HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/2026 Item 4a, Reyes
jordon <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Public Comment – Feb 24 Study Session: Rental Registry – Concerns from a Local
Renter
Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you today as a renter in San Luis Obispo to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Rental Housing Registry. While I
understand the City’s desire for better data and "neighborhood wellness," I believe this program is a redundant and expensive solution that
will ultimately drive rents higher and provide zero relief to those searching for housing in our supply-strapped community.
A Renter’s Perspective: Existing Tools are Sufficient
As a renter, I am fully capable of managing my relationship with my housing provider. In my time renting in SLO, I have worked directly with
landlords to correct maintenance issues. I am well aware that if a reasonable request for a repair were ever ignored, I have the immediate
right to call City Code Enforcement.
The city staff already has the power to back up renters when habitability is at stake. To implement a "proactive" registry is to suggest that
renters are incapable of advocating for themselves or that our current enforcement systems are broken. If the current systems work, why
are we adding a multi-million dollar layer of bureaucracy on top of them?
The Redundancy of Data and Revenue
The City claims it needs a registry to "track" rental units, yet the City already possesses this data. Every rental operator in San Luis Obispo is
already required to obtain a Business License and pay an annual fee (currently approximately $126.89).
Through these licenses, the City already has a database of rental properties and their owners. What would the City gain from a new registry
other than an additional administrative expense for itself? That expense must be paid for, and it will inevitably be paid for by me and my
fellow renters.
The Economics of Scarcity: A "Shortage Tax"
As any Economics 101 course teaches, adding administrative fees and "transaction costs" to a supply-strapped market does not lower
prices; it raises them.
When the City adds a new per-unit fee to fund a registry, it shifts the Supply Curve to the left. In a market like SLO, where "excess supply" is
non-existent, landlords have the pricing power to bake these fees directly into our monthly rent. Even under AB 1482, landlords are
incentivized to raise rents to the maximum allowable limit to cover increasing operational costs imposed by the City.
Furthermore, this registry does nothing for new renters. It tracks the units we have but doesn't create a single new bedroom for the students,
healthcare workers, and families trying to move here.
The "Santa Maria" Comparison: Production Over Regulation
We do not need a study session to find the solution; we only need to look 30 miles south. While SLO has prioritized regulatory "wellness"
programs, our neighbors have focused on production:
Focus Recent Rent Trend (2025/2026)
City
Santa Maria, CA Production. Aggressive permitting of new units. -2% to -15% Decrease (depending on sector)
San Diego, CA Incentives. Streamlining ADUs and multifamily. -7% to -9% Decrease
1
Focus Recent Rent Trend (2025/2026)
City
Healdsburg, CA Regulation. Expanded registries and inspections. +20% Increase
Berkeley, CA High-Fee Registry. Program costs $8.7M/yr. Persistent High Floor ($300+ fees passed to tenants)
A Better Alternative: Education and Supply
Instead of a costly registry, a lower-cost Education Initiative would suffice. Informing tenants of their existing rights and landlords of their
existing responsibilities empowers the community without creating a "housing tax."
I urge the Council to pivot its focus toward policies that actually increase the number of houses available to rent or own. We need more
bedrooms, not more bureaucracy.
Sincerely,
Jordon Reyes
2