Part I: Is The City of Santa Barbara Sliding Toward Gomorrah?

Those of us with even a modicum of “context” know that Santa Barbara is not unique. Prices continue to rise – as they do around the globe – and new housing stock, at least in SB-land, is as rare as shared martinis between Trump and Newsom. So, yes, I thought I would venture onto the third rail of Santa Barbara city politics and write a three-part series about our complicated housing scene and the general state of the city.

Santa Barbara city’s population decreased from 90,308 in 2010 to approximately 84,990 in 2025. Between 2008 and 2025 our retail vacancy has increased by more than 300% while rental rates declined by 34% from $4.25 to $3.18 per square foot (they exceeded $6 in 2000). The rates used are State Street favorable as they include Montecito where the rents are now $10 per s.f. (Wow). Fact: During the same time that our population decreased by 6%, our city’s expenditures more than doubled, moving from $104M to $215M. Yes, we now run at a deficit. 

Equally troubling is what Radius Group VP Justin Diem terms “retail musical chairs.” Between 2017 and 2025, 50% of retailers on six core blocks either moved or closed. As Mr. Diem said, “It’s hard to build destination loyalty when there is such high storefront fluidity. Tenants are nervous due to the uncertainty and landlords are signing short term leases, hoping for brighter days ahead.” As are we all. But, as I tell my kids, a wish is not a plan. 

Perhaps, the good news is that as rents plummet businesses that could never have afforded State Street (but still had a place in our town) – tattoo parlors, hostels, thrift stores, pop-ups, and purveyors of the tomahawk throw – can find a home. When we moved here in 1998, I completely understood why our sister city was Nice. Now, the comparison is laughable. Fact: According to data provided by the SBPD between 2023-2024 Aggravated Assaults increased 14% while Intimidation increased 27%. Smoke fills the air as the fiddle plays.

Part II will focus on housing but there is a consequential September 9 City Council vote on one aspect of our ordinance; Adaptive Reuse. You know, the very costly and difficult idea of converting retail and/or office to residential housing. These conversions were part of our 158-page state approved Housing Element plan, which requires us to build 8,001 new units before 2031. The city’s goal for reuse was clear, “provide incentives and promote flexibility for adaptive reuse projects.” Rather than providing incentives, however, the City Ordinance Committee, led by Kristen Sneddon and Oscar Gutierrez,recommended (Mike Jordan disagreed) that any such project must include 10% below-market rate units. This “inclusionary rule,” which exists for other new projects, represents a 90-year deed restriction – i.e., another layer of risk for what are inherently risky/leveraged projects. 

The current posterchild for Adaptive Reuse is the former Sur La Table location where Ben Romo of Romo & Associates helped Jason Yardi convert the building to 14 below market studio apartments. The ribbon cutting drew politicians from far and wide, many touting it as our future reuse “model.” Let’s get this straight; Mr. Yardi may deserve to have a statue built in tribute to his largesse – with the help of the Housing Authority this project was individually philanthropic (Bravo!) – but it is not a model for robust future for-profit projects – something that the city desperately needs. 

In speaking to Mr. Romo, he said: “The city’s inclusionary housing requirements should not apply to adaptive reuse projects in the Central Business District. Requiring affordable housing in the most expensive, complex, and riskiest place to do development will lead to no adaptive reuse projects at all.” This truth stands in stark contrast to what Sneddon reportedly called a “homerun” when recommending the mandate. For the few who read my rants, you know I’m not much for naysayers, or folks who point fingers in the air and orate. I’m more about doers, risk takers, visionaries and thinkers who look at the forest not the leaves because “yes” takes courage and “no” is nowhere. Sometimes being “for housing” requires, well, housing. It will be interesting to see how the council votes on September 9.  

Jeff Giordano,
Santa Barbara County resident