AnonymousSource: Santa Barbara County District Attorney
District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley announced today that the Consumer and Environmental Protection Unit of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office reached a civil settlement with property owner, CP910BMIV LLC, and property management company, Isla Vista Luxury Living, Inc., to resolve consumer protection claims.
The civil complaint, filed in the Santa Barbara Superior Court, alleges that between August 2018 and December 2019, the Defendants committed unlawful business practices by failing to employ an on-site janitor, housekeeper, or other responsible person in an apartment complex with more than sixteen units. California Code of Regulations (“C.C.R.”), title 25, section 42 requires an on-site responsible person at these larger apartment complexes to ensure that tenants’ needs are properly met.
As part of the settlement, both defendants admitted liability and agreed to pay a total civil penalty of $16,000 to the County of Santa Barbara. In addition, the defendants are permanently enjoined from violating C.C.R. title 25, section 42.
District Attorney Dudley said, “laws designed to protect tenants are extremely important, particularly in communities like Isla Vista where there is often an inherent imbalance of power between landlords and tenants. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office is committed to enforcing these laws and to protecting the rights of tenants in Santa Barbara County.”
Not sure how it protects the rights of tenants to have a “janitor or housekeeper” actually live on the premises versus living off-site and on-call as needed. So why do tenants in apartment complexes with 15 units have less “protection?” And as the least protected, least appreciated class of people, why would anyone want to be a landlord these days?
What a ridiculous law- Only in California. The over reach would make George Washington and our founding fathers heads spin!
Now they will have to raise the rent in order to cover the loss.
BUS, You speak as if you have proof that all landlords gouge. Well, yes I agree some of the big corporate landlords may indeed, but not all of them. There are some “bad” landlords just as there are some “bad” tenants. It seems you agree mom and pop landlords are not the gougers. But upon what facts do you base your premise that the mom and pops are not subject to the same dearth of rights, protection, and respect as the corporates? I can assure you that they are. New regulations that are often pointless and always draconian and punitive apply to mom and pops as well as corporate landlords. Rants from tenant groups at city council meetings malign mom and pops along with the corporate landlords, and demand that the mom and pops not be exempt from any of the new rules even though these rules make smaller landlords want to sell or leave their units empty. Council members have made numerous remarks to show their lack of appreciation for any landlord small or “big.” Incredibly, most council members cannot grasp the fact that many of the mom and pop landlords are poorer than their tenants. A big percentage of the mom and pops are elderly who rent under market and rely on the meager profit they may make in order to buy groceries and survive. But mom and pops are fast being driven out of business, due to the lack of respect, the onerous new paper work and draconian regulations that make operations impossible to continue. Then in turn, their rentals will remain vacant or sold to the “big greedy corporations.” So poorly thought out regulations are not really doing much to help the housing situation in Santa Barbara. BTW, I think we should also be addressing tenant greed—as so very many are now taking advantage of new and ongoing regulations that allow them to purposely scam landlords with impunity.
Chip, with rents in this area already at national ALL-TIME highs, I don’t think giant property owning investment companies should be raising rents on anyone. This is why you have 12 students sharing a two room apartment and kids sleeping in closets. The rents in this area are stupid insane and unethical. “Isla Vista Luxury Living Inc” yeah, RIGHT.
BENE, landlords are the “least protected, least appreciated”?! Give me a BREAK! If they are, then ask yourself why. Gouging people for thousands more than the price should be is not ethical. The rents are out of the stratosphere and it’s ugly. Huge investment companies own swaths of apartment buildings in Isla Vista, Goleta and Santa Barbara. This place is called “Isla Vista Luxury Living Inc”… you really think that’s a poor mom-n-pop operation that is “unappreciated” or “least protected”? These companies have big teams of lawyers and it’s the students and the little people with NO money who are the ones least protected. No one appreciates rent gouging greed.
High rents are unethical? How so? We’ve got a university that keeps increasing enrollment, which brings in a huge number of students that want to rent nearby. The number of properties near campus doesn’t magically increase. It’s basic economic supply and demand… prices go up when when the supply is limited and the demand is high.
Should sb rents be the same as Bakersfield or Stockton or Fresno? Would that be “ethical“? It’s obviously not logical… but humor me… would that be “ethical”?
RHS – I trust that you understand That your argument doesn’t make sense or hold true in any capacity here. Necessary drugs are obviously quite a bit different than beachside college housing in a very expensive town. SB is an expensive place to go to college. Kids making the choice to come here aren’t being swindled or forced… there is no bait and switch. They can choose much much cheaper places to go to school.