Landlords in Santa Barbara have come together and filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city’s temporary rent freeze, requesting an injunction to halt enforcement of the policy.
The lawsuit has been brought by the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association (SBRPA), which contends that the ordinance violates constitutional rights and was enacted through a procedurally flawed process.
Plaintiffs Claim Ordinance Violates Property and Contract Rights
Plaintiffs argue that the ordinance unlawfully restricts property rights and was adopted without following proper procedural standards. This temporary measure, adopted in January 2026, was intended as an interim measure while the city develops a permanent rent stabilization program.
The complaint lists SBRPA alongside four other property owners, Teresa Patiño, JKRK L.P., 3442 Richland LLC, and 1501 SB LLC, as plaintiffs in the case. Opposing them are the defendants, which include the City of Santa Barbara, the City Council, Mayor Randy Rowse, and other council members.
The complaint maintains that the ordinance violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution and interferes with private agreements, raising potential issues under the Contracts Clause. Plaintiffs further argue that the ordinance violates due process and equal protection protections under the Constitution.
In practice, according to the filing, the ordinance retroactively prohibits rent increases on certain properties, preventing landlords from adjusting rents to reflect market conditions. Property owners claim that the restriction denies them a fair return on investment and renders the ordinance unconstitutional.
The lawsuit also challenges the adoption process, with plaintiffs noting that the City Council rushed the ordinance without proper consideration. They also allege that the ordinance was influenced by bias and predetermined decisions, with limited attention to public input or economic data.
Plaintiffs Raise Economic and Procedural Concerns
Economic issues are central to the complaint, with plaintiffs asserting that the ordinance disregards rising costs of property ownership, such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Plaintiffs warn that restricting rent increases under these circumstances could lead some property owners to remove units from the rental market, potentially reducing housing supply and affecting property maintenance.
Plaintiffs stated that the ordinance offers no exemptions or appeal process, leaving landlords without recourse in cases of financial hardship, and argue that this violates due process rights.
The lawsuit also challenges the city’s “just cause” eviction rules, with plaintiffs claiming that these provisions limit property management options and could prevent re-renting units for up to five years if withdrawn from the market. They further argue that these restrictions conflict with California’s Ellis Act, which governs landlords’ ability to withdraw rental units from the market.
Also Read
- Downtown Santa Barbara’s Colorful Street Mural Underway, Traffic Changes Through April 24
- Tom Steyer Draws Overflow Crowd in Santa Barbara, Pitches Housing Push and ICE Abolition Amid Polling Surge
- Trump Wants Data On California’s Trans And Abortion Care. Can The State Stop Him?
- Sonic Booms Expected as SpaceX Targets Starlink Launch from Vandenberg This Weekend
- San Francisco Detects First Clade I Mpox Case; Health Officials Reassure Low Public Risk
oh BS! you land barons have been sticking it to us for far too long. finally we get some minor relief and you challenge it? you are the problem, not a part of it, YOU are the actual problem. Selfish. If the rental crisis in SB isn’t a crisis, then how is it that in 1998 i made $10 an hour, worked 40 hours a week and was able to afford my own, nice apartment, all utilities, and food and enterainment and still had some $ left over at the end of the month. Explain to me how that same exact unit that is being rented by one of these land barons, rents for $3800 a month. Wages here do not pay that much, yet land barons continuously raise the rents. They argue that they are “only keeping with current market trends” BS again. YOU set the current trend by price gouging us. When our own PD, and paramedics and first responders can’t even afford to live in the city that they work to support and protect, its time to take a long hard look at things. These land barons in SB have squeezed out the middle class and have the lower class under their collective thumbs.
I’d do the same if I owned rental property. Total government overreach, courtesy of 3-4 people on the City Council. So haphazard.
Not “courtesy of 3-4 people on the City Council”! These council members are elected by thousands and represent the population of the city. If you don’t like their votes elect someone else next time but meanwhile play by the rules and accept democracy. (One might be more agreeable to your populist rant if it were directed at the unelected US Supreme Court which is regularly taking away rights from the people.)
In today’s issue of Ed Hat there is also this article which may help explain why rents and prices if real estate are so high:
“High-End Montecito Estate Fetches $12 Million, More Than Doubling in Value in Two Years”
The mom & pop landlords are not causing this. Too many people love Santa Barbara and want to live here. What ever is being built will be 2nd or 3 third homes, condos or apartments for people that can afford that.
Rent control doesn’t work and never did. That will stop future building. It also will create a situation where the current owners when they can no longer afford to maintain these properties then they will sell them. Talk about increase in rents. Think about that: new mortgage at 6 1/2 %, new property tax basis for the current new value. It’s the escalating costs some of which the city is at fault for creating.
One more thing: if you are trying to create a new regulation you should not be running for mayor. There are many conflicts of interest in this proposal .
Rent control has worked. But there are other strategies as well. This morning’s LA Times has a story about San Diego considering a fee/tax on unoccupied residential properties. This seems a good thing to discourage speculators, uber wealthy folks with multiple homes, hedge fund investors and others who are not actually using the residences for necessary housing. The revenue is proposed to be used for building low income housing which seems fair.
I’ll say it again, but I don’t understand why comments that are completely within the guidelines are removed. Sure, the authors may post a lot of racist, bigoted remarks, but when the comments are no offensive, they should be allowed.
prop 19 is going to raise rents so I hope you didn’t vote for it
Malarkey.
basic economics Anon, when property taxes go up, they’ll get passed on the the renter
00Ps – not necessarily. That’s up to each individual landlord. Prop taxes increase each year to some degree, at least mine do, but that doesn’t mean rent increases each year.