Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Housing Series: Rental Costs

A comment yesterday said that there are plenty of one bedroom apartments for under $1,000. Are there really?

Realizing that this is half of many people's monthly income -- why is this okay? Is it because property owners assume there will be at least two people living there? Why should housing costs be 50% of income when books like Rich Dad, Poor Dad say it should be 30%. Definitely an oversimplication -- but what do you have to say about it?

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are assuming that someone is making $2,000 a month. If someone is making $10.00 an hour as a clerk, they are only making $1733.33 a month, gross. Then take out taxes on top of that. Considering most clerks start at minimum wage or just over it, $1,000 a month is out of reach. $700 for a room is even out of reach. Consider this also. In order to rent an apartment in the first place, the person has to come up with not only the 1st month's rent but also the deposit.

People routinely pay 50% and more of their salaries for housing in SB. There was a time long ago that the gap between income and housing was not as bad and with hard work, home ownership could be attainable.
It wasn't easy, but generally if you survived the first year or 2, it got easier. The market is so inflated now, unless someone dies and leaves you a pile of money or mom and dad help out, that dream can never be achieved in most of SB county. I told my kids to move to another state!

Ultimately the community will pay for that as young families, who are the backbone of any community, are forced to go elsewhere in order to build for their retirements. The schools will shrink and close and there will be fewer qualified people to perform the services that are necessary to keep the city going.

This issue has been bantered around for years. So far SB has gotten away with generally paying lower wages with a high cost of living. The cost of living has skyrocketed out of site in the last few years. The true reprocussions will become evident over the next few years as service workers leave and retire, and there is no one to take their place, as they just can't afford the cost of living. Either SB will be forced to provide affordable housing or pay extremely high wages to attract workers. This will force the costs of goods and services even higher. There is no free lunch.

3/06/2007 4:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be nice if my rent was only 50% of my income. It is more than that and I'm not the only one.

3/06/2007 5:06 AM  
Anonymous donaldo de Santa Barbara said...

It's too bad that tenants can't get a hefty tax deduction for their rent payments or a regulation to keep rents down to the 30% recommended housing cost.

While the landlords would claim they wouldn't be able to keep up their properties perhaps they could sell it to someone who could.

3/06/2007 6:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are the primary issues:

Someone thinks they are entitled to not live on the cheap, while working on the cheap.

Someone also thinks they have a right to live only in Santa Barbara and not have to commute from a cheaper living area.

This sense of housing entitlement -- "you should see some of those places that rent for under $1000 a month" means that we have raised a generation of very greedy children who have no connection between their personal choices and their consequences.

A group here gets fired from a already low paying job choice because they feel entitled to be "writers" and have the world support that choice, and now they demand nothing but the best in housing to be handed to them for next to nothing.

That is what I am hearing here. Please someone tell me there are still those who know how to live within their means, know when they have over-reached, and know what to do about it besides stick their hand out demanding someone else bail them out.

I guess we are all at fault for having let this generation get these unrealistic ideas about life. Heaven help us.


1. No everyone can live in Santa Barbara. It is a very expensive place to live.

2. If all you aspire to are minimum wage jobs, your life choices will be minimum.

3. Commuting is a reality for the vast majority of Californians. Take the bus.

4. If one line of work does not pay off for you, retrain. Find out what does and learn how to do it.

3/06/2007 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All housing in Santa Barbara is affordable: 14% by subsidy and 86% by market forces.

Get on the subsidized housing waiting list, if you insist on living here on minimum wage. Talk to the City Housing Authority people.

That is what that very generous program is for; for people like you who want to live here on minimum wage.

It is illegal to live on the streets of Santa Barbara in an RV.

Explore those city properties. You may be pleasantly surprised. Or, is this beneath you because they are not near the beach with killer views?

3/06/2007 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Santa Barbara City Housing Authority website:

Over 3000 units in ths town - take a look.

3/06/2007 7:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rents in this town are exhorbitant and I think it's because landlords know they can get more money for their rentals. Eight years ago I was seeking an inexpensive, one room, rental while my home was being built. More than 95% of what was available under $1,000/mos. was an illegal unit. It was depressing. I feel very badly for renters in Santa Barbara. It shouldn't be this way.

3/06/2007 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Anapamu there is a small one bedroom apartment for rent. The application states that the rent is $1025.00 for one person,but if there are two, the rent is $1050.00.
At that price, imagine what a studio must cost?

3/06/2007 7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apply your Rich/Dad Poor/Dad "rule" to the average price home in the US: $210,000. Located in average America.

This "rule" will not work when you use a minimum wage job and apply it to payments for a house in Santa Barbara.

Is this surprising?

Tell you a true story: two immigant young people who bought a first home in Ventura. Both had jobs paying in the mid teens. They rented a studio apartment and spent money on NOTHING for three years. They neve went to a movie, she cut her own hair - nothing other than food, health care, transportation. Shopped at thrift shops. For three years. They saved enough to buy a Ventura condo. In a few years they had equity, and moved on to their next home.

This was their plan. And it worked. Had they followed the "rule", it would not have worked. They saved a heck of a lot more than 20% of their salaries for their housing dream. And it came true.

3/06/2007 7:35 AM  
Anonymous wineguy said...

You have to ask yourself what the owner pays for the property. Take a typical place on the westside -- older house in the front, newer duplex in back. Maybe you get a bargain and buy it for $1.1 Mil. Let's say you put 10% down. What do you get for your $110 K investment?

Taxes = $1833/mo
Interest = $6250/mo
Insurance = $117/mo
Water & Trash = $200/mo

Without adding in anything for maintenance and repairs, your costs are $8400/mo. What rent will you charge for your two 2BR apartments and your 3BR house? How much negative cash flow can you handle to keep this investment going?

Landlords don't generally set rent with public policy in mind. They set rents according to their expenses. In this example, what makes the expenses so high is the high cost of the property.

This is of course the logic behind the various attempts to legislate "affordable" housing. As we know, most of those attempts have failed to date.

3/06/2007 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, it is bad - but it is the same everywhere desirable to live. That doesn't excuse it but does point out that the probelm is much deeper and broader than just Santa Barbara. At least here there are minimal heating/cooling costs.

I was a tenant for many years in SB and see/feel all around the resentment, anger, even. But what's the solution? Property taxes and mortgage payments are high - therefore people rent out $750 rooms --- and can get that kind of money. It's a scramble all around for most.

If there weren't the demand, if people chose to live elsewhere.... Already, the city pays/subsidizes a lot of the rental units.

But one thing is certain: instead of building/permitting more market rate condos, much more should go into rental units, even though many of those will eat up more than the fabled 30% of income.

3/06/2007 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not sure what rentals in SB go for now but my housing costs (rental for many years and later mortgage) when I lived in SB were always more than 50%. I accepted it as one of the realities of living in SB.

Now, I have a much more livable mortgage, having moved a bit outside of town.

I really feel for the guy in the other post who said he was working two jobs & his marriage was heading south due, in part, to his high mortgage.

Financial and time/energy strain can destroy a relationship (with yourself & with others). It was doing that to me too & it is just not worth it!

3/06/2007 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not just Rich Dad, Poor Dad that says folks should spend no more than 30% of their income on housing, its also the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

From HUD's website:

The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more then 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing, and a family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States.

3/06/2007 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Memory Lane: when I moved here a few decades ago (late 1970's), I was making $11 and hour and rents for one bedrooms were $300.

Even then it was the unwritten rule to never complain about your apartment or the landlord would fix it and raise the rent. And that meant there were some pretty shabby places. That was expected.

One I fixed up on my own at my own expense and when the landlord visited he said, hmmmm, this place looks pretty good. I think I'll have to raise the rent.

And it was standard in those days to find any apartment listed in the newspaper had already been rented by the time you called. There was a serious shortage between supply and demand. In the 1970's.

Even though it was illegal, one realtor "redlined" a map of Santa Barbara telling me this was not a place to live - primarily the Lower Eastside.

So there has always been a problem finding affordable rentals in Santa Barbara and the millions and millions spent on city subsidized housing has not changed this one bit. Building denser and denser developments has not changed this one bit.

When my rents kept going up, I realized I had to bite the bullet and bought one of the cheapest condos in town, in a depressed area. On my $11 a hour salary. I made it work. And I worked. And saved. And lived in Santa Barbara.

You can work for the post office for $20 an hour with benefits in this town. You can now buy a small condo for $300-400,000.

You have to think small. Move fast. Set your sights low.

The more things change, the more they remain the same thing.

3/06/2007 9:29 AM  
Blogger joe said...

What I find obnoxious as a tenant is getting annual notices from rental management, that informs of a rent increase that supposedly results in a number that is still below market prices. This is a little misleading, since property owners define market prices. And you are right. The single tenant ends up allocating half the monthly income for rent, and I've seen excellent employees get priced out of SB.

City Management, time and time again, has been ineffective in assisting the average renter.

3/06/2007 10:49 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

I just looked at the rentals in the (gasp) NewsPress and guess what - one bedroom studios or apartments rent for under $1000, all over town.

Yeah, I dare you - DARE YOU - to take a look at all of those wonderful apartments for under $1000. I'll bet 9 out of 10 is a pit you wouldn't step foot in, much less live.

I believe this is the essence of the argument. If there were more high quality rental apts available, perhaps it would ease the demand for homeownership in the form of condos. Competition for renters is what will incentivise building owners to improve their offering.

I maintain (prove me wrong , please) that the bulk of apt buildings are owned by a small group of in town notables that may be stifiling competition through political connections. Our realtor community is no help as it is not in their interest to promote anything but homeownership. Landowners and builders have little incentive as condo developement allows them to put a premium price on sq footage of development and quickly flip their product to the new buyers for quick profit. This also releases them for liability for maintaining shoddy construction. Not to mention the speculative element that pushes up sale prices with false demand. Just look at whats happened in Fla and Vegas in the last few years.

3/06/2007 11:42 AM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

Just when you thought you were OUT, they pull you back in....

Anonymous comment here
3/06/2007 6:56 AM

just interjected the Newspress Mess into rental housing prices.

The news writers alluded to in that comment were terminated from their job ILLEGALLY. A rental home really is tough with that illegal variable thrown in the mix. Good news is that those writers will be paid their backpay and then they could afford a down payment on housing.

3/06/2007 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a homeowner and a landlord on a separate piece of property. I bought my rental 15 years ago. I cycled through a few tenants before joining the Section 8 rental program. The Section 8 renters get a very nice place to live, I make almost enough to cover my mortgage, and I sleep better at night knowing that I am helping someone less fortunate. There are many landlords like me in SB, not just in the Section 8 program, but chances are that our properties aren't for rent because we have less turnover. I wish more landlords who bought years ago, would pass on some of their wealth by lowering rents.

3/06/2007 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should the city allow building only "affordable" housing from now on?

Why should a low-income group of persons be benefited far beyond the 14% housing stock already at their disposal? Is it just because YOU want it? Not good enough.

The city needs the sales tax base of a diverse group of residents to support its downtown businesses.

The city is making a fatal error allowing more and more low-income building right in the heart of downtown: Granada parking lot and Transit Depot lot low and very low income residences.

One never uses high-cost land for low-income housing. But such are the rocket-science choices of our current (let's all sing Kumbiyah) city council.

I hope they all get replaced.

3/06/2007 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

China provides massive public housing - 245 square feet per family. Would that satisfy those of you who want the government to give you affordable housing?

3/06/2007 12:37 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

anonymous 9:29: Can you tell me your financial plan for someone making $20/hr to afford a $400K condo? I do think you make some great points, but I hazard to guess that when you bought your property, it was probably ~$150K?

On other points: Related to DLG's original question, I think it's blatantly false to say there are many 1BR units under $1000; average studio is $900-$1100.

Whoever this other piehole "Anonymous" is who has a major axe to grind about people with "entitlement" issues -- I just have to say I'm getting sick of his (and I'm sure it's a guy) pedantic, denigrating schtick all over this blog. Talk about having "issues." Basically nothing but rude namecalling and reductive, facile arguments (the same simplistic ones over and over on every thread). Troll.

I've lived in commuter hubs of the Northeast, I think there's a place for commuting, and all the other stuff said about wise and sometimes austere financial choices is obviously common sense. There's also something to be said for the housing crisis: The city just had to approve a 25%+ pay increase for the Police Dept, mainly because of cost of living issues. You can choose to stick your head in the sand and talk about crybaby whiners all you want, Mr. Anonymous, but you (if you actually live in the city limits) along with everybody else are going to have to pay for a solution to these issues one way or another.

Put up your solution or shut up. All you're offering is criticism, and if you're not part of the solution.... (and so I feed the troll).

3/06/2007 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just saw that Anapamu IBR apartment going for $1000 a month. Pretty nice with nice grounds and close to everything. Looks good to me.

But hey, its not on the beach with a killer view, so I guess this is not good enough for the rest of you.

Keep your hand out - maybe the city will find you something on the Riveira. For free.

3/06/2007 1:11 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

How about the white elephant in the room? Anyone have an opinion on the huge demand/competiton for rental housing brought on by UCSB's constant expansion? Does this benefit our workforce housing problem? How about the impact on the commuting situation which is giving rise to the demand for 101 widening. Seen El Colegio lately? How about the state of rentals in IV? I don't know, just wondering...

3/06/2007 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allegro, one choice for a financial plan is to join forces and make collectively $40 an hour. Save, save, save.

Stop your cell phone, your internet fees, your lattes, your car costs, take the bus, stop full service hair cuts, entertainment expenses, dining out expenses, fast food expenses - take advantage of all the free and low cost things already in this town to replace all of this for at least a few years to build up your savings. Visit the neighborhood clinics for your health needs.

This is called delayed gratification.

Look into the state loan program for first time homeowners - ask Pedro Nava, your local Assembly person about this program.

Look at the list the city maintains for all their inclusionary affordable housing. Check with city hall and get on the list.

Look into buying a duplex or a triplex with other owners so your per unit cost comes way down.

Don't be afraid to buy in less desirable parts of town, but be prepared to fight for city services here. The city is afraid of "gentrifying" these parts of town so they like to neglect basic city services to keep the housing costs here down.

Like ignoring crime, trash, public safety and derilict properties. City loves these because that is one way they get affordable housing. Don't let them get away with this. Demand basic services for all parts of town because this may well be what you now will call home.

Best wishes. You can do it.

3/06/2007 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute.

Someone is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. First saying the city is losing all its low income workers and then claiming they can't get a low-wage job because they are all full up.

So it appears that someone is willing to take these jobs and still live here .... and like it. And that is how the market works.

This is a college town. There is a constant and renewable stream of low-wage workers here. And this is not going to change. They come, they move on and the city does just fine.

Pick a town where you will not run into this built in competition for unskilled jobs if all you want is a minimum wage job, and a handout for free housing.

3/06/2007 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city did not approve the police wage increase because of cost of living issues - no entry level police man can be paid enough to buy currently in Santa Barbara. They would have to be paid as couple hundred thousand a year. Get used to it. They will soon all live outside Santa Barbara in commuting distance. And they seem to like it. You are concocting a smoke screen.

They gave the raise because of the power of the police union and the power of their campaign donations to the majority of the sitting city council - public employees are among the best paid and best benefited people in the entire state. Look into it for yourself because it comes with union job guarantees.

Save your tears.

3/06/2007 1:38 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

I am sickened by these "they get what they deserve" attitudes regarding the homeless and the working poor. Or that people of low incomes do not deserve to live in a healthy environment. I know that not everyone can live in Montecito or Hope Ranch, but we do deserve to live in clean, safe neighborhoods.


I empathise, I really do. Read Tom Friedman's book about flattening. There's an article in The Independent. America has offloaded our manufacturing jobs overseas because of cheap labor. To say you deserve it ignores the reality of life in our globalized economy. California in the 80's put such an employee oriented burden on industry that they fled the state in droves. Lockheed and McDonald Douglas were huge employers of semi skilled labor. As were all the supporting small businesses. You can see the same thing has happened in the Detroit area as the auto industry collapses. It's our own greed for low cost goods and the more the better that is killing us slowly. Thought about the airline biz lately? Do you know that a huge percentage of maintenance is done overseas by mechanics that barely speak and read english (the international language in aviation). The average wage for thes semi skilled workers in Idonesia is around $300 a month. How about the number of service jobs farmed out to India and China? You better face the reality that our standard of living for the academically non-elites is dropping dramatically due to this competition. No one deserves anything, it's a dog eat dog world.

I know this is way off topic but does it concern anyone that the average CEO pay ten years ago was 40 times the working average and now it is 400 times? Are we rewarding them for selling out our jobs to the lowest bidder?

3/06/2007 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about the white elephant in the room? Anyone have an opinion on the huge demand/competiton for rental housing brought on by UCSB's constant expansion? Does this benefit our workforce housing problem?

UCSB is planning to provide affordable for-sale units as part of its expansion for faculty and staff. It'll be a hard sell for some folks, because working for a salary only to turn around and give it back to your employer is about as close to indentured servitude as you can get.

Then again, I'm sure it's the dream scenario for those complaining about "entitlements" and "socialism" and other such nonsense.

3/06/2007 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see two or three families living in small apratments all over the place. It's how they pay the rent. Don't expect this to change.

3/06/2007 2:36 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

sa1: re: "UCSB's constant expansion" Research would show you that enrollment is strictly capped per longstanding County restrictions. Just because you see construction doesn't mean that there are now 35,000 students out here. Feel free to call someone in the UCSB Public Affairs office if you want more information about the long-range development plan and housing master plan. (And compare to UC Irvine's growth, for example.)

anonymous troll 1:11/1:38: (I'm feeding you again, don't ask me why.) You can smugly enjoy your broad scientific market survey all you want. Then, you may wish to wake up and do a walk-through of the scores of "studios" with 2-burner hotplates and a mini-fridge in the corner renting for $900-$1200 (and no, that wouldn't be "beneath me"... if I were under 25). And I already live on the Riviera for $850, so no thanks, I'll pass on the Anapamu unit. And now you trash the police department too; why don't you ask them how much "they seem to like it" -- and also whether I'm the one concocting a "smokescreen" about why these salaries are heading toward the roof. Like I said, either way, YOU (if you're in fact a taxpayer here) are going to keep paying skyrocketing public employee salaries. Oh, and I'm not crying, so keep your kleenex. As for your "Get used to it": An example of your typical condescencion. Finally, it would be helpful if you chose a name to post under or at least consolidated your rantings into a single entry so that you could be duly credited for authorship on your profusion of separate zingers.

Anon 1:23: I sincerely appreciate your advice and I understand what you're saying. I agree with almost all the things you say, and I think your recommendations reflect the ways that people are making it work here. Obviously, much greater buying power comes if one is part of a couple, so as a single person it seems much further out of reach (I'm not whining). Believe me, I've made my decision to live here and have been here a long time. I'm not asking for a handout as some other clowns would suggest, and if buying property were a very high priority for me, or if I had a family and it were a necessity, I would almost certainly not be living here. I'll be satisfied with my living situation here until I'm not.

3/06/2007 3:09 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

anon 12:35: The entertainment gets better the more I re-read your comments!

--One never uses high-cost land for low-income housing.

Which Commandment is this? There's a whole profession called "Urban Planning," which you would probably dismiss as useless because it doesn't operate on Industrial-Revolution-era or Chinese-sweatshop-style business principles. Read up on it.

--our current (let's all sing Kumbiyah) city council. I hope they all get replaced.

Mmm. Keep hoping. Better yet: Move to Orange County. Or Texas.

3/06/2007 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares what CEO's make. A lot of them will probably retire here and be benefits to the community!

3/06/2007 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troll to Allegro-805 - once the scum moves out we won't need so many police.

80% of the crime is caused by 20% of the people - your friends, the "homeless" who take way too much police time.

It makes no economic sense to keep inviting them to come here and create this extra police demand when they make life miserable for everyone else.

3/06/2007 8:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allegro 805, you have me interested.

What do your Urban Planners have to say about Santa Barbara's current 14% rate for subsidized housing units?

Enough, not enough or too much?

3/06/2007 8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:02 Troll,

The homeless, those you call scum, include many injured war vets and people suffering from mental illness.

3/06/2007 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then the VA is scum for abandoning these vets. Let Bush know how badly he has screwed the VA. And they do not belong on the streets The VA needs to take them in.

You continue to confuse the "mobile homeless" with the impaired and frail which do fall into societies now well-funded safety net.

RV on the other hand are drivers licensed to operate dangerous vehicles and share the road with you. They are functional free-loaders when they demand free places to stay simply because they made the choice to live in their RVs.

Stop confusing your argument. Free-loading scum are the issue that is ruining this town. And it is time to stop inviting more to come. Thank you City Council for rolling over for everyone of their insatiable demands.

3/07/2007 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm not confused between moblie & otherwise homeless. I was responding to your blanket description of the homeless as scum.

I agree that the VA has abandoned the vets (for decades) but your solution is naive & simplistic- it is someone else's problem. That makes it easy not to act or to care.

Perhaps you are just a troll (they usually have strong statements with very little knowledge).

At any rate the kind of attitude you espouse is emotional freeloading.

3/07/2007 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In SB you can rent a 3 Million Dollar home for 4k a month.

In SB you can rent a 1.5 Million Dollar condo for 3k a month.

Who can afford to rent these ridiculous luxury condos they are building for 1/3rd of the mortgage?

With no new apartments being built and less and less homes avaialble as rentals where will people live in 10 years?

The owners who bought 10 years ago are fine everyone else is in a hole and that hole is falling in around them as prices stagnate.

The answer is not clear but with wages 30% less than comparable cities like LA and SF yet costs as high you will either see a decrease in the costs or an increase in the wages.

3/07/2007 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop confusing your argument. Free-loading scum are the issue that is ruining this town. And it is time to stop inviting more to come. Thank you City Council for rolling over for everyone of their insatiable demands.

Again... I would much prefer to live a town with "free loading scum" then people who express the views above.

One of the people featured in the ABC news piece - one of the "free loading scum" - manages a deli at a supermarket. That's what the working class, excuse me, the "free loading scum" has to deal with in this town. A full time job for a life in a RV.

3/07/2007 9:37 AM  
Anonymous wineguy said...

I am wondering why so many posters here seem to be so angry...?

3/07/2007 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An idea for helping the homeless. How about mandatory alcohol and drug testing for the welfare payments that they receive. Their 'job' could be staying sober. That will chase away the really bad apples but will encourage the good ones to stay and get treated.

3/07/2007 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Free loading scum are people who come here, even if they get jobs, and still demand they be given housing or else they feel they have the right to live on the streets. Nope, it just does not work that way.

If people are still coming here and renting and buying, why should anyone worry about "people not coming here"? I miss the point of this argument.

Those who come may need to worry they will have to mow their own lawns or use self-service buffets and stay healthy instead of misusing their bodies and getting sick, but if they are here, why are we supposed to worry about them "not coming here".

Please explain. I think you are missing a huge part of your argument. Is your argument that we may be missing YOU because YOU can't afford to live here unless someone give you a house or a place to park your RV?

3/07/2007 2:42 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

(my cleaned-up rebuttal)

Dear Anonymous Troll:
Your "scum" line of rhetoric has lost you any possible credibility as someone worth debating (and you were on shaky ground to begin with). Your sole purpose here, as far as I'm concerned, is to stir up ire and make as many outrageous, unsubstantiated statements as you can.

My advice to everyone would be to ignore this joker on this and any other thread. His reason for being is to get you ticked off and engage. You can't reason with this kind of lunacy and verbal molotovs.

3/07/2007 3:46 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

allegro805 said...
sa1: re: "UCSB's constant expansion" Research would show you that enrollment is strictly capped per longstanding County restrictions. Just because you see construction doesn't mean that there are now 35,000 students out here

Actually I think it might be the Coastal Commission and no I don't think there are presently 35K students now but there could be if the coastal commission changes their mind. Didn't one of our esteemed bloggers comment about how "if you build it for them, they will come"? Don't suppose Regents Yang's party for the commission the night before the approval vote for condo developements should bring any worries about the future...Hmmm that must be rain I'm feeling on my leg. Don't come crying to me when we are in a greater crunch for rental housing in 5 years. And of course, 2 million for a round about was money better spent then on scholorships or some other student aid. I've read through their 600 million plan, have you?

3/07/2007 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous Troll:
Your "scum" line of rhetoric has lost you any possible credibility as someone worth debating (and you were on shaky ground to begin with). Your sole purpose here, as far as I'm concerned, is to stir up ire and make as many outrageous, unsubstantiated statements as you can.

My advice to everyone would be to ignore this joker on this and any other thread. His reason for being is to get you ticked off and engage. You can't reason with this kind of lunacy and verbal molotovs.

It sounds like you're the one who can't be reasoned with.

3/08/2007 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have lived in Santa Barbara through college. During college i worked retail and made low wages and still managed to find really nice houses and pay college tuition. The sad thing is that after college, after attaining a degree, and quadrupling my income....the places i could afford to rent now are much more ghetto and not as nice..the places I lived in before when i made dirt for money are now going for almost $70,000 a year in rent *check craigslist...3bd house $5895mo.!!

7/01/2007 12:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home