HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/2026 Item 4a, Philbin
Garrett Philbin <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:February 24 Study Session on Rental Registries
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Staff:
Thank you for making renter protections a part of our Major City Goals, and for your commitment to
ensuring safe and stable housing for every resident of our City.
I want to address three concerns I’ve heard about the proposed rental registry:
1. That it isn’t necessary
2. That it’s anti-housing, and
3. That it adds burdens — especially for small landlords.
First, the idea that it’s not useful or needed.
In a constrained market like SLO, we make major decisions about zoning, infrastructure, ADUs, and
short-term rentals — often using estimates instead of verified data. If we are serious about planning
responsibly — and meeting state housing expectations — we need accurate baseline information. Not to
control housing, but to understand it.
Second, the claim that a registry is anti-housing.
I would argue the opposite.
In cities that have taken housing reform seriously — including places like San Diego and Minneapolis —
rental tracking and data collection preceded broader pro-housing reforms. Data allowed those cities to
justify upzoning, support ADU expansion, and move forward with supply-oriented policy changes
grounded in evidence.
Without data, policy becomes reactive. And reactive policy tends to be blunt.
When elected officials like you all don’t have visibility into the rental market, public pressure (from
groups like SLOTU) can lead to sweeping regulations because no one can distinguish between systemic
issues and isolated ones.
Data creates precision.
Precision protects housing supply.
If anything, a thoughtfully designed registry is housing infrastructure — like roads or utilities — providing
the visibility necessary to responsibly increase supply.
1
Third, the concern about burdening small landlords.
That concern deserves respect. My parents are landlords. A good number of my friends are landlords.
And in California, small property owners already navigate a host of rules. No one wants unnecessary
bureaucracy layered on top of that.
That’s why design matters.
A registry should be:
Low-cost, strictly covering costs of the software and staff required to implement, analyze, and
make sense of what's there.
Simple digital registration, only once a year or when there's a new tenant.
Limited reporting requirements. It doesn't need to include everything, and shouldn't.
Clear limits on how data is used
Explicitly tied to housing planning and supply expansion
When structured correctly, a registry can actually protect responsible landlords. It allows the city to
target enforcement at real problem properties instead of casting wide nets. It levels the playing field
between long-term rental providers and speculative operators who may be removing units from the
market.
Broad regulation hurts small landlords.
Precision helps them.
And in a place like SLO — where workforce housing shortages affect teachers, healthcare workers, and
local businesses — having accurate rental inventory data is not excessive. It’s responsible governance.
This is not about punishment. It’s not about revenue. It’s about visibility. Because if we want to expand
housing supply, protect long-term rentals, support ADUs, and make smart zoning decisions, we should
do so with facts — not assumptions.
I appreciate the work you all are doing to try and address this. It's a big problem for SLO and a complex
one. So let's get the data we need to face it with eyes wide open, and we as the SLOTU will keep building
power and relationships with people and groups to help make this happen.
Thanks,
Garrett
2