Anonymous
Source: Hayes Commerical Group
The Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara recently purchased a 1.34 acre property at 200 N La Cumbre Rd in Santa Barbara, a few blocks from State and La Cumbre, the city’s busiest intersection. The property sold for $4,250,000.
Rob Adams and Dylan Ward of Hayes Commercial Group represented the Housing Authority, while Kristopher Roth and Greg Bartholomew of Hayes Commercial Group represented the seller in the transaction.
The property is improved with four professional office buildings totaling 12,270 square feet that have been leased to primarily medical tenants over the years. The Housing Authority intends to operate the property as is for the near-term, with the long-term goal of redeveloping the property for affordable housing.
“Given the location and condition of the existing buildings, redevelopment for multifamily housing is really the highest and best use for the property,” Adams said. “Santa Barbara obviously needs affordable housing, so this is an ideal acquisition for the Housing Authority.”
“Private developers weren’t jumping at this opportunity because they couldn’t get it to pencil out for either new apartments or other commercial use,” Ward said. “The Housing Authority is in a unique position to take on a project like this and build housing that other developers are unlikely to pursue.”
Here’s a crazy idea: build workforce housing that is prioritized for or only open to full-time workers in the City of Santa Barbara. When the mudslide cut SB off from Ventura it was obvious how many essential workers at Cottage, law enforcement, UCSB, Marborg, etc. are forced to live outside SB.
Agree. I remember how short staffed the ICU was of nurses .
Housing Authority=biggest mouth on the Governments teat. We’ll house the littlest contributor and the taxpayers (who pay) will allow you to survive in one of the most expensive places in the US.
Given the high demand for housing, developers should be building new housing units like crazy right now. Without any restrictions from the city, developers would be rapidly building housing units to keep pace with demand. So why isn’t that happening? I think one major factor discouraging developers from building new multi-family housing units is the city requiring a portion of the units be sold at below market prices to provide “affordable” housing. This reduces the financial incentive to build new housing units, so fewer are constructed and housing becomes ever less affordable. There is a certain irony in the city driving up housing costs with its “affordable housing” regulations. I have a theory that every action or regulation the city implements achieves the exact opposite of its stated intent. For example, the city just passed a law requiring landlords to offer their tenants a 1 year lease with the stated intention of helping renters. I’m curious, how many renters out there had their rent increased along with their new 1 year lease offer?
Rent control allows a specific percentage annual renl increase – how many long standing tenants have not had a rent increase who will now be getting one every year, up to the maximum allowed under “rent control”.
You make an excellent point. And if rent control is made more restrictive in the future and prevents landlords from operating profitably, how many will take their rental units off the market? San Francisco is the leader in rent control, and it has achieved what is arguably the most un-affordable housing market in the nation. As another example, New York City decided to continue WWII rent control policies after the war was over. By the 1970s, apartment buildings that had been abandoned by their owners who could no longer profitably manage them were literally falling down.
FACT: Housing Authority has no real income or income sources to keep them afloat. It’s all grants and federal money and they MAX it out with every grant request. Yes, they have absolutely played a part in the real estate availability in SB and guess what? All these clowns live down south in Ventura, Oxnard and Camarillo. Nobody on the board there is from SB.
Why didn’t they buy the retired Montecito Fire Station One and make it for subsidized housing…?
Good heavens, there are many people who grew up here and can’t afford to live in their hometown. I can’t believe anyone would be against helping to keep our citizens in homes. What we would have otherwise is only a rich town. When developers are required to add affordable apartments/condos they are also allowed to build more of them to compensate so the buildings become denser that the developer planned. I can’t believe any of them are not making enough money. Affordable housing is a good thing.
So a bunch of people are about to lose their jobs so someone else can have a free/subsidized house? Got it.
Maybe cuz it was half the size and cost 4 times as much.
@ 11:45am – what makes you think it’s free? Affordable housing, to you, is free housing? …brutal.
Oh great, come to SB if you have nothing and we will provide everything.Free housing is not the same as affordable housing. Once again, our leaders giving away the store.
The SBHA has done more to destroy the demographics and neighborhoods in Santa Barbara than any other organization…and it is supported / subsidized by your tax dollars… The City of Santa Barbara has been shifting to more of the population being on government subsidies than paying into the tax system. All so the Bacarra-Ritz Carlton, Rosewood Miramar and other $600 per night hotels and restaurants can continue to pay sub-wages to their employees so they can continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers…
Those who are against the Housing Authority, Social services and Medicare etc usually end up using it sometime in their lives so it’s good that it’s here for those that need it….Thank You.
Affordable housing and Santa Barbara. Middle class will end up paying for this in taxes. And the middle class will get nothing in return except more density and traffic.
I’m someone who incests in real estate but I’m not a developer and I looked at this property. First of all, the price is a gift. Only a government would have paid such s high price for this place- partly because a private developer would’ve had too much uncertainty as to what this would be approved to do. The building appeared to have structural foundation issues due to massive Ficus trees along La Cumbre. As far as turning it into low income housing, I’d rather see it for affordable housing for police or hospital workers. They often have a long commute and they serve the community. It’s a nice setting won’t be a skyscraper nor will it hurt the neighborhood if done right. As of now, it’s half vacant run down dental offices and the like.
The eastern side abuts a large senior assisted living facility and I thought It would also have made sense to add it to the other facility, since we do have many more aging seniors who will need assisted living as well. But again, I wouldn’t have paid more than $3.5m. It was owned by an insurance company that was likely losing money holding it. When I checked It out, some loser had come and changed his car oil in an abandoned below ground garage and left the oil there and a pizza box. The place was for sure headed for vagrant issues if all the tenants moved out.
In conclusion- City overpaid but if it’s for workforce housing – specifically police or nursing-I support It.
Just because someone grew up somewhere doesn’t mean 20-40yrs later there’s some moral principle that they should be able to afford it. Santa Barbara has a supply shortage in the lower end because it has risen as desirable place to love in the past 30yrs even relative to coastal California as a whole. Santa Monica is now a homeless and drug infested hellhole, San Francisco’s definitely going to see rents decline in the next 5yrs as it’s reputation has gone straight downhill.
Flocka- We are severely limited in Santa Barbara because of our water resources. Droughts contribute to draining cachuma but the main thing is “since your friends grew up” the water demands have probably tripled. We can’t build Santa Barbara into nyc and pretend we’ve got unlimited water- let alone other infrastructure.
No such thing exists or ever existed except maybe in some small commune somewhere. Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship with a semi-socialistic system. China too. But it is always good to do some red-baiting when you want to avoid a real discussion.
Who’s gonna change your diaper when you’re incontinent?
“forced to live outside SB” ummm no, they have chosen of their own free will to take up the yoke of the commuter.