The Santa Barbara Rental Property Association (SBRPA) recently announced plans to challenge the city’s temporary rent freeze in court. The legal argument behind this lawsuit appears unlikely to succeed.
For more than a century, courts have upheld the authority of governments to regulate rents as part of their responsibility to protect public welfare. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this power in Block v. Hirsh (1921), which upheld emergency rent controls during a housing shortage. Later decisions, including Yee v. City of Escondido (1992), reaffirmed that rent regulation does not constitute a constitutional “taking” of private property.
Some opponents of rent stabilization now point to the Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021). But that case involved a regulation requiring property owners to allow outside organizers onto their land. It did not involve rent control, and courts have repeatedly distinguished it from landlord-tenant regulations where owners voluntarily rent their property.
Santa Barbara’s ordinance is also temporary, adopted while the city develops a permanent rent-stabilization framework. Courts are especially reluctant to strike down temporary economic regulations intended to stabilize housing markets. Here are the legal aspects of this suit in a nutshell:
| SBRPA Argument (The Lawsuit) | City Argument | Likely Judicial Winner |
| “Unconstitutional Taking” | “Regulating Prices” | The City (based on Yee) |
| Violates “Contract Clause” | “Public Welfare Exception” | The City (long-standing precedent) |
| Deprives “Fair Return” | “Temporary/Fairness Provisions” | The City (unless the freeze lasts years) |
Residents may disagree about the wisdom of rent stabilization. But decades of legal precedent strongly support the city’s authority to enact measures like this one.
Hugh Brooks
