In the mayoral debate, Kristen Sneddon defended rent stabilization by saying the proposed rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) would provide “flexibility.” She also argued that putting the issue before voters would be problematic because the public could not understand the complexities of rent stabilization. Sneddon, Santamaria, Harmon, and Gutierrez already denied voters that say by advancing the ordinance rather than putting it on the ballot.
There’s an irony here: if the RSO is so complex that voters cannot understand it, why should they trust that it will deliver the flexibility Sneddon promises?
Even experienced rental-property owners and professional managers are struggling to navigate these proposed rules. That should be a reason for greater transparency.
More importantly, Sneddon appears to misunderstand a basic reality of rental housing: a lease is a contract. Once a landlord and tenant agree to its terms, the landlord cannot simply change those terms whenever circumstances change. Rent, duration, and conditions are fixed for the life of the agreement. An ordinance layered on top of fixed-term contracts adds rigidity, not room to maneuver—new caps, registries, and appeals processes stacked on terms already signed.
The RSO cannot magically create “flexibility” that a binding lease does not provide.
Santa Barbara voters deserve more than reassuring words. They deserve a clear explanation of exactly what flexibility the RSO provides, for whom, and under what circumstances — spelled out before the ordinance passes, not asserted from a debate stage and left unproven.
So where, precisely, is this promised flexibility? Sneddon should be able to point to it in the ordinance’s text. Until she can, voters are right to be skeptical.
