Op-Ed: In Open Letter, Sheila Lodge Schools Das on Planning, Rents and Building Costs for Housing

She is right, Santa Barbara has greatly increased densities, traffic, water use, utility use to appease the development community. It was supposed to encourage lower cost units, but, "rents will be what the market will bear". Forget the "liveability" of low density communities, or "living within our resources". Rich developers come in to our beautiful area and using every angle, "zone up" to density that the majority of us don't want.

"It sounds counter-intuitive, but the more units are built the worse the jobs/housing imbalance becomes. The city is faced with an insolvable conundrum..... Beyond locating financing for public housing authorities, and other non-profit housing providers, I do not know what will." - I think they're finally picking up on the fact that 1) they'll never solve the supply/demand imbalance of people wanting to live in Santa Barbara vs. places available to live, and 2) no private developer is going to invest in a project with a significant number of units with fixed, below market rents, that barely increase each year, while the cost to maintain the building - something the landlord is required by the leases to do - increases uncontrollably.

I agree with Sheila Lodge: "Rents will be what the market will bear". I disagree with "there is no such thing as affordable by design". Most approved AUD units are unaffordable by design: 9' ceilings, wet bars, recreation rooms, parking spaces. I would like the City to approve some AUD projects within a half mile of AB221 transit corridors with NO 9' ceilings, wet bars, recreation rooms, nor parking spaces. I am confident the rents for such units will be significantly less than previously constructed AUD units. Further note: "10% affordable" units are basically an extension of the Lottery. And in some sense renting one is like voluntary imprisonment. It would be very difficult to switch from an "affordable" unit to a market rate unit. And what incentive does a landlord have in maintaining "affordable" units? About as much incentive as a prison warden has in maintaining jail cells.

'"zone up" to density that the majority of us don't want'. Who is "us"? Current housing mandates are coming from the State.

Santa Barbara is such a contradiction. Wealthy, elite residents claim to support affordable housing for regular folks, like the service workers they rely on. These wealthy elites elect politicians who pass legislation stripping local governments of the ability to regulate development, abolishing “exclusionary zoning” that only allows luxury housing, and requiring rapid development of high density housing with stiff penalties imposed for failure to comply. Then, the same wealthy elites complain about new housing developments in their community. You can’t have it both ways.

Building more "market rate" units will not drive down the cost of rentals. It's not just a jobs/housing imbalance, since there are enormous numbers of people who do not work here but have the means and the desire to have a place here. In Santa Barbara the demand will *always* outstrip the supply, even if we pave over every square foot from here to Gaviota.

Clearly over the past ten years the problem has been aggravated by the number of people buying condos and homes here as second and third housing and speculation. It seems to me that we could create a requirement that housing be owner occupied or be treated as commercial space subject to stricter rules about its use. I think other places have done this. Some have said that about 20+% of housing in the area is now held by such owners. It is the reluctance of people like Lodge to confront powerful interests that has allowed this get so far out of control. Her apology that "that's the way it is" is disheartening and sort of disgusting. We elected leaders to do something. Das at least is asking for us to fight back.

The New Zoning Ordinance actually reduced useable lot area for most homeowners. The setbacks increased across most urban zones from 20' to 35' and from 5' to 10' on interior setbacks. Her "work" on the NZO has made it more difficult for homeowners to build or add-on, so they now have to go UP!? Thanks Sheilah, for making it twices as expensive to build in SB!

ADU setbacks are only 4'-0" to the propertyline, so people are choosing to build ADUs instead of otherwise expanding their homes, because Planning & Development process is too complicated to do a simple remodel now.

yall are forgetting the biggest part of this math equation....our population. do you really think that we can keep growing, building, reproducing, planting, harvesting, factories, ranches, etc forever? We have limited space, we have over sized homes, cars, tiny narrow roads built for carriages.
We can't keep populating and expect to have a lot of room to house everyone. we are at the limits of what SB can provide. Without building north towards Gaviota, we just can't sustain more people, more cars. More people = more housing needs and we just can't do it. Also, writing a letter publicly to someone you've had conversations with in person is just really poor communication and judgement. Take it back to the source. IDC if you didn't get the answer you wanted. You got an answer of reality. Look, i can't afford anything here and i've lived and worked here since 1982. All of my family have moved away (they are smart), 75% of my friends have moved away (also smart). SB isn't the city it once was, nor will it ever by that city again. SB now only caters to the $$ tourism industry and with poor city management and poor financial arrangements, we're in a bad hole to where we scoot out retail and usher in more hotels, more touristy restaurants, and expensive townhomes and condos that very very few of us can readily afford without going broke.
SB is completely out of control with rental prices. I'm sorry, but $4000 a month for a two bedroom one bath apartment in a crappy neighborhood isn't acceptable. The city and land barons are squeezing every cent from hard working families and individuals. I've been a leaser, renter in town since the 90s. It's REALLY out of control and for those that say it's not, you're either new here or not a renter. You can't rent in SB even with 3 jobs. Its not possible.
we have serious problems here and the more people stick their collective heads in the sand and ignore it, and i'm talking to the leaders too, we are going to have thousands of people sleeping in the parks (which will give a lot of you criers plenty to cry about).
I've already seen several elderly people displaced. Familes too. At SBCC on thursday evening, a little old lady was sitting on the stairs at Cliff and Rancheria. She had suitcases and all sorts of stuff. We asked her if she needed help. She was shaking, lost her home, was evicted and she went to Rite aid to get her meds and the owner had all of her stuff thrown out. Owners son did it in front of her. Heartless bastards. We brought her home, made a lot of phone calls, found her family and also found a place for her in town for a few nights until her family came to help her.
THIS IS WHAT OUR LAND BARONS ARE DOING TO US. This is serious BS. You ever have a little old lady cry on your should because she was kicked out? I have and it hurts like hell. She's a retired teacher. She taught our kids, your kids, probably YOU. Thrown out like trash on the street. I hate this city, the money behind it and the crappy installation we have at city hall. every last one of them and Randy too, need to go.

Unfortunately state legislators, with progressive campaign donors, have decided for every California jurisdiction what they must build. Over half of the jurisdictions in the state were opposed to laws stripping their local control over land use. The current YIMBY movement, started by Microsoft and other tech executives, began because they wanted more Bay Area housing for employees of their growing companies. These millennials have huge backing by the real estate and development industries. The pockets are deep and they have effectively changed housing policy in our whole state. Under the guise of housing for everyone they have stripped local control and have only increased housing for those who can pay market rate or those who want a vacation home. The kickbacks, incentives, tax breaks, and ability to bypass sensible planning have made developers richer and will continue to do so at the cost of local communities. There is no trickle down housing in places like Santa Barbara. Building more market rate does not suddenly open up housing for middle income families. It simply brings more people who can pay for them.

The Governor’s ludicrous ‘build baby, build’ decree is the worst part of this problem.

4:39: You have nailed it. Weiner and his buddies in Sacramento are destroying our area with their cookie-cutter state mandates. The current Housing Element process is a mess and driving out the few planners that we have. SB County housing element process has been handed over to the land owners and real estate people with little to no public comment opportunities. Some communities are telling the state to take a hike and ignoring all the threats of 'state taking over all planning'. SB used to be a beacon in the world of planning in the state. Who is allowing this to happen? BOS? Das? Mona? Lisa? I suggest a moratorium from the state level down. Let the local areas do their inventory of buildable lots but do not allow staff to go out and make deals with places like Glen Annie to pave Paradise.

Das is a total sell out/empty suit.

Has been for years and unfortunately he reps my district.

Thank you Sheila!
Das and most of Sacramento have been bought off by the construction industry and unions long ago. That and the encouragement of unrestrained population growth has gotten us to the point of destroying the quality of life that we so cherish.

Sheila needs to back off. Das simply lobbied that a SB City development plan for all of La Cumbre Mall would be bogged down by the SB planning process and take too long to get housing built. Das is right the folks who plan to tear down Macys (formally Robinsons) most likely can and will get approvals and build much faster than if the Sears building with different developers and owners are included in one big plan. SBCAG was supposed to award the 1 million to make rental housing happen faster. Instead the city of SB would slow the process down trying to group it all in one specific development plan if they got the 1 million to fund the plan. This is dream come true for Old Town SB.. build massive number of housing units on upper state and save downtown SB character for a few more years.

You’re never going to be able to build build build so that everyone who wants to live here can afford to. It’s impossible. It’s completely illogical. Sac’s post at 09:51 is classic - you can’t have it both ways, my friend. “Make” housing affordable and comfortable so we can all stay on our homes and never have to move? We want it like to good old days! AND I want to pay penny’s on the dollar property taxes compared with new families that move to the area?

I don’t think so.