Radius Commercial Real Estate @RadiusGroupCRE - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

8 months ago

If I wanted to destroy affordable housing in Santa Barbara, I would… By Don Katich General Manager, Radius Group If I wanted to destroy affordable housing in Santa Barbara, I wouldn’t swing a wrecking ball. No, I’d smile politely and pass laws. I’d say I was protecting people, preserving neighborhoods, saving the environment, looking after the renters from evil landlords. And then — brick by brick, regulation by regulation — I’d make it impossible to build or maintain housing anyone could afford. First, I would drown every new housing proposal in process. I’d let planning and permitting drag on for years, not months. I’d require stacks of studies — seismic, coastal, archaeological, biological — each one necessary, each one slow. I’d delay until developers gave up and lenders moved on. Then I’d make building small and dense — the kind that working families can actually afford — practically unlivable. Height limits, setback rules, coastal overlays, neighborhood overlays, aesthetic overlays — I’d stack them like sandbags around every parcel of land. The message would be clear: if you want to build homes, build somewhere else. I would weaponize fees. Impact fees, traffic fees, school fees, transit fees — a fee for every dream. I’d whisper the word “inclusionary” and pretend it meant affordable housing, while quietly making every unit more expensive to construct. Then I’d turn neighbors into vigilantes with “community review.” I’d hold public hearings that last until midnight and invite emotional testimony about “neighborhood character.” I’d call it democracy. But really, it’s tyranny of the minority. It would be veto power for the loudest five percent. But why stop new housing when I can punish the people who already provide it? I’d pass rent control — the silent killer of affordable housing. I’d promise it protects tenants, but I’d ignore its history. I’d ignore that when you cap rent, you cap maintenance. When you freeze income, you freeze investment. And I’d act surprised when landlords sell, rental units disappear, and the housing supply shrinks. Then I would raise energy costs. I’d mandate all-electric conversions, solar retrofits, EV infrastructure, energy compliance audits — noble ideas, every one of them. But I’d force landlords to pay for it alone. I’d call it climate policy, but I’d never admit it drives rents higher and pushes mom-and-pop housing providers out of business. Next, I’d inflate property taxes and assessments with endless bond measures. A little extra for schools here, a little for transportation there — and before long, I’d have doubled the cost of holding a modest fourplex without building a single new home. And call into question the safeguards afforded all property owners through Proposition 13 making claims it creates “inequities.” I would pass ordinances that quietly turn landlords into criminals — rent caps, relocation penalties, inspection schemes, private right of action lawsuits. I’d make it easier to sue a landlord than to lease from one. And I’d make sure the rules were confusing, so even good landlords lived in fear of technical violations. Then I’d divide the community — tenants against landlords. I’d pass Tenant Protection Ordinances that presume guilt, that forbid “harassment” but never define it, that treat every no-fault eviction as a moral failure. Good people who provide housing would be treated as the enemy. And I’d call it justice. Finally — I would ensure everyone blamed “the market” instead of the real culprit: bad governance. Because if I wanted to destroy affordable housing in Santa Barbara, I wouldn’t need a bulldozer. I would only need: • Endless regulation • Weaponized rent control • Soaring energy mandates • Escalating property taxes • Ordinances that punish housing providers • Laws that divide landlord and tenant • And a government that says “yes” to process and “no” to housing. And I would do it all while insisting I care deeply about affordability. But — if we want a different ending to this story — we should remember a simple truth: Housing is not created by speeches, hearings, or government slogans. Housing is created when we allow people to build it and control it. email: [email protected] Read more RADIUS INSIGHT Q3 Market Reports https://t.co/5ONIsSpubS

RadiusGroupCRE's tweet photo. If I wanted to destroy affordable housing in Santa Barbara, I would…

By Don Katich
General Manager, Radius Group

If I wanted to destroy affordable housing in Santa Barbara, I wouldn’t swing a wrecking ball. No, I’d smile politely and pass laws. I’d say I was protecting people, preserving neighborhoods, saving the environment, looking after the renters from evil landlords. And then — brick by brick, regulation by regulation — I’d make it impossible to build or maintain housing anyone could afford.
First, I would drown every new housing proposal in process. I’d let planning and permitting drag on for years, not months. I’d require stacks of studies — seismic, coastal, archaeological, biological — each one necessary, each one slow. I’d delay until developers gave up and lenders moved on.
Then I’d make building small and dense — the kind that working families can actually afford — practically unlivable. Height limits, setback rules, coastal overlays, neighborhood overlays, aesthetic overlays — I’d stack them like sandbags around every parcel of land. The message would be clear: if you want to build homes, build somewhere else.
I would weaponize fees. Impact fees, traffic fees, school fees, transit fees — a fee for every dream. I’d whisper the word “inclusionary” and pretend it meant affordable housing, while quietly making every unit more expensive to construct.
Then I’d turn neighbors into vigilantes with “community review.” I’d hold public hearings that last until midnight and invite emotional testimony about “neighborhood character.” I’d call it democracy. But really, it’s tyranny of the minority. It would be veto power for the loudest five percent.
But why stop new housing when I can punish the people who already provide it?
I’d pass rent control — the silent killer of affordable housing. I’d promise it protects tenants, but I’d ignore its history. I’d ignore that when you cap rent, you cap maintenance. When you freeze income, you freeze investment. And I’d act surprised when landlords sell, rental units disappear, and the housing supply shrinks.
Then I would raise energy costs. I’d mandate all-electric conversions, solar retrofits, EV infrastructure, energy compliance audits — noble ideas, every one of them. But I’d force landlords to pay for it alone. I’d call it climate policy, but I’d never admit it drives rents higher and pushes mom-and-pop housing providers out of business.
Next, I’d inflate property taxes and assessments with endless bond
measures. A little extra for schools here, a little for transportation there — and before long, I’d have doubled the cost of holding a modest fourplex without building a single new home. And call into question the safeguards afforded all property owners through Proposition 13 making claims it creates “inequities.”
I would pass ordinances that quietly turn landlords into criminals — rent caps, relocation penalties, inspection schemes, private right of action lawsuits. I’d make it easier to sue a landlord than to lease from one. And I’d make sure the rules were confusing, so even good landlords lived in fear of technical violations.
Then I’d divide the community — tenants against landlords. I’d pass Tenant Protection Ordinances that presume guilt, that forbid “harassment” but never define it, that treat every no-fault eviction as a moral failure. Good people who provide housing would be treated as the enemy. And I’d call it justice.
Finally — I would ensure everyone blamed “the market” instead of the real culprit: bad governance.
Because if I wanted to destroy affordable housing in Santa Barbara, I wouldn’t need a bulldozer. I would only need:
• Endless regulation
• Weaponized rent control
• Soaring energy mandates
• Escalating property taxes
• Ordinances that punish housing providers
• Laws that divide landlord and tenant
• And a government that says “yes” to process and “no” to housing.
And I would do it all while insisting I care deeply about affordability.
But — if we want a different ending to this story — we should remember a simple truth:
Housing is not created by speeches, hearings, or government slogans. Housing is created when we allow people to build it and control it.
email: dkatich@radiusgroup.com

Read more RADIUS INSIGHT Q3 Market Reports
https://t.co/5ONIsSpubS

2

1

0

139

RadiusGroupCRE retweeted

Don Katich

@proddon

2 months ago

CAA victory spreads as court strikes down L.A. rent-triggered relocation mandate https://t.co/LBiv84AnzI

0

1

0

16

Radius Commercial Real Estate

@RadiusGroupCRE

3 months ago

Short-term rentals are capping peak hotel occupancy in coastal California https://t.co/rODvA6cGFC

0

1

0

4

RadiusGroupCRE retweeted

Don Katich

@proddon

3 months ago

'People can’t move into a permit': California cities struggle to plan for enough housing https://t.co/B36b1eYNaG

0

1

0

17

RadiusGroupCRE retweeted

Don Katich

@proddon

3 months ago

Santa Barbara City Council advances Rent Control Ordinance with annual increases limited to 60%of CPI with a cap of 3%- whichever is less. Council also advances Rent Registry. Staff will now draft ordinance for Council review.

1

0

1

0

36

RadiusGroupCRE retweeted

Don Katich

@proddon

4 months ago

Landlords Plan Lawsuit to Challenge Santa Barbara’s Rent Freeze Ordinance https://t.co/JpO71J4tJI

0

1

0

24

Radius Commercial Real Estate

@RadiusGroupCRE

5 months ago

Santa Barbara's Rent Freeze Folly: Ignoring Data for Political Theater By DON KATICH General Manager, Radius Group In a move that prioritizes short-term applause over sustainable solutions, the Santa Barbara City Council on January 13, 2026, adopted a temporary Rent Freeze ordinance and amendments to the Just Cause Eviction rules. This interim action, scheduled to become effective February 26, 2026, halts all rent increases for covered residential units until December 31, 2026—or sooner if a permanent rent stabilization (rent control) program is enacted. No existing rents are rolled back, but the ordinance introduces a retroactive mechanism: lawful rent increases implemented after December 16, 2025, will offset future allowable hikes under any permanent system. For example, suppose a permanent program ultimately permits annual increases tied to inflation (60% of CPI), allowing roughly 1.7% annual increase on a $2,000 rental unit, equating to about $34 per month. If a landlord had lawfully raised the rent by $100 prior to the effective date, the $66 difference ($100 - $34 = $66) would be credited against (and reduce) those future permitted increases. In practice, this could mean the landlord receives no additional rent for several years until the prior increase is fully "absorbed" by accruing allowable amounts, even as operating costs like insurance, utilities, taxes, labor, and maintenance continue to rise unchecked. In addition, the Just Cause amendments further complicate matters by requiring owners who wish to leave the rental market, by withdrawing units via the Ellis Act, must remove all units on the property simultaneously, impose a five-year re-rental ban, and adhere to new procedural requirements. The removal from the Rental market for 5-years will also extend to a new Buyer. Exemptions exist for post-1995 housing, certain owner-occupied properties, subsidized units, and those under the Costa-Hawkins Act, but for many properties, this creates significant uncertainty and disincentives to maintain or expand rental supply. Tenant rights proponents, during hours of emotional testimony, framed this as urgent relief for affordability crises, citing personal stories of housing insecurity. Yet, this policy reeks of pandering, ignoring robust data that point to inventory shortages, not landlord greed, as the core issue. A detailed report from Beacon Economics and Pepperdine School of Public Policy on Santa Barbara County's rental market reveals a far more nuanced reality. Over the past decade, real post-rent renter incomes have risen 25.3%, outpacing the national 21.4% growth. Poverty among renters has dropped sharply from 31.3% to 22.7%, and the share earning over $100,000 has more than doubled to 33.7%. Overall rent burdens have stabilized at 31-33% of income, with only single-person households experiencing a slight increase to 44.4% at the median—hardly indicative of widespread exploitation. Dig deeper, and the data screams supply constraints. Vacancy rates linger at a dismal 3-4%, below California's 4-5% and the U.S. 6-8% averages, fueling competition and price pressures. Our rental stock is antiquated: 37% of units were built in the 1960s-1970s, compared to just 18.2% since 2000—lagging state (26.5%) and national (28.5%) figures. Construction costs have exploded, with the Producer Price Index for multifamily inputs rising from 100 in 2014 to 170 in 2024, making new development a financial gauntlet. Rents have climbed—median asking up 27.7% in real terms to $2,100—but growth has moderated recently, with year-over-year softening. Residential mobility has declined, from 45% to 30% for single renters, suggesting tenants are "stuck" due to scarce options, not predatory pricing. This rent freeze, while freezing revenues, does nothing to halt rising owner costs—exacerbating imbalances. History is clear: such controls deter investment, leading to deferred maintenance, reduced supply, and black-market dealings. In Santa Barbara, where overcrowding affects 13% of renters and household sizes are shrinking, these measures could accelerate deterioration of an already aging stock. The city's commitment to a permanent program—potentially including long-term caps, a rent registry, a rent board, and new enforcement—signals more bureaucracy ahead, further chilling development. At Radius Commercial Real Estate (@RadiusGroupCRE), we've engaged in this process, submitting detailed concerns about economic fallout, legal risks, and supply impacts. It's time for evidence-based policy, not emotion-driven edicts. Streamline permitting, offer incentives for new builds, and tackle barriers to inventory growth. Santa Barbara's charm should not come at the cost of housing viability. By embracing data over drama, we can foster true affordability and prosperity for landlords and tenants.

1

0

29

Radius Commercial Real Estate

@RadiusGroupCRE

5 months ago

Apartment ownership group to leave California citing high operating costs, energy and anti-housing provider environment. Camden seeking to exit California: Real Estate Alert https://t.co/9euBzMDIDo via @multifamilydive

0

1

0

18