HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2026 Item 5a, Baldwin
2026 4:45 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:City Council Meeting, Tuesday, May 26, 2026 – Item 5, Study Session, Code
Enforcement Priorities
Attachments:SLO Properties for Rent.pdf
Re: Strategic Concerns Regarding Housing Policies
Dear Members of the City Council,
As a follow-up to the housing policy discussion at the February 24 City Council meeting, I am writing
to offer constructive feedback on the proposed initiatives. While stabilizing rents, addressing
substandard housing, and ensuring tenant protections are principles we all support, the administrative
mechanisms currently under consideration are inefficient, redundant, and counterproductive to
expanding our local housing supply.
Please consider the following structural flaws and alternative, market-proven solutions before moving
forward:
1. Rent Stabilization: Shifting from Penalties to Supply-Side Solutions
Arbitrary rent restrictions inevitably suppress the development of affordable, high-quality housing.
When rental pricing is artificially capped while operational and maintenance expenses continue to
rise, a housing shortage is practically guaranteed as properties face disinvestment and deferred
maintenance.
To sustainably lower housing costs, San Luis Obispo must prioritize supply-side solutions that
eliminate costly bureaucratic delays and incentivize private development. Currently, municipal policies
are actively penalizing the very growth the city needs:
The High Cost of Direct Fees: In a recent local example from September 2024, developers
who demolished an uninhabitable house to build four new homes and four accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) were penalized with a nearly $100,000 "inclusionary housing" fee. Forcing
builders to choose between exorbitant fees or sacrificing half the market value of their
properties severely discourages infill development.
Legal and Risk Exposure: This practice carries significant legal risk. In 2024, the U.S.
Supreme Court unanimously ruled that governments cannot impose extortionate,
unconstitutional fees as a condition for building permits. A lawsuit has already been filed
against the city challenging these fees.
Rather than engaging in costly litigation, the city should focus on streamlining the permitting process,
reducing development fees, and actively dismantling barriers to inventory growth.
1
2. Improving Substandard Housing: Targeted Enforcement vs. Universal Regulation
Maintaining safe housing is a shared priority. However, the city’s previous Rental Inspection Program
demonstrated that blanket mandates are an inefficient use of public resources.
Unlike owner-occupied units, rental properties undergo constant, daily inspections by the tenants.
Responsible housing providers operate on a proactive basis—encouraging tenants to report
maintenance issues immediately to prevent minor repairs from escalating into costly bigger problems.
A Targeted Alternative: The city’s Code Enforcement department already possesses the data
to identify the vast majority of chronic bad actors. There is no policy justification for subjecting
100% of local housing providers to invasive, costly regulations to regulate a problematic 1% to
2% of owners.
Community-Based Education: Instead of a sweeping mandate, the city should add a "Safe
Housing" section to its existing “Are You a Good Neighbor” brochure. By listing critical
operational systems (heating, hot water, electrical, plumbing, etc.) and providing a direct city
reporting line for unresolved maintenance requests, the city can easily track a precise list of
non-compliant owners without creating an expensive new regulatory apparatus.
3. Eviction Protections: Recognizing Robust State Safeguards
California already enforces some of the strictest tenant protection laws in the nation via the Tenant
Protection Act (AB 1482), rendering local additions redundant.
Vacancies are financially detrimental to housing providers; evictions are universally treated as a last
resort. There is no empirical data indicating an eviction epidemic exists in San Luis
Obispo. Overregulation in this arena carries fiscal risk. For example, Alameda County is currently
facing millions of dollars in liability to compensate property owners following its pandemic-era eviction
moratorium. Additional local restrictions are unnecessary and expose the city to potential financial
liabilities.
4. The Rental Registry: An Expensive, Redundant Database
According to the February 24 staff report, the primary function of a rental registry across surveyed
municipalities is to track compliance with local rent stabilization and tenant protection laws. Because
these areas are already fully regulated by the state under AB 1482, creating a duplicate municipal
database yields no clear municipal benefit. A registry does not inherently stabilize rent, improve
safety, or decrease evictions; it is simply an expensive administrative ledger.
Furthermore, the proposal presents serious structural and legal concerns:
Inclusion of Exempt Properties: The registry inexplicably seeks to include single-family
homes, condominiums, and townhouses—properties that are exempt from state rent caps
under AB 1482.
Data Privacy Violations: Collecting non-public information, such as renters' names, phone
numbers, and specific lease terms, raises severe privacy issues. If a registry is pursued,
2
acceptable data must be strictly limited to the property address and unit specifications for
public view, with ownership contact info reserved exclusively for internal city use.
Redundant Data Metrics: The staff report notes that San Luis Obispo already has a good
handle on how many rental units exist in town (14,870 units) and where they are zoned (R1,
R2, R3, and R4). Utilizing city staff resources to build an expensive database simply to track
minor fluctuations in rental units is an overreach of the city’s core mission. Attached is a
summary of all the properties currently for rent in SLO on Zillow and the range of rents.
Conclusion: Redirecting the Focus to Core Metrics
To effectively move the needle on housing affordability, the city’s focus should pivot away from
tracking existing inventory and toward facilitating new supply. Moving forward, the council should
prioritize and regularly report on actionable housing metrics:
1. How many new rental units has the city successfully issued occupancy permits for over the last
three years?
2. What are the city's projections for future housing additions?
By focusing on streamlining permitting, reducing permitting fees, and utilizing targeted code
enforcement, San Luis Obispo can foster a healthy, safe, and expanding housing market. Thank you
for your time, consideration, and continued dedication to our community.
Sincerely,
David Baldwin
3
All available rentals- apartments/condos, houses, townhouses
Available rentals- apartments/condos only
Available rentals- houses only
Available rentals- townhouses only