Edhat Staff
By the edhat staff
During Tuesday’s meeting, the Santa Barbara City Council voted unanimously to take enforcement action against the suspected 1,000 to 1,500 units operating illegally within the city limits.
The Short-Term Rental Enforcement Pilot Program will cost $1.175 million and while it won’t change current laws, it gives city staff more leverage for enforcing the already existing rules.
Santa Barbara currently has 128 legal short-term rentals paying transient occupancy taxes but searches on AirBnB and VRBO rental websites show about 1,000 available units each.
Currently, short-term rentals are not allowed in most inland areas as those zones are generally residential. In the coastal area, enforcement is complaint-driven due to nuisance-like conditions due to a 2021 court decision.
In zones which allow short term rental use, property owners can apply for a land use conversion permit to legally operate. The property must comply with the City’s zoning ordinance before such a permit can be issued. This map shows where short-term rental homes are approved and able to apply for permits.
City staff stated the short-term vacation rentals tend to be more profitable than long-term rentals but compound the already dire housing crisis in the county.
The one-year pilot program will gather accurate data on the number, location and seasonality of short-term vacation rentals operating in the City before shifting efforts to enforcement of the City’s zoning laws through investigation and, if necessary, prosecution of operating illegal rentals. The program would be a joint effort of the City Attorney’s Office and Finance Department.
Enforcement will include a warning to seek voluntary compliance of the property owner but could then turn to criminal enforcement which could be up to $15,000 in coastal areas and $700,000 inland total including past due taxes.
“Promotion of the proposed program has already prompted inquiries from property owners wanting to be proactive about the situation with their rentals. There have also been inquiries about obtaining a business tax certificate. However, a business tax certificate does not legalize a short-term rental,” the City of Santa Barbara stated.
To determine if a property is in the coastal region, visit the City’s Accela Citizen Access site or email: PlanningCounter@SantaBarbaraCA.gov To apply for a land conversion in order to operate a short-term rental, email: PlanningCounter@SantaBarbaraCA.gov
[Ed Note: This article has been updated with additional information from the City of Santa Barbara]
I definitely understand the concern about STRs displacing long term rental properties.
Beyond that, STRs actually have less impact on a neighborhood as they are never at 100% occupancy, so present less noise, less infrastructure use of water, fewer trips on local roads.
Also, if you have a nightmare long term tenant as a neighbor throwing parties, screaming at their kids, leaving trash all over the place, having seriously delinquent guests and family over who end up ripping you off, etc., etc., good luck kicking those types out. If someone misbehaves in an STR they are gone shortly thereafter and you never allow them back.
Having recently heard another tale of non-paying tenants that were impossible to evict, I can see why landlords might prefer short-term rentals. That and the money.
Notice there’s no enforcement beyond a warning.
There is, but it’s not clear in this blurb. There’s more info in the independent article.
No enforcement beyond a warning, if that, Of ANY THING in this town; smoking on the city streets; sleeping on the sidewalks and on the beach; bike riding and skateboarding on any sidewalk in town you please; ideal threats and everyone knows it; as it was stated above; no enforcement – no laws – – -and thats why State Street looks the way it does. And it STINKS of urine!! Why Tourists still find this place appealing is beyond me!!
It’s all talk until they actually do sometime and this issue has been around so long with zero enforcement.
Randy is a do nothing Mayor. He’s back, doing nothing about the issues he ignored last time.
Jeez, the City wants affordable housing for everyone BUT no short term rentals for people who wish to do so AND us taxpayers to fund people to go enforce this all? Sounds lame. Downvote.
I believe the problem with illegal short term rentals is two-fold. For one, it exasperates Santa Barbara’s existing problem of not having enough housing for our residents. Second, illegal short term retals compete with legitimate businesses like hotels/motels, which charge out of town vistors a 12% occupancy tax which in turn is paid to the city. Is the use of $1.2MM a waste of taxpayer money? Consider this: assume there are 600 illegal STRs renting being rented out 182 days a year (50% occupancy) at an average of $300/night. That equals $32,760,000/yr times 12% tax = $3,931,200 of tax that is not being paid into city coffers. Is $1.2MM cost to enforce compliance a waste of money? No, it’s a good investment in my opinion.
Good that they now are going forward after so much delay and excuse. These illegal operators are thumbing their noses at their neighbors, the legal system and the needs of the community and have been able to do so with impunity because of the weak kneed city staff attitudes (probably coming from people like Armstrong (as directed by the city council members who rely on donations for their political careers).
The City has been aware of illegal rentals for years.
The City knows they are illegal but profits from them. The City has knowingly participated with n illegal activity and their actions in collecting taxes & nit shutting them down makes the rentals legal.
So how does that work?
11:05, accordingto reports the city knows about and profits from approx. 130 rentals. There are 1,000 – 1,500 listed on rental sites. Just who is the scofflaw here?!
huh….not sure i even care about this. hows it anyone elses business to intervene? if someone owns the property and wants to rent it out, that’s theirs to do so. I get it, short term rentals means a lot of people in and out. Again…so? I have a few of these in my neighborhood. The only problem and it’s hardley a problem, is that one of them doesnt have ample parking. Aside of that…its not an issue. The places are clean, and mostly vacant until someone shows up. It’s actually nice…..
KARMASB … STRs are contributing to the housing crisis, that’s why. It is happening all around CA and many places around the world. Real estate is being bought by investors in record numbers, investors who don’t care about the livability of our community. Investors tend to seek the highest profits. which means renting short term (or to out-of-town college students, by the bed – another related topic). Record numbers of properties bought by these investors means homes unavailable to Santa Barbara residents who need housing. And we are being forced to overbuild, to a degree that could otherwise be reduced. I hope this explanation helps.
VINSB, I know that is happening in some places, but do you have any proof that local STR’s are being bought up by REITs or other out of town investors? I don’t think it’s happening because they have no legal right to operate them so big investors wouldn’t want to be exposed to that kind of risk.
Honestly, I don’t know much about REITs. What I see: Signs on street corners in my neighborhood “WE BUY HOUSES” + phone number. Recently sold houses bought by out of town investors being gutted and remodeled (I can tell the people running the show are from out of town), now sitting empty most of the time. Different people/cars occupying these houses usually on the weekends. What I hear (from smart, educated people): Property is getting bought up by real estate corporations, yes, in SB too. One company name has come up in general discussion: https://www.blackstone.com
Honestly, I don’t know much about REITs. What I see: Signs on street corners in my neighborhood “WE BUY HOUSES” + phone number. Recently sold houses bought by out of town investors being gutted and remodeled (I can tell the people running the show are from out of town), now sitting empty most of the time. Different people/cars occupying these houses usually on the weekends. What I hear (from smart, educated people): Property is getting bought up by real estate corporations, yes, in SB too. One company name has come up in general discussion: https://www.blackstone.com
What are the “current laws” that will be applied if the owner does not comply? How many of these rentals generated (documented) complaints due to activities of the visitors? Seems like a ruse by the City to generate more revenue.
I wonder if the revenue generated will exceed the $1.175 million cost. Of course, one could argue that freeing up short-term rentals for long term tenants is a valuable goal. I have mixed feeling about this program.
$700,000? Really? Is that real or a typo?
Checked The Independent. If enforcement includes past due taxes, it could be up to $15k or $700,000.
That does sound pretty extreme, although I would say $15000 is extreme too. The eighth amendment of the constitution prohibits excessive fines. Interestingly, the Supreme Court is working on a case related to this where some jurisdictions would confiscate people’s properties because they owed a couple thousand dollars in taxes, then sell the properties and keep all of the proceeds. Decision on this one is coming this summer. I’m not sure the city can legally impose such an excessive fine.
Brit, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. Taxes due could be up to these amounts in the two different areas. Though the Indie could make it clearer.
“Under the new program, the city will seek criminal enforcement against illegal operat-
ors, but not until after attempting to pursue voluntary compliance with the property owners first. This could include past-due taxes, which are estimated to be up to $15,000 in coastal areas and $700,000 or more in inland areas.”
https://www.independent.com/2023/04/26/santa-barbara-vows-to-take-on-illegal-vacation-rentals/
That’s the estimated total recovery from all properties, not a single property.
FYI sometimes these rentals help people keep their homes.I’d hate for that to stop. I have 2 of these short term rentals near me I actually have met some really nice people nicer than noisy busybody neighbors lol.
That’s foolish. They can rent to regular, long term tenants. If that’s not enough to ‘keep their homes’, then they shouldn’t have it in the first place. What people are doing is illegal and cheating the system, not to mention creating a major housing imbalance that exacerbates the problems we already have. It’s selfish. And again, illegal.
Just curious about the people in town who rent out their spare bedroom to students who are here for the school year. Does that count as a short term rental?
Short term rental means anything less than 30 days.
Hush money has been collected by the City for years.
To be clear even illegal STR pay the transient occupancy tax. The City for years has employed staff to look for illegal STRs & ensure that they are paying taxes.
They purposefully collected taxes on illegal activities in exchange for not enforcing the zoning laws. Hush money? Corruption?
STRs are not taking business away from hotels. Look at the occupancy rates.
Don’t fix the problem, just use the problem as a cash cow for you & your pals. “Business” as usual.
“They purposefully collected taxes on illegal activities in exchange for not enforcing the zoning laws. Hush money? Corruption?”
Definitely correct about that. That happened in my City of Santa Barbara neighborhood. No enforcement by the City Attorney’s office, when it is called for by the local Zoning Ordinance and the California Government Code. When there is no enforcement of laws, there are no laws.
The article states “Enforcement will include a warning to seek voluntary compliance of the property owner…” Does anyone know what this means? Does it mean if the property owners are not in the coastal zone then they need to shutdown their STRs or do they just need to start paying the occupancy tax?
Look at how this local government works: It tries to establish ordinances that are vague and are either unenforceable or not enforced at all, and then years later, decides to enforce. But to enforce, that same government now needs to add many employees or contract workers to “attempt” to now enforce those rules. Was this the plan all along? Let things get out of control and then allow unions to increase membership? It is said that governments do not work for a “profit”. Yeah, right.