The Santa Barbara City Council held an extensive and emotional discussion on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, over a proposed temporary moratorium on rent increases.
The measure was proposed as a “standstill” to prevent tenant displacement while the city works toward a permanent rent stabilization program. City officials said the moratorium would provide immediate relief to tenants while allowing time to develop a long-term policy.
During the meeting, the City Attorney said the regulation is limited by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which restricts the types of properties the City can regulate.
As a result, the moratorium would not apply to housing that received certificates of occupancy after February 1, 1995; single-family homes and condominiums that can be sold separately; subsidized housing, including government-owned units and those with existing affordability covenants; or transient occupancies such as hotels, motels, and rentals of 30 days or less.
The ordinance sets the rent in effect on December 16, 2025, as the “base rent” for existing tenancies. The ordinance is temporary and will expire on December 31, 2026, or upon the adoption of a permanent rent stabilization program, whichever occurs first.
The City Council initially mulled over adopting the moratorium as an emergency ordinance, which would have enabled it to take effect immediately. However, the motion failed as it did not get the mandatory five-vote supermajority.
The Council then voted 4-3 to introduce the moratorium through the ordinary process. Under this process, an ordinance is introduced during a meeting and is adopted at a following session.
The City Council heard testimony for over three hours, reflecting a sharp divide on the topic in the community.
Supporters, including tenants and housing advocates, argued that the city faces a housing emergency. Citing stagnant wages and increasing homelessness, they noted that there were more than 2,400 homeless individuals across Santa Barbara county.
In contrast, opponents, including business groups and landlords, said the moratorium was not a genuine emergency and was a political maneuver.
Several landlords testified that surging operating costs, especially insurance hikes rising by 40% to 300%, utilities, and maintenance have skyrocketed and make rent freeze financially unsustainable.
Opponents of the ordinance warned that such policies would reduce housing supply and discourage property maintenance.
Opposition from Mayor Randy Rowse
Opponents of the ordinance included Mayor Randy Rowse, who called it “morally wrong” and “discriminatory” toward a section of property owners. Rowse also voted against the measure in both the emergency and ordinary forms.
Criticizing the City Council for moving forward without “facts,” “data,” or “financial models,” Rowse said the Council was “playing with the house’s money” by gambling with residents’ investments, property, and futures without understanding its impact.
He cited cities like Santa Monica and New York, where rent control programs proved unsuccessful or led to high administrative costs.
Rowse also raised concerns about freezing rents while property owners are grappling with mounting costs.
Also Read
- California’s Most Spectacular and Famous ‘Fiery Waterfall’ Returns
- Governor Gavin Newsom Greenlights $90 Million in Funding to Protect Reproductive Health Care
- Santa Barbara City Council Votes to Crack Down on Single-Use Plastic and Mylar Balloons
- What’s Happening in Downtown Santa Barbara: February 12-18
- CDFW Cannabis Program Safeguards California’s Natural Resources
If a landlord’s costs (such as insurance) go up significantly, how are they supposed to stay solvent? How do the supporters of rent control answer that?
What if the renters rent increases dramatically?
Calif is expensive with Santa Barbara being even more expensive. We have an extremely high cost of living. With gas, utilities taxes and such. I suppose they could move to where it is affordable.
We should send you to Florida. You don’t fit in here.
The poor landlord should move to an affordable place too. If you can’t afford to own a rental property, then either sell, or buy property outside of SB.
Sorry, it does not work that way.
If you cannot afford the rent, move on. There will be plenty of others lining up for the rental.
Poor landlords? Not in this area. How much is your rent?
KAPO – you don’t know how anything works. Landlords who can’t afford the home they’re renting should buy rentals in more affordable places, not gouge the tenants.
Sure I do, it’s called simple Capitalism. Supply and demand.
how do you calculate when its gouging? Should rent be based on current home value? Based on owners purchase price? Based on market comparisons? Using you own house for reference explain your original capitol investment costs, annual maintenance, tax and misc. costs. Now how much should you charge for rent without being accused of gouging.
Luxury and desirability cost money. Nobody accuses Rolls Royce gouging!
SAIL – a rundown studio at 500 sq ft for well over $2000 a month or a 1100 sq ft 3 bd house at $5000 is hardly a “luxury” so to compare the often awful, small, dirty and overpriced rentals to a Rolls Royce is beyond absurd.
you had a little scope creep there and didn’t answer the simple question sacjon. If Santa Barbara area wasn’t a desirable and luxury location it wouldn’t be so expensive
“Scope creep?” Huh?
Anyway, what I consider “gouging” is charging the rents I just listed above for crappy living quarters. I’ve seen some awful places charging ridiculous amounts.
If you can’t afford the mortgage/tax/insurance on your property without doubling or tripling the cost for tenants, you should move.
So simple, creep.
If a landlord bought a place and could cover the costs, but then insurance costs went up dramatically and he had to sell, don’t you think the new owners would have to charge higher rents to cover their costs? Why would anyone buy a property only to rent it out at a loss?
Obviously some landlords are raking in the money, gouging tenants. But what about the ones who aren’t?
But sacjon, what if the cost of upkeep rises dramatically? The owner could sell, but won’t the new owner have high costs, too?
Kapono, If you cannot afford the mortgage on your 2nd property, then move on.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I own our house. Paid off the mortgage over a decade ago.
The landlords can charge what the market dictates. If the rent is too high, it will go vacant, that’s the landlords decision, not the counties.
> that’s the landlords decision, not the counties.
Sez you. Functioning societies have regulations.
I agree. Know your limits, and spend accordingly.
I wish I could own two properties, but I am happy just owning the one home.
It was not easy buying here, my father and brother & many friends I grew up with here had to move due to the high costs.
I have thought about purchasing out of town, using the rent from my current home to pay for it, but being from here makes it difficult for my wife and I to relocate.
I will continue to just travel, and be happy when I get home to my house, pets and neighbors.
You never sound happy.
Move. We’ll all be happier.
> Sorry, it does not work that way.
But it should.
I fit in fine and don’t really need to move. If we did sell the people that need rent control wouldn’t be the ones buying them. Then what? A family has to move out and possibly cant afford to stay local. Out of area buyer moves in causing 1 less rental. Unintended consequence?
Old man yells at cloud syndrome
And I suppose the landlord can sell their property. But no, somehow landlords are entitled to guaranteed no risk profits.
Sail, California is expensive, I suggest if you can’t afford home insurance as a landlord, you should move. And suggest getting a real job other than being a leech.
thats funny Natty, I never said I couldn’t afford the cost of ownership. The leeches are the ones wanting to ride on someone’s financial coat tails with out putting effort of their own into it.
That’s exactly what some landlords do. Sounds like you fit the category.
> The leeches are the ones wanting to ride on someone’s financial coat tails with out putting effort of their own into it.
Yes, that’s what we’re saying … landlords are leeches. Finally we agree.
They adjust their budget, find a place they can afford, or move to a more affordable place.
Exactly what inept landlords should do!
Certainly the city should agree put the same cap on their services; water, trash, and property tax.
Also they should create an ordinance to cap insurances, electric and gas
The costs of public utilities are tightly regulated.
Not completely true. Water and trash are set by the city.
The city has already said they are going to raise water prices 10% each year for 5 years. Water in SB is already crazy high, one of the most expensive in the nation. Shouldn’t they be tied to the same cap as rent?
> Not completely true. Water and trash are set by the city.
i.e., they are regulated.
Great question. But common sense isn’t so common, so they cannot answer that one logically whatsoever. Just a bunch of nonsense and bogus stereotypes trying to make the average landlord look like a crook.
BASIC – you’re unable to answer any question about anything, so spare us the whole spiel there.
Just the ones spouting off here, who seem to think greed is good for everyone.
I am your typical mom-and-pop landlord. My wife and I are both 77. We have and have had small rentals here and other places. I would like to make an assumption, that hopefully, we can all agree on. Landlords are in the business of making money. Those of you who are employed are getting paid, and the businesses that you work for are making a profit. The landlord is no different. They have a significant investment in the equity of their properties and considerable costs supporting them. The landlord that is not making money will not stay in business. They will not supply housing.
What are the causes of the high cost and the scarcity of housing? There are several factors. Among them are:
Lack of new housing.
An ever-increasing population.
The high cost of building and construction.
Zoning.
High mortgage rates.
Onerous building codes and regulations.
Ever-rising costs of insurance, maintenance, government fees, taxes, utilities, etc.
Municipal, County, State, and Federal policy.
Adverse legislation.
And now criminal litigation.
Are Landlords, as a rule, the cause of these factors? Landlords want things to be as inexpensive as possible and they want profitable housing to invest in. If there was an ample supply of housing, prices would stabilize.
Our legislatures have done little to correct the problems listed above or create additional housing. They have made small steps like allowing Granny-flat construction and modifying subdivision regulations (now tossed out by a lower court decision). The burden of mitigating the problem is placed on the landlord by legislation such as this. Currently, governmental laws and regulations are not only making investing in rentals unprofitable but they are also taking basic ownership rights away from property owners. Property owners no longer have control over who lives in their property or on what terms. On the whole, governmental actions are to blame and regulate the landlords instead of finding and correcting the root causes. These are complex, difficult issues that require complex and difficult solutions. To date, the government has not been up to the task. They are taking the easy way. They blame the landlord and make him pay for the inability of our government to do its job.
In the short run, rent control, legislation and regulation, to date, have only been a short-term panacea. It will only make the problem worse in the future. If the landlord cannot make a profit, he will stop investing in housing. Exacerbating this lack of profit is the increase in adverse legislation, loss of private property rights, and now the threat of prosecution. Under these conditions, landlords will only maintain their properties at a minimal level because they know they will not be reimbursed for any improvements. Landlords are now leaving units empty rather than letting tenants obtain rights over their property. The landlord can find other easier and less risky places to invest. What is the alternative if the investor does not provide housing?
If its not profitable for you to own a second investment home you probably shouldn’t own an investment home. Or, you should own an investment home in a less expensive place. That is essentially what you are asking renters to do.
Yeah, he and his wife should just lose money on their major investment. So crazy they’d want to make any kind of profit in it. What’s wrong with these people, right? So greedy! Let’s go Socialism!!
People going into business should have contingency plans and extra funds for unexpected occurrences.
In addition, anyone with any business acumen knows that costs are going to increase over time.
Failure to plan is planning to fail, but currently failed businessmen rule the roost.
People making a bad or ill-timed investment do lose money … that’s an essential feature of capitalism.
“So crazy they’d want to make any kind of profit in it.”
Wanting moolah is no guarantee of moolah.
Regulation is a response to abusive behavior.
Fact! That was very well put.
> I would like to make an assumption, that hopefully, we can all agree on. Landlords are in the business of making money.
So are thieves and grifters.
Your assumption, which I don’t agree to, is that landlords are magically entitled to risk and effort free moolah at the expense of others.
Haha! That’s a clown statement.
Do you work? Maybe no. Ok.
Do you work to make money? If you work, then that’s why you work. To make a living. Right.
Do you have bills to pay to be able to rent/own a place so you have a roof over your head and don’t have to be homeless? Yes you do.
What country do you live in Marcel? Why are you so against folks who work hard to make a living, raise themselves and their families, also their future families going forward to have a better future? Are you a socialist? If so, that’s what I thought. Good luck.
Typically appallingly stupid ignorant and dishonest comments.
It’s this sickening mentality that strikes at the heart of the “greedy landlords” argument. Calling yourself a “mom and pop” landlord to make the activity sound quaint and sympathetic belies the truth of your position: it’s a business whereby you expect your renters to not only pay for their own residence but subsidize your lifestyle as well. If you’re in your 70’s you should well remember the days when landlords rented investment properties out to recoup the costs of owning a second home. Rent was, at most, equal to mortgage plus insurance. The cost of maintenance fell on the property owner because the investment was the second property itself, which the owner had the good fortune of owning without the burden of mortgage and insurance thanks to renters who covered those costs. But maintenance ensured a good return on the investment and fell to the owners. Over the years rent creeped up slightly to cover the costs of mortgage, insurance, and a little extra to cover maintenance. In this scenario the renters were taking on all costs for someone else’s investment property. And still that wasn’t enough. Landlords like you, who consider it a business, feel entitled to burden renters with the costs of the mortgage, insurance, maintenance AND enough profit for you to live off of. And yet when it comes time to sell, even though all costs of the investment have been paid for by your renters, it’s you who reaps the profit, often to the tune of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the market. Yes, that is greed.
When you don’t care that people, including couples and families, are renting out single rooms within a larger home simply to afford shelter at the current rates, as long as you’re earning a profit off their labor, its greed. When every time renters finally get a raise at work, which might’ve taken a few years, you take it and more claiming it’s your due because you’re only a “mom and pop” trying to make a profit, it’s greed. And it’s sickening.
Who among us earns a 10% raise annually? Most people don’t even get raises annually, and when they do get a raise, it’s typically a modest 2%-3%. Even a raise of 5% is considered high in the business world, and rarely happens annually. But landlords? They are legally entitled to raise rent by up to 10% each year, regardless of their out-of-pocket costs or whether they’ve done anything to maintain or improve a residence.
The property itself should be the investment… if that’s not the case let me hear from property owners who shared or plan to share profits when it comes time to sell with the renters who paid the mortgage for all the years owned. Not likely, right?
And speaking of selling, the threat from landlords is that they’ll sell. That could be a good thing. The sudden availability of so many homes on the market at once should help drive local ownership costs down so some renters can buy the homes they’ve been subsidizing, and other homes can be bought up as second properties by landlords willing to accept that the property itself is the investment.
Human necessities should be, and thankfully often are, regulated as a result of the for-profit mentality above. Housing belongs in this category, especially when so many landlords put profit above people.
Here’s the definition of greed:
“Greed (noun) is an excessive or selfish desire for more of something—especially wealth, power, or possessions—than one needs or deserves, often without regard for others. In plain terms: wanting more and more, even when it harms fairness, balance, or other people. It’s not just wanting something—it’s wanting it at the expense of others.”
If the label fits…
Spot on.
A simple remedy to have more change in your pocket each month is to buy a rental property in a less expensive housing market. My recommendation is to purchase in a city/town that has a university (constant supply of student renters) and even better if that university has an associated hospital (constant supply of mostly well-paid hospital staff). We bought rental property some years ago in San Mateo County, which provides all we need to support our home/cars/lifestyle here. If you can afford rent in SB, then you should easily be able to afford income property somewhere else. The first step is to take the first step…the rest is easy.
More Bend Those Knees blather.
Do you pause to think for even a moment before producing such drivel?
Bonus points for using the word “blather”. Excellent!
why stop at rent control. Why doesn’t the city/county freeze electricity, gas, water & insurance costs. Perhaps they should regulate the cost of automobiles because they are insanely expensive. Maybe cap air fares too. Where does it stop?
> Why doesn’t the city/county freeze electricity, gas, water
The state does that, dufus.
Does greed also apply to the city of SB who announced they are increasing water rates 10% each year for the next 5 years?
What about the the average stock investor who has averaged over 8% returns for the last 20+ years. Should they be forced to sell their stock to provide affordable housing and make a much smaller/no return?
What about the renter that gets a big raise, bonus, or promotion? Should they them be required to pay more rent?
You just don’t understand the principles involved.
To you, it’s all about money.
non sequitur and dumb
I gather from comments that some people think the hypothetical landlord who owns his own house, plus one or two more houses, should sell the spare houses rather than rent them out, if his costs get too high. Okay. But what about the landlord who owns, say, a four-unit apartment building. He lives there and rents out the other three units. He’s a nice guy and not gouging the tenants. Then his insurance bill skyrockets, plus the plumbing needs work but it’s very expensive. What if he is not allowed to raise rents enough to cover the costs? If he can’t pay his mortgage, how does that help the tenants? Any new owner will have the same issues, maybe more.
I understand that capitalism doesn’t work well for housing and other essential needs. I’m just not certain that rent control fixes the problem.
Shoot, I’m glad I don’t live within the City limits. I would like to have to opportunity to invest in a rental property going forward if I wanted to and NOT lose money on it. I feel sorry for all the the mom and pop landlords I saw speaking out against this the other day in the City Council chambers. I watched a lot of it. I think a lot of folks have the wrong idea of property owners. As I watched, person after person came up opposing this idea. They weren’t rich corporate goons in suits, not at all. And as I watched I also noted how the two seats on the left couldn’t help giggling and chatting left and right as honest citizens came to the podium and were speaking their mind honestly and emotionally, telling theor personal stories. Who were they? SantaMaria and Harmon – just like those kids in a classroom that the teacher has to separate because they’re not paying attention to what they’re supposed to be doing. Hey, we’ve all seen it in grade school, but I was surprised to see it during a public meeting. Total disdain. Minds made up. At least you could pretend to be professional.
So much projection.
Sounds just like you, BI Guy.
Stanford study (2019) looked at San Francisco’s rent control and found a surprising logical loop. Because landlords of older buildings were limited in their profit, many responded by converting their units into condos or redeveloping them into new, exempt luxury housing.
The Result: The very law meant to keep housing affordable actually reduced the supply of rental housing by 15%, which then drove up the prices of the remaining “market-rate” units even faster.
Seems Santa Barbara is on the same journey. . Old apartments will be torn down and luxury new apartments or condos not subject to rent control built.
In other words, those landlords made a bad investment, and bailed out when they could no longer try to squeeze profit out of their tenants.
They obviously had plenty of money to afford to do the conversions. Sorry, no sympathy for gougers.
@Anonymous – You come across as more focused on punishing landlords than on solving the affordable-housing problem.
I also want to see real progress on affordability, but I don’t believe rent control is the right tool. Many cities have tried it, with mixed results at best. It can leave a share of tenants with below-market rents, but it can also “lock” people into units that no longer fit their needs because moving would mean losing that rent. Meanwhile, tenants in buildings constructed after 1979 would still pay market rates, and over time the supply of pre-1979 units would shrink.
A better approach is to increase supply—whether through city-owned affordable housing, partnerships, or private development. More homes means higher vacancy, which increases competition and puts downward pressure on rents.
> You come across as more focused on punishing landlords than on solving the affordable-housing problem.
Not to anyone honest.
> A better approach is to increase supply—whether through city-owned affordable housing, partnerships, or private development.
Where has Mac ever rejected that?