AnonymousSource: City of Santa Barbara
Today the City of Santa Barbara released a public comment draft of the proposed Just Cause Eviction and Relocation Assistance Ordinance. The public is invited to comment on the draft until October 2, 2020. Comments should be emailed to City Attorney Ariel Calonne at acalonne@SantaBarbaraCA.gov. Public comments will be presented to the Ordinance Committee on October 20, 2020.
On August 18, 2020, the City Council’s Ordinance Committee unanimously voted to recommend that the ordinance provide cash relocation assistance equal to 1 and ½ months’ rent to tenants who are forced to move through a no-fault eviction.
The public comment package is available for download at https://santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/attorney/rental_housing_information.asp.
A Spanish translation will be available by September 8th.
Any relocation amount needs to include only credit for the amount of the returned security deposit. Consider the security deposit part of the tenant’s relocation savings account, for their eventual move, which comes built in when choosing to rent and not purchase one’s own home. The better care the tenant takes of the rental property, the more money have coming back to them when it comes time to move. One rents knowing up front this is a temporary living arrangement. No justification that impose s unilaterally a relocation penalty solely on the landlord. Unless the goal is for landlords to get out of the business of providing rental properties entirely.
Or, of course, the landlords could try to avoid people having to “move through a no-fault eviction” …. ?
Landlords rarely ever want to lose a good tenant. And some tenants know they can game the system and prolong any rental termination – including declaring bankruptcy. Most likely there are as many bad tenants as their are wicked landlords – just listen in at small claims court someday and hear some of their stories. Therefore only putting a penalty on one side of this voluntary agreement does not balance the mutually undertaken risks of this relationship.
A $250 a month rent increase will cover the landlord’s $3000 relocation charge in one year. Then the landlord can re-adjust to market rate if he or she chooses. Or the tenant moves and finds a better deal.
I’m concerned that this will not produce the results they desire and could potentially increase the cost of rents to offset the Land Lord costs for these potential “bad” tenants.
If a Land Lord cannot remove a tenant easily or for a large cost why would a Land Lord take a risk on a “high risk” low income, low credit score, no savings person(s) over a “better risk”, higher income, better credit score and a savings? The hard working, low income people and families will be competing with more people or not even be considered because of their financial credentials.
Land Lords will leave units vacant until they find the “right tenant” if it costs them thousands to remove a tenant.
And that potential cost will be built into the lease, increasing market value rental rates.
Either way the hard working, low income people will be paying for these proposed “protections”
We actually need to thank the alleged “greedy’ State Street landlords that they held out and did not go with a string of quick and easy cash tenants. They did want to maintain a certain quality of life for our remaining downtown. If they were really “greedy”, State Street would now be nothing but check cashing store fronts and Chinese-made dollar stores. A few of them are already bad enough, hawking loudly and intrusively from their store fronts at pedestrians who want to be left alone. State Street Block 1300 north Arlington Theater to Sterns Whar f00 block south (1) Restaurant/theater zone -(2) business-professional office zone – (3) retail shopping zone-(4) night life zone -(5) tourism zone – second story apartments where they can fit in. But keep the street open to auto traffic all the way. Some side streets blocked off as pedestrian “courtyards” with decorative archways so they are obvious when seeking cross town traffic streets between State, Anacapa and Chapala.
I think government entities need to stop trying to play god.
Elected city council members, particularly this current young and very inexperienced group, are no match for the animal spirts of the marketplace that self-regulates the rental marker. Social engineering using draconian edicts always distorts the market and always leads to ultimately negative consequences. Whereas, willing seller meeting willing buyer keeps market dynamics fresh and responsive. Yes, some will be priced out of the market, but moving to more affordable areas will be a positive for them in the long term. There are overall societal benefits bringing in those who can afford this premium rental market.
10:26, you are correct, but it is also true that many people are paying so much for their housing that they have a hard time saving for other things- college, a house, emergency savings. Assuming that most people that live in SB also work here, it would be difficult to make the decision to move to Lompoc with its increased crime and then have to do that drive every day of your life. I guess you are really talking about moving to Lodi with its cheap housing but are there jobs in that town?
The proposal addresses the fact that it is really expensive to rent a place requiring 1st, last and security deposit. Your proposal does not.
Or people will move out because rents are too expensive. They are advertising a 4 bdr 2 ba apartment on Chino for $4000/mo. How many people would you have to pack into a place like that to make it affordable for the average worker?