Watch: UCSB Experts Offer Conflicting Views (and Answer Readers' Questions) about SB's Push for New City Rent Regs

In dueling interviews, economist Peter Rupert and sociologist Rich Appelbaum discuss the most controversial, consequential and contentious public policy matter on SB City Hall's agenda.

For Rich Appelbaum, there’s a simple reason why city government should enact new limits on rent increases in Santa Barbara.

“The short answer is that rents have gone through the roof - they’re unaffordable,” said the esteemed UCSB sociology professor. “So any type of trying to put a slow motion governor on how much they can go up - at least we’ll give tenants some relief.”

For Peter Rupert, there’s an equally simple reason why enacting such regulations is terrible public policy.

“Price controls don't work,” said the influential UCSB economics professor. “Any type of policy is going to have winners and losers. My view of rent control is that…the only winners are politicians.”

Appelbaum and Rupert each joined Newsmakers TV this week, and offered sharply contrasting views on both the city’s ongoing effort to craft a “rent stabilization” ordinance and its newly adopted rent freeze.

In detailed, in-depth and serial** interviews, the two experts discussed the policy and politics of Santa Barbara City Hall’s most controversial, consequential and contentious issue. They also answered tough questions submitted by our readers and viewers (shout-out Celeste Barber, Sunita Beall, Loy Beardsmore, Lisa Carlos, James Fenkner, Jeff Giordano, Don Lubach, George Relles, Ben Romo, and Jennifer Smith).

“Rent stabilization is a stopgap measure, it’s a putting-a-band aid-on-the-bleeding solution that does require other things, that also requires interventions into the market,” Appelbaum said.

“I think as policymakers, we really need to think about the whole community,” argued Rupert. “Why are we punishing landlords for a problem? The fact that it's expensive in Santa Barbara, it's not the fault of landlords.”

A century-long debate. As a political matter, the arguments mounted by the two prominent local academics represent a case study of a polarizing urban policy debate that has persisted in the U.S. since government regulations on rent increases were first imposed as an emergency measure during World Wars I and II.

Although New York City’s municipal government famously has supported rent control laws since the 1940s and 50s, it was not until 1972 that Berkeley became the first city to approve such legislation in California.

As other jurisdictions here and across the nation followed suit, many state governments in the 1980s and ‘90s passed rent control preemption laws in order to restrict local measures. Among these is California’s 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. It exempted new construction and single-family homes from local ordinances, and also enabled “vacancy decontrol,” which allows landlords to increase rents after a tenant vacates a locally-regulated apartment.

In the last 10 years, amid statewide and nationwide housing shortages, and an overall affordability crisis, tenant advocates and liberal political leaders have revived multiple forms of rent controls. Several California cities, including Santa Barbara, have experimented with policies to govern relations between local landlords and renters.

Last month, after heated debate and much public testimony, City Council on a 4-to-3 vote passed a temporary rent freeze that takes effect this month, fixing rents as of last December. The council’s liberal majority also ordered City Hall staff to draft a permanent “rent stabilization” ordinance.

Which brings us to today.

Rights in conflict. Appelbaum stressed in our interview the importance of distinguishing between traditional “rent control” and a “rent stabilization” program, which he helped steer through council amid a broad coalition of tenant advocates. Among important differences, he said, are that “rent control” puts a hard cap on how much rents can be raised, while “stabilization” measures include an adjustable ceiling, based on the Consumer Price Index, and other costs incurred by landlords.

Rupert, however, said this is a distinction without a difference: “Price controls are price controls…If you’re going to limit the return that someone can get from their investment, you can call it ‘rent stabilization,’ but you’re still saying, ‘you can only raise it so much.’”

In our conversations, the two experts also offered differing takes on a batch of other concerns central to the rent regulation debate: the impact on new housing construction; the effect on maintenance of existing apartments; the challenges posed to new renters seeking to enter the market versus the protection offered tenants who already are here, among other matters.

The two agreed, however, that passage of a rent stabilization ordinance will carry new demands for city government resources and additional bureaucracy, for features such as administration of a new “rental registry” of units covered by the ordinance.

Rupert stated that a similar program in Santa Monica, for example, has proven costly.

“You look at Santa Monica, which has about 90,000 people as well, (equivalent to Santa Barbara). They have a rent control board, which is twenty people, $6 million-a-year budget, so they can maintain their rent control program,” he said. “You don’t just impose rent control — you need to have a whole bunch of ancillary things going on.”

Appelbaum acknowledged there would be future costs, but said the ordinance is to be crafted in a way to keep them tolerable.

“That has to be sorted out, and the city has to come up with additional revenues….even just to pay for the rent board, and the rental registry and so on,” he said. “Part of that will be recouped by fees that landlords will be charged, which will not be onerous based on other places, and which can be factored into rents over time. How much that will offset the cost, I don’t know.”

Check out our conversations with Rich Appelbaum and Peter Rupert about the heated controversy about new rent regulations via YouTube below, or by clicking through the links provided. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, and on Soundcloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Rupert’s critique. Here is our interview with Peter Rupert, who opposes the rent stabilization law, and who runs the UCSB Economic Forecast project, which you can also access by clicking through this link.

Appelbaum adduces. Here is our conversation with Rich Appelbaum, Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the UCSB Sociology Department, which you can also view by clicking through this link.

** The interviews with Appelbaum and Rupert were originally planned as a joint appearance, a goal thwarted by a snafu over scheduling.

Learn more about the distinguished careers of Rich Applebaum here, and about Peter Rupert here.