Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/2026 Item 4a, Baldwin dufus1@aol.com Sent: 23, 2026 8:44 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Opposition to Proposed Rental Registry, Tuesday, February 24, 2026 Agenda Item 4.a. Attachments:If I Wanted to Destroy Affordable Housing - February 2026.pdf Hello, and thank you for your service to our community. This email is for the Tuesday, February 24, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 4.a. Also, attached is an OP-Ed that summarizes why a tenant registry will not solve the underlying problems. I fully agree that rental properties must be safe for the large percentage of our residents who are tenants. That shared goal is exactly why I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposed Rental Registry. After reviewing the Staff Report, my concerns were confirmed. To me, a Rental Registry would:  Create additional bureaucracy and cost at a time when the City already faces budget constraints.  Place the financial burden of that bureaucracy on rental housing providers.  Duplicate the information that can already be found on Zillow for free.  Fail to address the core issue of unsafe living conditions — as unmanaged properties are typically the biggest violators, are the least likely to comply and are most likely already known by City code enforcement.  Penalize all rental owners, including the vast majority who responsibly maintain their properties and provide safe housing.  Disclose private, confidential, non-public information at a time when the state is allowing residents to restrict the release of any digital personal information (Delete Act).  Discourage developers from building new rental properties. If the goal is safe housing for all renters, we already have enforcement tools available — including business licensing requirements and existing code enforcement authority — that can be strengthened and applied directly to bad actors without creating a new administrative structure. However, I believe that the following ideas are worthy of further consideration: 1) renter & landlord education, 2) a safe housing checklist and 3) a smoke free environment. Additionally, we have seen in other cities how rental registries can evolve into rent control — often framed as “rent stabilization.” The unintended consequences of rent control policies are well documented:  Strict rent control reduces housing supply over time.  Even moderate stabilization models create market distortions.  The most widely supported long-term affordability solution remains increasing housing supply. Policies intended to protect renters should not unintentionally reduce investment, discourage new housing, or raise costs elsewhere in the system. 1 I respectfully urge the Council to focus on targeted enforcement and policies that increase housing production, rather than implementing a broad registry that will not solve the underlying issues. Thank you again for your time and thoughtful consideration. David Baldwin 2 This OP-Ed summarizes why a tenant registry will not solve the underlying problems. Tuesday, February 24, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 4.a. If I Wanted to Destroy Affordable Housing in San Luis Obispo, I Would… By Don Katich February 2026 If I wanted to destroy affordable housing in San Luis Obispo, 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, protecting 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 buildings small and dense (the kind that working families can actually afford), and 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. 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 flve percent. But why just stop new housing when I can also punish the people who already provide it? Rent Control, Energy Costs, and Taxes 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 retroflts, 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 infiate property taxes and assessments with endless bond measures. A little extra for schools here, a little for transportation there. 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 to all property owners through Proposition 13, making claims that it creates “inequities”. I would pass ordinances that quietly turn landlords into criminals; rent caps, relocation penalties, inspection schemes, tenant registries, private right of action lawsuits, etc. 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 live in fear of technical violations. Community Division Then I’d divide the community – tenants against landlords. I’d pass tenant protection ordinances that presume guilt, that forbid “harassment” but never deflne 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 every one blamed “the market” instead of the real culprit; bad governance. If I wanted to destroy affordable housing in San Luis Obispo, 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. However, 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.