Op-Ed: Santa Barbara’s Rent Freeze – Politics First, Housing Second

Rent Stability Is Economics, Not Election-Year Theater

Written by Gina Rodarte Quiroz

The debate over a rent freeze in Santa Barbara is being framed as politics versus sound policy. But when you strip away campaign narratives and ideological talking points, the real question is simple: In a severely supply-constrained housing market, should tenants bear 100% of the volatility risk?

That’s not a political question. It’s an economic one.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

A widely cited 2019 study in the American Economic Review examined rent control in San Francisco. Researchers found that tenants covered by rent regulation were 10–20% more likely to stay in their homes. Displacement fell significantly.

Yes, landlords adjusted over time. But the study did not conclude that rent stabilization “never works.” It concluded that tenant stability improved, while long-term supply effects depended on policy design. Stability has measurable economic value. 

It reduces:

• School turnover
• Commute displacement
• Homelessness risk
• Public assistance strain

Housing instability is expensive — for families and for cities.

Modern Policies Are Not 1970s Rent Control

Opponents often invoke New York in the 1970s. But today’s policies look different. In New York City, more than one million apartments remain rent-stabilized alongside an active private market. New housing continues to be built. Investment continues.

Most modern rent caps:

• Are tied to inflation
• Exempt new construction
• Allow hardship petitions
• Exclude small owner-occupied properties

A temporary freeze during a housing crunch is not the same thing as permanent price controls across an entire market. Design matters.

The Supply Argument — And What It Misses

There is broad agreement among economists: the core driver of high rents in coastal California is supply restriction.

• Zoning limits.
• Lengthy permitting.
• High land costs.
• Construction expense.

Those are structural barriers. But here’s the key point: addressing supply constraints takes years. Rent spikes happen in months. Increasing housing production and protecting tenants from displacement are not opposing strategies. They operate on different timelines.

In tight markets like Santa Barbara — where vacancy rates are low and rents already consume a large share of income — short-term volatility can push households out faster than new housing can be built.

The Homelessness Data

Research from California Policy Lab and Zillow has found that in high-cost regions, rent increases correlate with measurable increases in homelessness.

When rents rise faster than wages and vacancy is scarce, the margin for error disappears.

Santa Barbara is not a balanced market. It is one of the most constrained housing environments in the state. In such markets, price flexibility does not produce equilibrium quickly — it produces displacement.

“Mom-and-Pop” Landlords

Small landlords face real cost pressures. Insurance, labor, and compliance costs have risen.

But stabilization policies typically include:

• Exemptions for small properties
• Capital improvement pass-throughs
• Time limitations

The choice is not between landlord survival and tenant protection. It is about distributing risk in an overheated market. And notably, corporate consolidation of rental housing has expanded most rapidly in states without rent control. Investor concentration is not uniquely caused by tenant protections.

The Real Trade-Off

Rent stabilization is not a magic solution. Economists generally agree:

• It reduces displacement
• It increases tenant predictability
• It can affect mobility

Poorly designed versions can discourage some supply. But “never works” is not supported by evidence.  The reality is trade-offs — and policy design determines outcomes.

Politics Is Inevitable. Economics Still Matters.

Housing policy will always be political because housing is foundational to economic stability. But dismissing stabilization as mere election-year theater avoids the central issue: In a severely constrained market, should tenants absorb the full shock of rapid rent escalation?

A temporary rent freeze is not a revolution. It is a shock absorber. Long-term solutions require building more housing. But while that process unfolds, stability has value.

Santa Barbara’s debate should be grounded in evidence and design — not slogans from either side.