evolved over time. Using a database assembled by Kholodilin (2020) covering 101 countries and states from 1910 to 2020, analysis shows a spike in restrictive policies, such as true rent control before the second world war. Post-war rent regulation saw rent control becoming more flexible or being eliminated, and along with that, housing rationing became less frequent. In their place arose rent and resident stabilization.

Some recent third generation rent regulation approaches are mostly to prevent rent gauging where landlords cap rents based on an index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus an increment.

Oregon, for instance, allows rents to increase by the lesser of 10% or 7% plus the CPI.38 Oregon's law applies to all rental units in structures more than 15 years old. There is no research yet on outcomes.

However, economic theory would hold that long-term rental housing production will be reduced in part because investment portfolios will include future rent regulation in the discounted cash flow valuation for new projects, thus lowering their value at an increasing rate for every year toward removal of the exemption, with the overall effect of reducing long-run supply.

… 10 more paragraphs

Third generation rent regulation has dominated all efforts since about the 1970s. In a nutshell, they have these features in common:39

• Inflation-based limit: rents in controlled units are allowed to increase in line with inflation plus some additional percentage;

• Vacancy decontrol: rents are allowed to increase to market levels when a resident vacates a controlled unit; and

• Exemptions for newer units: units built after a certain date are exempt from regulation.

Overview of Current Practices Local rent control and rent regulations plateaued for about a quarter of a century to the period just before the COVID-19 pandemic. At the end of the 2010s, nearly 200 cities and counties had rent regulation, but during the lull, more than 30 states banned the practice (Urban Institute 2019).

Massachusetts voters outlawed rent regulations in 1994, thereby eliminating rent restrictions in such places as Boston and Cambridge.

38 https://www.oregon.gov/das/oea/pages/rent-stabilization.aspx.

39 For applications to specific states, see https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/research-notes/2023/rent-control-vs-rent-stabilization-a-new-name-for-a-failed-concept/.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT E ven the California legislature forbade many forms of rent regulation through the Costa- Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. This applied to units built after 1995. A California ballot measure in 2020 to remove this restriction failed.40 To date, about 15 California cities have rent regulation systems in place consistent with the Costa-Hawkins restrictions.

It is interesting to note that of the two states where rent regulation was put to a statewide vote— California and Massachusetts, neither a stranger to liberal nor progressive policies—it was either outlawed statewide (Massachusetts) or limited to strict parameters (California).

The number of jurisdictions using rent regulations in New York State held about constant as noted above. Only New Jersey saw substantial increases in the number of communities engaging in rent regulation, reaching about 100 by the end of the 2010s.

Just before the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, the Oregon legislature mandated rent regulation statewide. In the same year, Oregon also mandated the provision of "middle housing" on all parcels zoned for single-family detached residential uses—essentially prohibiting detached-only single- family homes.41 These twin efforts aim to expand total housing supply while also protecting residents from sudden spikes in rent increases.

Other jurisdictions have been added to the list of rent regulations since the pandemic. In addition, as Favilukis, Mabille and [NAME] (2021) observe, local policymakers hope to overturn rent regulation preemption laws in many of the 36 states that have them. It seems that rent regulation is in expansion mode, although how it will play out is anyone's guess. In New Jersey, state law allows a wide range of annual rent adjustments; here are just a few:42

… 30 more paragraphs

• Atlantic City: Percent increase of CPI

• Barnegat Township: 3.5%

• Bayonne: Percent of CPI, 5.5% maximum

• Bergen: 4%

• Camden: 5%

• East Orange: 5%

• East Rutherford: 5.5%

• East Windsor: 2.9%

• Hoboken: Percent of CPI

• Jersey City: Percent of CPI, 4% maximum

• Linden: Percent of CPI or 5% (whichever is lower)

• Newark: Percent of CPI, 4% maximum 40 https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020).

41 https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/up/pages/housing-choices.aspx.

42 The extent to which some of these formulas changed because of inflation during 2022-23 is not known at this writing.

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 45 For its part, California limits annual rent increases to 5% plus the local CPI or 10%, whichever is lower43 for those relatively few cities with these policies.44 Figure 3 illustrates the short- and long-term effects of rent regulation applicable to the third generation. Recall that third generation rent regulations apply to older housing stock, meaning that new stock is exempt. (In Oregon there is a 15-year hiatus after construction before rent regulation applies.) Rent increases are based on a formula or subject to local review processes. However, in most cases, rent can be reset toward the market when the resident is replaced ("rent decontrol").

Because of rent regulations, residents will stay in regulated units longer than they would in a market- based unit. Landlord revenues will lag what market-based revenue would otherwise generate, meaning overall returns are reduced below competitive market levels—this is an opportunity cost incurred by the landlord. Over time, some landlords convert their units into condominiums, which may also involve combining smaller rental units into larger for-sale ones. Being unable to afford renovations of older stock, others will remove their units from the market. The net effect is that the supply of rent-regulated stock falls. This would not be an issue if the market replaced lost units, but that is not the case. Otherwise the market would have done so at the outset and rent regulation would not be needed.

In Figure 3, the interplay of these behaviors is illustrated. In the absence of rent regulation, an equilibrium is established between market rent, Rm, and supply, Qrm. This does not mean that all niche or submarket needs are met but in aggregate needs are. Rent regulation applied to a submarket of units lowers rents to Rr. Not all landlords agree to participate, so they convert their units or perhaps take them off the market. This reduces total near-term supply to Qrr(nt). In the long term, even more units are removed from the market for reasons noted above. Supply falls further to Qrr(lt). Because of the very dynamics that lead to housing underproduction in the first instance, the market does not replace lost units. The effect on non-regulated units is likely higher rents since overall supply has been reduced. (That relationship is not shown for brevity of illustration, but one can imagine the market rent line, Rm, moving upward toward the Demand line, D, in both the near- and long-term scenarios shown in Figure 3).

43 See Los Angeles Housing Department. "AB1482/State Rent Control."

44 Berkeley, Beverly Hills, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, West Hollywood.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT In the absence of rent regulation, an equilibrium is established between market rent, Rm, and supply, Qrm. Rent regulation applied to a submarket of units lowers rents to Rr. Some landlords take their units off the market. This reduces total near-term supply to Qrr(nt). In the long term, even more units are removed from the market for reasons noted in the text. Supply falls further to Qrr(lt). But the market does not replace lost units. The effect on non-regulated units is likely higher rents since overall supply has been reduced.

FIGURE 3 Simplified near- and long-term effects of rent regulation Rent Quantity Qrr(It) Rm D D SIt SIt Snt Snt Market rent Supply near-term Regulated rent Rr Qrr(nt) Qrm

LITERATURE

REVIEW JANUARY 2024 47 First, there is the fear of eviction even without being evicted. Acharya, Bhatta and Dhakal (2022) used a survey of residents who were behind on their rent to investigate how the fear of eviction affected their well-being. Compared to the control population, residents who faced eviction within two months had a higher level of depression (59% vs 37%), anxiety (67% vs 43%) and prescription medication use (27% vs 24%). Adjusting for demographic features, household context and socioeconomic circumstances, the probability of depression, anxiety and medication use among the at-risk eviction group was significantly higher than in the control group. Acharya, Bhatta and Dhakal conclude that the mere threat of eviction is associated with elevated mental health problems and that addressing housing issues can reduce mental health burdens among residents generally and those facing eviction especially.

Then there is the absolute effect of eviction. In research on young adults who were evicted, Hoke and Boen (2021) found that evicted persons had more depressive symptoms and had lower health quality ratings, adjusting for numerous factors. Their level of social stress also increased. Hoke and Boen's results suggest that evictions in the U.S. threaten well-being among young adults with "especially devastating consequences for low-income individuals and communities of color" (Hoke and Boen 2021: 113732).

In their review of literature on evictions and well-being, Pastor, Carter and Abood (2018) found strong connections between such forced moves on stress in the form of anxiety, depression and related, and well-being in the form of substance abuse and early mortality among others. They also found that underlying drivers of housing insecurity affect poverty and unemployment. In another study, Burgard, Seefeldt and Zelner (2012) investigated how different causes of housing insecurity affected health and well-being. Those experiencing a forced move were 2.6 times more likely to report fair or poor health, 2.5 times more likely to experience anxiety and about twice as likely to be depressed compared to those with no housing insecurity. Moreover, studies show that evictions and foreclosures have greater adverse effects on women than men (Vásquez-Vera et al., 2017).

In a study of educational attainment associated with forced moves in Sweden, Kahlmeter (2020) found that while a single relocation had a small impact, repeated forced moves were associated with large and significant reductions in attainment. The Swedish study is useful in the U.S. context because the Swedish national school system is considerably less heterogeneric than the states, thereby aiding in controlling for various influences on measuring attainment. In the U.S.,. Gasper, DeLuca and Estacion (2012) show that frequent moves reduce high school graduation rates leading to lower incomes and well-being later in life.

RENT REGULATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES: AN UPDATE WITH ASSESSMENT Based in Washington, DC, NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the largest and most prominent apartment firms in the U.S. NMHC's members are the principal officers of firms engaged in all aspects of the apartment industry, including ownership, development, management and financing.

NMHC advocates on behalf of rental housing, conducts apartment related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information and promotes the desirability of apartment living. Nearly one-third of Americans rent their housing, and almost 15 percent live in an apartment (buildings with 5 or more units). For more information, contact NMHC at 202/974-2300, email the Council at [EMAIL], or visit NMHC's Web site at www.nmhc.org.

ABOUT NMHC NMHC.ORG

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Santa Barbara City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rent freeze and my deep concern about the direction this policy takes our city. While I understand the intention is to protect tenants, history shows that rent freezes and strict rent control policies consistently make housing problems worse for both renters and property owners in the long run.

Cities like San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles provide clear examples. Studies have shown that rent control:

… 5 more paragraphs

- Reduces the supply of rental housing by discouraging new construction and pushing landlords to remove units from the market.

- Leads to higher rents for new tenants because fewer units are available.

- Encourages landlords to convert rentals into condos or short-term rentals.

- Results in poorer maintenance and building quality over time because owners cannot recoup costs.

- Ultimately benefits a small group of tenants while hurting future renters and overall affordability.

A well-known Stanford study on San Francisco's rent control found that it reduced rental housing supply by about 15% and increased citywide rents by more than 5%. That is the opposite of what our community needs.

Santa Barbara's housing crisis is a supply problem. Freezing rents does not create a single new unit of housing. It only discourages the very people who build, maintain, and invest in long- term rental homes. If we truly want affordability, the focus should be on:

- Building more housing, especially multi-family and workforce housing

… 1 more paragraph

- Easing and speeding up the building permit and approval process

- Reducing regulatory barriers and costs that make construction financially impossible

- Banning or heavily restricting Airbnb and short-term rentals that remove housing from the long-term market Other cities that have addressed housing shortages successfully did so by increasing supply, not by freezing prices. Artificially controlling rent treats the symptom while worsening the disease.

Santa Barbara should be encouraging development, protecting long-term housing stock, and making it easier—not harder—for responsible owners to provide quality rental homes. A rent freeze sends the message that our city is hostile to housing investment, which will only deepen the crisis for years to come.

Please reconsider this approach and shift the focus toward real, lasting solutions that expand housing availability and stabilize rents naturally through supply.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara, CA [NAME] (805) 698-6949

> Hello, > > I am a tenant in Santa Barbara. I choose to be a Tenant in a very expensive yet beautiful town. It is my choice to pay these rates. I work remotely, I could live anywhere. There are many cheaper places, but I choose to live here in expensive Santa Barbara. This is not my landlord's fault. These proposed ordinances are absurd! They are not well thought out.

> > In my building, we had a very disruptive tenant/neighbor, who my landlord had to ask to leave with the appropriate notice. The other five tenants, plus myself, were so relieved that our landlord made this change. We can live in peace and safety once again! When he rented to this tenant, he had no idea of his addictions, if he was restricted to remove him from the building or was afraid to do so because he would have to evict the rest of us, is absolutely out of this world insane. There should be NO such ordinance EVER! There should be no such limitation of years to rent the space again if an eviction occurs.

> > If we have plumbing issues, roof leaks, fencing problems or any other issues on the property, our landlord reacts quickly. Getting the proper service men is expensive yet this property is well-maintained- All of the time it is safe. It is secure. It is our home and our landlord respects that! I can speak for myself and my fellow neighbors we expect a rent increase annually and in return we know we're going to have a place we can call home. Utilities go up annually, are you going to ask those companies to stop there increases?!

> > What should be changed in this town is no more Airbnb's, that is causing disruption, low hotel vacancies, congestion to neighborhoods and taking away from property that our workers in this town could live in permanently.

… 4 more paragraphs

The issue is NOT the long term renters. The issue is the short term or even 30 day rentals.

> > Once again, it is a choice to live here, and Santa Barbara is noted to be one of the most expensive coastal towns in the world. If you cannot afford to live here, then that is a fact that the individual will have to work with. It is not the landlord's fault.

> > Do not mess around and bring in any rental control or ordinance to this beautiful town or it will become a slum and full of conflict. Fine the landlords that don't keep up the properties and get rid of Airbnb's!

> > Thank you, > Miss Hattie > 805-284-4569

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Santa Barbara City Council members, I cannot attend today's meeting, nor can I watch it via Zoom because I must work during that time. Therefore, I would like you to know my position regarding item number 14 Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium on today's agenda.

I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this measure.

You cannot legislate a fix to the housing problem. If you approve this measure, it will eventually become permanent. These things always do. The only fix to the problem is the construction of additional housing. If you have a rent moratorium or rent control in place, no builder, big or small, will build more units here. Why would they?

A measure such as this seeks to punish the housing providers for a problem they did not create. Study after study after study in countries around the world show that these types of laws do not work and actually exacerbate the problem, and the problem lasts for many years.

I oppose this measure and I urge you not to approve it.

… 1 more paragraph

Sincerely, [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hello I am saying , "Please do not consider this item any further!'

Subject: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction;

Ordinance Adoption] This is not a solution. It creates more problems. Look at other cities who have incorporated rent control and you will see how it works out.

This is against rights to own real property. By passing this, it will be difficult for individuals to continue to own rental units and offer much needed housing.

… 2 more paragraphs

Solution: Help tenants to make purchases of their own. Offer grants, low interest rate loans for low to moderate income earners in our County. Help the renters graduate to becoming owners. Help landlords to continue to offer quality housing for our people.

[NAME] 805-315-5828

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hello City Council, I am a Santa Barbara renter and voter, and I oppose the proposed rent control ordinance and emergency rent freeze. Based on lived experience in rent-controlled cities, these policies lead to deteriorating housing quality, reduced investment, and a "lock-in effect" that limits vacancies and turnover, often benefiting higher-income tenants rather than those most in need.

State law already provides strong tenant protections, including caps on rent increases and just- cause eviction requirements, making an emergency measure unnecessary. A more effective approach would be targeted assistance for those truly in need, rather than broad controls that risk long-term harm to the housing supply.

Thank you, [NAME] Santa Barbara

… 1 more paragraph

[ Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to you as a concerned Santa Barbara tenant to urge you to support the implementation for a strong rent stabilization ordinance in our city. I am in the meeting room, but writing rather than speaking since there are so many people waiting to share.

I grew up in Santa Barbara and am a 1st grade teacher at a title 1 school. I love my community and hope to continue to live here through out my life and continue to educate the next generation. Unfortunately, the specter of losing my housing always hangs over me and my husband and I feel we are just one rent increase away from needing to move out of town. Many friends and family members have already had to move away, to great detriment to our shared connection. I don't know where we would go, with all our friends and extended family here. It is an emergency, we need stability.

Santa Barbara is becoming increasingly unaffordable—especially for working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and renters from historically marginalized communities. Without immediate action, we will see even more displacement, more homelessness, and deeper economic strain on our city and region. This isn't just a housing crisis, it's a direct threat to the diversity, stability, and long-term economic health of Santa Barbara.

Rent stabilization is a proven, practical policy that protects tenants from sudden and excessive rent hikes, keeps families in their homes, and ensures landlords continue to receive steady and fair returns on their investments. By stabilizing rents, our city can:

… 1 more paragraph

- Safeguard the local workforce so essential workers can afford to live where they work.

- Support small businesses that rely on stable communities and local spending.

- Invest in long-term solutions for new affordable and innovative housing options.

- Strengthen trust and transparency between tenants and landlords.

… 1 more paragraph

It is also important to note that community stabilization ordinances are typically cost-neutral for cities after initial implementation investment. Across California, no cities currently fund their rent boards through the general fund or Local Housing Trust Fund. Instead, they are paid for by modest per-unit fees shared between landlords and tenants.

Housing is a basic human right and ensuring its stability is essential for a thriving and resilient local economy.

Please take action and support a strong rent stabilization ordinance and other necessary measures to prevent the displacement of working families. Our community depends on it – and you – to make it happen.

Thank you for your leadership, [NAME]

Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to you as a concerned Santa Barbara tenant to urge you to support the implementation for a strong rent stabilization ordinance in our city.

Santa Barbara is becoming increasingly unaffordable—especially for working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and renters from historically marginalized communities. Without immediate action, we will see even more displacement, more homelessness, and deeper economic strain on our city and region. This isn't just a housing crisis, it's a direct threat to the diversity, stability, and long-term economic health of Santa Barbara.

Rent stabilization is a proven, practical policy that protects tenants from sudden and excessive rent hikes, keeps families in their homes, and ensures landlords continue to receive steady and fair returns on their investments. By stabilizing rents, our city can:

… 1 more paragraph

- Safeguard the local workforce so essential workers can afford to live where they work.

- Support small businesses that rely on stable communities and local spending.

- Invest in long-term solutions for new affordable and innovative housing options.

- Strengthen trust and transparency between tenants and landlords.

… 1 more paragraph

It is also important to note that community stabilization ordinances are typically cost-neutral for cities after initial implementation investment. Across California, no cities currently fund their rent boards through the general fund or Local Housing Trust Fund. Instead, they are paid for by modest per-unit fees shared between landlords and tenants.

Housing is a basic human right and ensuring its stability is essential for a thriving and resilient local economy.

Please take action and support a strong rent stabilization ordinance and other necessary measures to prevent the displacement of working families. Our community depends on it – and you – to make it happen.

On a more personal note: I grew up in Santa Barbara and due to predatory rent increases in my adulthood (mainly by property management companies), I still haven't been able to become a home buyer in my mid 30s & fear I never will. Renting used to be a temporary state so that we can eventually become homeowners. But now being a homebuyer seems unattainable because we are spending 50-60% of our income alone on rent, unable to save up enough for a down payment. My current rent payment is $3500 for a 2 bedroom 1 bath for 650 square feet! AND we just received a rent increase from the Koto Group of $250 starting March 2026. How is this sustainable? Our salaries cannot keep up with these increases. We are being priced out and are considering moving out of state after 3 decades living in Santa Barbara, having to leave our family and friends because our city doesn't care enough to take action.

… 2 more paragraphs

Use your network and resources. Stand up for the working class. Look to the newly elected NYC mayor, [NAME], who is showing us only after his first 2 weeks in office that our city council members can achieve the "impossible." He is showing us, "if they wanted to, they would." We need your stance on rent stabilization now more than ever.

Thank you for your leadership, Sent from my iPhone Shanee Ascarrunz-Diaz

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council Members, I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to protect tenants in our community by supporting a strong eviction moratorium and implementing a rent freeze. Rising housing costs and economic instability are putting immense pressure on working families, seniors, and vulnerable residents, pushing many to the brink of displacement.

Housing stability is essential to community health, safety, and equity. I ask that you prioritize people over profit and use the tools available to you to keep residents housed and prevent further harm.

Our community is watching and counting on your leadership. Please act now to protect tenants.

… 5 more paragraphs

I also want to share that I am deeply disappointed by Mayor Rowse's decision to backpedal on discussing rent-related agenda items after 5:00 p.m. This decision sends a clear message that he does not care about the voices of working community members, and it undermines the Councils stated commitments to equity and inclusion.

I urge you to move the rent-related agenda items and hold discussion and votes after 5:00 p.m., when more residents are able to participate.

Meaningful public engagement requires meeting people where they are— not excluding them through inaccessible meeting times.

Our community deserves transparency, accountability, and genuine opportunities to be heard. I ask you to act accordingly.

[NAME] She/Her/Ella (why pronouns matter?)(a how-to guide) e: [EMAIL]

… 44 more paragraphs

image031326.png image795307.png image877546.png image581369.png image357997.png image140086.png image257230.png 1-13-2026 - PROPOSED RENT CONTROL LAW.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important This proposed ordinance, if passed, it will shut down ALL PROJECTS that are in the process of development. All though it excludes newer projects, the writing is on the wall.

It has been jam through in record time.

SLOW DOWN and understand the rippling potential effect.

Further review is absolutely necessary!!!

Send it back to staff for, more comprehensive study.

DO NOT PASSED ​ [NAME] Senior Vice President Lee & Associates | Central California D 805.560.3303 O 805.962.6700 C 805.729.3634 [EMAIL] Corporate ID 02215506 | License ID 0967865 109 E. Victoria Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 View Our Research | Join Lee & Associates Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, ​please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Any information, including third party information, shall be verified as the accuracy and recipient shall be responsible for verifying any and all information as to its accuracy.

​Electronic Communication: This email shall stand alone and cannot be consolidated or integrated with other correspondences to form a contract.

​ ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY RENT INCREASE MORATORIUM DURING THE PREPARATION, CONSIDERATION, AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF A

PERMANENT RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council finds and determines as follows:

A. Safe, decent, affordable, and sanitary housing is a human necessity and right.

B. The City Council reaffirms its General Plan Housing Element goal, first stated in 2005, of "ensuring affordable housing opportunities for all economic levels in the community, while protecting the character of established neighborhoods." (2015 Housing Element, p.57.) There is a critical shortage of low and moderate income housing within the City and on the south coast of Santa Barbara County. The City Council recognizes that providing a wide range of housing options is important to maintain an economically viable and socially diverse population, and to retain and house the City's local workforce.

The City's General Plan Housing Element identifies renter-occupied housing units as comprising nearly 60% of the housing available in the City. (2015 Housing Element, p.26.)

The Housing Element also documents that given local housing costs, nearly 44% of all households and almost 50% of renters are over-paying for housing. (2015 Housing Element, p.50.) Both the total percentage of City renters and the percentage of City renters overpaying for housing are higher than statewide averages. Therefore, the City Council desires to establish reasonable protection for City residents living in rental housing that recognize the important role that rental housing plays in the provision of affordable housing.

C. The City Council has previously adopted laws establishing reasonable protection for City residents living in rental housing including: Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapters 26.06 (establishing mobile home park lease regulations, including rent control), 26.40 (requiring one-year lease offers to residential tenants), 26.50 (requiring just cause for residential evictions), and 26.60 (protecting tenants from harassment and other abusive conduct).

D. On December 16, 2025, the City Council reviewed a comprehensive presentation and staff report outlining a proposed work plan for the development of a permanent residential rent stabilization program consistent with the limitations imposed by state and federal law. The City Council provided preliminary feedback on the proposed program, which includes a timeline for consideration and adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance in the summer of 2026. The City Council also took action directing staff to prepare appropriate ordinances to establish a temporary rent increase moratorium during the development and consideration of permanent rent stabilization regulations and to make certain amendments to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 26.50. The motion included direction to explore legal options to provide effective rent relief at the earliest possible date.

SECTION 2. Application.

A. This ordinance applies to all residential rental units in the City for which a certificate of occupancy was issued on or before February 1, 1995, except:

1. Rental units that are alienable separate from title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision, as specified in subdivision (b), (d), or (f) of Section 11004.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This exception does not apply to rental units that are described in subdivision (a)(3(B) of Section 1952.52 of the California Civil Code.

2. Rental units in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, lodging and rooming houses and boarding houses, or other similar temporary lodgings provided that at such time as an accommodation has been occupied as the primary residence of one or more of the same tenants for any period more than 30 days such accommodation shall become subject to this ordinance. The computation of the 30 days shall include days in which the Tenant was required to:

(a) Move into a different guestroom or efficiency unit before the expiration of 30 days occupancy; or (b) Check out and re-register before the expiration of 30 days occupancy if a purpose was to avoid application of this ordinance, or (c) Enter into successive or overlapping rental agreements, extensions, or renewals, whether for the same or a different unit, before the expiration of 30 days occupancy.

3. Rental Units in any hospital, convent, monastery, extended medical care facility, asylum, non-profit home for the aged; dormitory owned and operated by an accredited institution of higher education, or rental units in a facility that has the primary purpose of operating a treatment or recovery program, where such rental units are provided incident to a client's participation in the treatment or recovery program and where the client has been informed in writing of the temporary or transitional nature of the housing at the inception of his or her participation in the program.

4. Rental units owned or operated or managed by a public agency or not-forprofit organization and subject to a recorded covenant or other restriction that limits rental of the unit to rents affordable to low- or moderate income households.

5. Rental units which a government unit, agency or authority owns, operates, or manages, if applicable federal or state law or administrative regulation specifically exempt such units from municipal rent control.

6. Rental units leased to tenants assisted under the Section 8 program (42 U.S.C. Section 1437f) or the Continuum of Care Rental Assistance (42 U.S.C. 11381 et.

seq.) or similar rent subsidy program where the tenant's portion of the rent is determined based on their household income and a specific formula. This exemption applies only for so long as the rent demanded does not exceed the authorized payment standard minus the applicable utility allowance as determined by the City the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, as applicable.

7. Permitted short term vacation rentals for a rental period of 30 days or less.

SECTION 3. Definitions.

The following definitions apply to the interpretation of this ordinance:

Base rent. Base rent means either: (1) the rent for a rental unit in effect on December 16, 2025, for tenancies commencing on or before December 16, 2025, or (2) the rental rate established upon initial occupancy of a rental unit for tenancies commencing after December 16, 2025, provided the rental rate is established in accordance with state law.

Housing services. Housing services include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, painting, providing light, hot and cold water, elevator service, window shades and screens, storage, kitchen, bath and laundry facilities and privileges, janitor services, utility charges that are paid by the landlord, refuse removal, furnishings, telephone, parking, common areas, recreational facilities, the right to have a specified number of occupants, and any other benefit, privilege, arrangement, or facility provided or contracted for in connection with the use or occupancy of any rental unit. Housing services to a rental unit shall include a proportionate part of services provided to common facilities of the building in which the rental unit is contained.

Landlord. An owner, lessor, sublessor or any other person entitled to receive rent for the use and occupancy of any rental unit, or an agent, representative, predecessor, or successor of any of the foregoing.

Rent. All periodic payments under a rental housing agreement concerning the use or occupancy of a rental unit, including all payments and other consideration demanded or paid for housing services. Rent does not include refundable security deposits or avoidable fees imposed by a landlord such as fees for late payment of rent or for checks returned for insufficiency of funds.

Rental unit. Any building or structure, or part thereof, or land appurtenant thereto, or any other property rented or offered for rent for residential purposes, whether or not such unit possesses a valid certificate of occupancy for use as rental housing, together with all housing services connected with use or occupancy of such property.

SECTION 4. Temporary prohibition of rent increases.

A. So long as this ordinance is in effect, a landlord shall not increase the base rent of a rental unit.

B. If rent for a rental unit includes housing services, then any reduction of such services or initiation of a requirement for direct payment by a tenant to a service provider (e.g. new requirement for direct payment by tenant to a utility service provider) is considered a rent increase unless there is a corresponding reduction in rent paid to the landlord.

C. It is the City Council's intent to use the base rent as defined in this ordinance as the stabilized reference for the determination of lawful rent under the permanent residential rent stabilization program described in Section 1. D. of this ordinance.

Therefore, if a landlord increases the rent for a rental unit after December 16, 2025, but before the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with applicable law, the base rent for the unit will not change and the amount of the increase will be counted against future rent increases authorized under the rent stabilization program when adopted.

SECTION 5. Expiration. This ordinance automatically expires on December 31, 2026, or on the operative date of a permanent rent stabilization program as established pursuant to ordinance, whichever is earlier.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance of any part hereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that, on the basis of the whole record and exercising its independent judgment, this ordinance is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Sections 15060(c)(3) pertaining to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and 15061 (b)(3) because this ordinance has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment directly or indirectly in that it merely regulates existing physical development.

SECTION 8. Emergency Measure Finding. This ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety under City Charter Section 511. The City is currently experiencing a local homelessness emergency and suffering an acute shortage of affordable housing. Housing insecurity experienced by tenants is heightened by rent increases, including rent increases regulated by California Civil Code Section 1947.12. The City's older multi-unit housing stock, which are the units regulated by this ordinance, are a substantial portion of the City's affordable rental housing inventory. Immediate limitations on rents of such units is necessary to preserve the public health and safety and prevent displacement of residents who comprise a substantial portion of the community workforce.

INTRODUCTION DRAFT 1/13/26 ORDINANCE NO.

… 15 more paragraphs

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE SANTA BARBARA

MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION

26.50.100 RELATING TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF

PERMANENTLY REMOVING A UNIT FROM THE RENTAL

MARKET

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 26.50 of Title 26 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to add Section 26.50.100 as follows:

26.50.100. Additional Requirements and Limitations Applicable to Just Cause Evictions to Permanently Remove a Rental Unit from the Rental Market.

A. This Section applies to no-fault just cause evictions to recover possession to permanently withdraw a rental unit from the rental market.

B. An owner shall not withdraw from the rental market less than all of the rental units from a property. Notices of termination shall be given concurrently to all tenants, provided, however, that eviction dates stated in the notices may vary to coincide with the termination dates of leases or rental agreements of affected tenants. All evictions must be in accordance with this Chapter and completed within one year.

C. Property that has been withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to this Chapter may not be used for residential rent purposes for a period of 5 years following the date of the last eviction under subsection [NAME]. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to proceedings to terminate a tenancy or recover possession of a unit that has not been fully completed before the effective date of this Ordinance. If a final judgment awarding possession of a INTRODUCTION DRAFT 1/13/26 unit has not been entered or the owner has not otherwise lawfully obtained possession of a unit under Chapter 26.50 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code as it existed before the effective date of this Ordinance, then the owner must comply with the provisions of this Ordinance, including giving a new notice of termination, before termination of the tenancy or recovery of possession of a unit.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter or any part hereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter of any part hereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds that, on the basis of the whole record and exercising its independent judgment, this Ordinance is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Sections 15060(c)(3) pertaining to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and 15061 (b)(3) because this Ordinance has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment directly or indirectly in that it merely regulates existing physical development.

… 3 more paragraphs

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Hi, Please see attached my public comment for tomorrow's meeting which highlights the impacts of eviction protection and rent stabilization on mortality and mental and physical health.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks. [NAME] 805-453-6240 Public Comment on Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections: For Santa Barbara City Council Meeting on January 13, 2026 TO: Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, Santa Barbara City Clerk FROM: [NAME] DATE: January 12, 2026 SUBJECT: Public Health Rationale for Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Executive Summary Housing has a profound impact on physical health, mental health and mortality. In short, the research shows that evictions kill people and unstable housing causes profound physical and mental health problems. The impact on children and racial and ethnic minorities is especially concerning.

As the Council considers the adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance and strengthened eviction protections, it is critical to view these policies as urgent public health interventions.

Peer-reviewed research indicates that housing instability is a primary driver of mortality and chronic disease. In Santa Barbara, where 60% of residents are renters and 50% of renters are cost-burdened (HUD Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy (CHAS) data), these ordinances function as an essential preventative health measure for 30% of our residents.

I. Mortality: The Lethal Cost of Housing Insecurity Recent longitudinal data has established a direct, quantified link between rent costs, eviction threats, and the risk of death.

… 30 more paragraphs

• The 2.6x Mortality Factor: A landmark study found that during the pandemic, the mortality rate for renters threatened with eviction was a stunning 2.6 times higher than the general population—specifically 238.6 vs. 91.6 per 100,000 person- months ([NAME], 2024, JAMA).

• Rent Burden and Mortality: Renters paying 70% of their income toward rent (common among Santa Barbara's Low-Income earners) have a 12% higher 2 mortality rate over a 20-year period than those paying 30% ([NAME], 2024, Social Science & Medicine).

• Eviction Judgments: An eviction filing without judgment was associated with a 19% increase in mortality and an eviction judgment was associated with a 40% increase in mortality. ([NAME], 2024, Social Science & Medicine).

II. Eviction Protections and Mental Health Eviction protections directly mitigate the psychological trauma and biological "weathering" caused by chronic stress, both of which can increase health care costs.

• Hospitalization Spikes: In the immediate aftermath of an eviction filing, hospital visits for mental health-related conditions increase by 130% (Institute for Research on Poverty, 2024).

• Clinical Depression and Anxiety: Individuals facing housing instability have 2.37x higher odds of clinical depression and 2.65x higher odds of anxiety compared to stably housed peers (Acharya et al., 2022, Preventive Medicine Reports).

• Stability Dividend: Rent stabilization ordinances have been shown to make tenants 19% less likely to move over a 10-year period (Diamond et al., 2019, American Economic Review). Housing stability is a proven buffer against psychological distress. People who reported that they frequently worried about being able to pay their rent or mortgage experienced psychological distress at nearly twice the proportion of those who did not, 39% versus 21%. Racial and ethnic minorities experience housing instability at far higher rates than the general California population (UCLA California Health Interview Survey, 2024).

III. Physical Health: Chronic Disease and Medicaid Savings Economic stability provided by rent caps allows residents to invest in health rather than survival.

• Impact on Children: A study specifically examining the impact of eviction on children noted that "children who went on to experience eviction showed signs of poor health and socioeconomic disadvantage already at birth" and that "Interventions to prevent eviction can protect children from hunger and adversity" (Leifhiet, K., 2020, Population Health).

3

• Medi-Cal and Healthcare Savings: Addressing "Social Drivers of Health" is the key focus of the California's CalAIM Medi-Cal program. Housing is one of the strongest social drivers of health. Providing housing stability for low-income residents results in a 12% decrease in total Medicaid expenditures, driven by an 18% decline in emergency department visits and a 20% increase in primary care engagement (Center for Outcomes Research and Education).

Using the 12% anticipated decrease, it is possible to provide a very rough guesstimate of the scale of potential Medi-Cal spending decreases as follows.

Metric Component Data Value Calculation Step Total Households (City) 36,618 Starting baseline Percent Renters ~60.2% Households that rent [NAME] 22,044 (Total Households ×

0.602) Percent Cost-Burdened

51.0% Spending >30% on housing Cost-Burdened Renter Households 11,242 ([NAME]

0.51) Percent on Medi-Cal (Medicaid) ~40.0% Est. enrollment in low- income brackets Medicaid-Enrolled [NAME] 4,497 (Cost-Burdened Households × 0.40) Avg. Annual Medicaid Spend/Member $9,000 Baseline state/local per- member cost Total Annual Spend (Pre- Stability) ~$40.5 Million (Targeted Households × $9,000) Estimated Savings (12% Reduction)

**~$4.86 Million** Projected Annual Healthcare Savings 4 While this analysis is for illustrative purposes, there should be some level of reduced Medi-Cal spending arising from the rent stabilization and eviction protections.

• Local Health Disparities: In Santa Barbara, housing-insecure residents are 2.2x more likely to report "fair or poor" health compared to those in stable housing (Santa Barbara County Community Health Needs Assessment, Health Indicator Profile: Housing Insecurity ).

Conclusion The data is clear: rent stabilization and robust eviction protections will save lives, improve physical and mental health in Santa Barbara and potentially reduce health care spending. By adopting these measures on January 13, the Council will take a key step in supporting the health of the community.

Vote YES to support rent stabilization and strengthened eviction protections Referenced Research Sources

1. Graetz, N., et al. (2024). Examining Excess Mortality Associated With the COVID-19 Pandemic for Renters Threatened With Eviction. JAMA. Link

2. Graetz, N., et al. (2024). The impacts of rent burden and eviction on mortality in the United States, 2000–2019. Social Science & Medicine. Link

3. Diamond, R., et al. (2019). The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality. American Economic Review. Link

4. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2024). California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Housing and Mental Health Data. Link

5. Institute for Research on Poverty (2024). Eviction Prevention: Reducing Harm to Households and Society. Link

6. Center for Outcomes Research and Education (2016). Health in Housing:

Exploring the Intersection between Housing and Health Care. Link

7. Leifhiet, K., et al. (2020). Eviction in early childhood and neighborhood poverty, food security, and obesity in later childhood and adolescence: Evidence from a longitudinal birth cohort Population Health. Link 5

8. Acharya, B., et al. (2022). The risk of eviction and the mental health outcomes among the US adults Preventive Medicine Reports. Link

9. Santa Barbara County Community Health Needs Assessment, Health Indicator Profile: Housing Insecurity (2019). Link

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, My name is [Name], and I [live/work/own a business] in Santa Barbara.

I support affordable housing for our workforce and urge you to adopt the temporary rent increase moratorium and just-cause Ellis Act protections. Building housing takes years, but displacement happens quickly. Without these protections, working residents—[teachers, healthcare workers, service workers, longtime tenants]—can be forced out by sudden rent hikes or no-fault evictions.

This affects more than individuals: local businesses struggle to hire, commutes increase, and our community loses stability and diversity. These ordinances are temporary, reasonable, and give us time to develop long-term housing solutions.

I respectfully urge you to support these protections to keep Santa Barbara livable for the people who keep it running. Thank you.

… 2 more paragraphs

The item is #14 on the Agenda: Tenant Protection – Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium Ordinance and Ordinance Adding Requirements for Just Cause "Ellis Act" Evictions [Ordinance Introduction; Ordinance Adoption] Recommendation: That Council:

A. Introduce and adopt, as an emergency ordinance after reading in full, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Establishing a Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium During the Preparation, Consideration, and Potential Adoption of a Permanent Rent Stabilization Program; and B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by the Addition of Section 26.50.100 Relating to Additional Requirements for Just Cause Evictions for the Purpose of Permanently Removing a Unit from the Rental Market.

… 3 more paragraphs

City Clerk, I am writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident who is very concerned about landlords throughout the city doing what they promised on the October 14th City Council meeting – evicting their tenants because they falsely claim rent stabilization will make their properties no longer profitable. This threat should be taken very seriously and City Council should pass a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze NOW, as a policy transition between now and when the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) is implemented.

Pass as rent freeze now! Although I believe THE RENT FREEZE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 14TH 2025 -- two months before the proposed date of December 16, 2025

-- I ask you to pass a rent freeze now! Days after your October 14th meeting, my landlord informed me that my rent would increase the maximum amount and that I would be be facing a no-fault eviction from my home of 13 years. My landlord cited the discussion of a rent stabilization ordinance at your October 14 meeting as the reason for the increase and his plans for eviction. I also believe you shoul implement additional requirements for ALL forms of no-fault evictions, for example, requiring landlords to keep units off the the market for 5 years if tenants have been evicted for any no-fault reasons. That said, it is most urgent that you pass a rent freeze as soon as possible, before even more people are forced out of the community.

[NAME] stated at the Strategic Planning Workshop on October 20 that "we need some type of strategy to address tenant displacement, because if you listen to the property owners [from the October 14th meeting]... they're either bluffing and they're not going to evict, or they're not bluffing and they are." Mr. Friedman is right – between October 14, 2025 and when the RSO is implemented, we need anti-displacement measures in place as well as a rent freeze so that landlords don't jack the rents through the roof, which can cause displacement the same way evictions can.

We demand a no-fault eviction moratorium and rent freeze until a strong rent stabilization policy is implemented. Although so-called "mom and pop" landlords have shown up in force at your meetings to claim rent stabilization will drive them out of business, there remains a lack of transparency in terms of how actual profits have been impacted, but you have heard from local educators, health care workers, and service providers who have told you over and over that they spend 50% or more of their income on housing. If mom and pop landlords are truly in alliance with the local community and want to provide affordable housing, this is when they should be building coalition with renters, as we can agree that corporate ownerships and luxury short term rentals take over more and more units in our city. Rent stabilization is not multually exclusive of other initiatives that could also benefit small landlords who are committed to providing affordable housing. If this is true, why would they oppose efforts to stabilize conditions for the community they claim to serve. My landlord is a "mom and pop"; but one month of my rent covers the cost of property taxes for the entire multi-unit property where I live, which is only minimally maintained. I have been an educator in our community for decades. I have always spent at least half of my salary on rent, and I have a stable job and steady income. But So many more in are community are at risk for homelessness, living in crowded conditions, or in poorly maintained units. And so many are already living in homelessness already. Rent stabilization is but a teeny step in creating more stabilization for our community.

Santa Barbara is at risk of losing many of its community, not only to this, but also the terrorism of ice, increasing costs, and crises in health care. Who will provide education, care, and service to the wealthy 1%, as more and more of regular working folks can no longer afford to live here?

… 1 more paragraph

Thank you for your attention to this matter, [NAME] [EMAIL] SANTA BARBARA, California 93105

… 1 more paragraph

[ Dear Mayor Rouse and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, We are writing again regarding the proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the suggested rent freeze. We are Santa Barbara "locals", in fact third generation local. We are homeowners who live in one unit on our property and rent the other. The income from our rental unit is what has made homeownership in Santa Barbara possible for our family.

As currently proposed, the RSO and rent freeze would impose significant and disproportionate financial hardship on small, "mom-and-pop" landlords such as ourselves—particularly we feel those with three units or fewer. While we fully support the goal of fair, stable, and sustainable housing in Santa Barbara, we believe the current approach does not adequately balance the needs of tenants with the realities faced by small property owners.

We support reasonable rent increase limits, restrictions on the frequency of rent increases, and just-cause eviction protections. These measures can be fair and effective for both tenants and landlords. However, proposals such as rent freezes or rollbacks, prohibitions on utility cost recovery, and caps at 60% of CPI are overly aggressive— especially for small landlords. These measures fail to account for the rapidly rising costs of homeowners insurance, property taxes, utilities, labor, repairs, and inflation overall. Many small landlords are not generating excess profit;

we are simply managing to cover expenses and remain solvent.

If any of these measures are adopted without meaningful differentiation between the type of landlord, many small property owners may be forced to remove units from the long-term rental market, convert them to short-term rentals, or sell their properties altogether—outcomes that would further reduce housing availability rather than improve it.

In our view, a significant contributor to Santa Barbara's housing challenges is the prevalence of short-term rentals, which remove otherwise viable long-term housing from the market. If fewer STR's were allowed the majority of those units would be back on the market and with more units available the rents would come down. Additionally, large corporate and out-of-town investors purchasing substantial portions of the local housing stock have dramatically altered the housing landscape. These factors deserve greater scrutiny.

Small landlords like us—local residents who have lived here our entire lives, worked hard to achieve homeownership, and who treat our tenants fairly and respectfully—should not be vilified or financially penalized.

We respectfully ask the Council to recognize the important distinctions among landlords and to tailor regulations accordingly.

Treating all landlords identically regardless of scale or ownership structure, fails to recognize the meaningful differences between large landlords/corporate entities and individual homeowner landlords. More aggressive regulations or potential rent freezes should apply to large landlords/corporate entities with many multiple units while providing appropriate exemptions or alternative standards for small local property owners.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

… 1 more paragraph

Zane and [NAME]

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important City Council Members With respect I urge you to consider voting against this measure. Studies have shown that rent control has negative effects on the communities where it has been instituted. As a renter myself, I fear the negative consequences that rent control will have on our community. Small landlords such as my own will likely be driven out of business unable to keep up with the increasing costs of maintenance, insurance, and taxes. Corporations will be the only entities able to acquire properties which will leave the tenant community in a worse position.

I have enjoyed a very positive relationship with my landlords over the years as they are a small family run business owning a handful of rentals. They care about their tenants and do their best for us.

Please do not listen to the activist groups behind these efforts. Most tenants in Santa Barbara have good relationships with their landlords and a rental moratorium will only drive out those owners to be replaced by corporate ownership. The answer to our housing crisis is not to go after small landlords. It is to sustainably build more housing in our community, removing the regulations and restrictions on building and to place logical limits on corporate ownership over rentals. This initiative will only hurt our small landlords and ultimately us tenants.

Respectfully, [NAME]

… 1 more paragraph

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important Dear Santa Barbara City Council members, I cannot attend today's meeting, nor can I watch it via Zoom because I must work during that time. Therefore, I would like you to know my position regarding item number 14 Temporary Rent Increase Moratorium on today's agenda.

I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this measure.

You cannot legislate a fix to the housing problem. If you approve this measure, it will eventually become permanent. These things always do. The only fix to the problem is the construction of additional housing. If you have a rent moratorium or rent control in place, no builder, big or small, will build more units here. Why would they?

A measure such as this seeks to punish the housing providers for a problem they did not create. Study after study after study in countries around the world show that these types of laws do not work and actually exacerbate the problem, and the problem lasts for many years.

… 2 more paragraphs

I oppose this measure and I urge you not to approve it.

Sincerely, [NAME]

Mayor Rowse and City Councilmembers;

We remember your commitment to protecting the small mom and pop housing providers of our community. We see no provision for this protection in the proposed ordinance. Some of you are abandoning your constituents and your commitments to us. Shame on you.

-Michele Carbone