As someone who lives next door to multiple short-term rentals, I read Charlotte Warner’s March 12 commentary, “Politics Driving Santa Barbara’s Flawed Short-Term Rental Ordinance,” with both interest and concern.

The commentary frames the issue primarily through the lens of tourism economics and regulatory timelines, but it overlooks the lived reality of Santa Barbara residents who experience the impacts of these operations every day.

It is also important for readers to understand that many who speak in support of short-term rentals have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this policy debate.

That perspective is valid, but it is also incomplete. For those of us who live beside these operations without receiving the financial upside, the experience can look very different.

Living Next to STRs

For residents living next door, short-term rentals are not an abstract policy debate. They are a daily reality.

Living next to these properties means a constant rotation of strangers arriving late at night, hauling luggage, hosting gatherings and often treating a residential street like a temporary resort.

Parking congestion, trash overflow, noise complaints and safety concerns become routine.

In our case, we have experienced golf balls launched onto our property, drones flown over our backyard while our children play, and people attempting to enter our gate thinking it belongs to the rental property.

The difference between a home and a hotel becomes very clear when you are the one living next door.

In my case, three short-term rentals operate nearby. I have yet to meet someone who profits from these properties who says how wonderful it is to live next to them — much less several at once.

Financial incentives understandably shape the perspective of operators, but the neighbors absorbing the impacts are rarely part of that equation.

Residents are often told to contact the owners when issues arise.

While some STR operators genuinely try to ensure their guests respect the neighborhood, there are also bad actors who deny problems even when neighbors provide video documentation.

We are also told that noise-monitoring systems prevent disturbances.

In reality, outdoor monitoring systems are often unreliable due to ambient noise from gardening equipment, airplanes and other background sounds.

As a result, residents are frequently left to police these situations themselves, and patience is wearing thin for many who have dealt with these impacts for years.

Many STRs operating in the City of Santa Barbara’s Coastal Zone are also largely unregulated, raising questions about building safety, permitting and oversight.

Traditional lodging businesses must meet clear safety requirements — including fire planning, staff oversight and working carbon monoxide monitoring — protections neighbors reasonably expect when transient lodging operates nearby.

High Fire Hazard Area Safety

Our neighborhood sits within a coastal high fire hazard zone, as identified by both the city and Santa Barbara County.

In areas like this, short-term rentals create additional safety concerns. Visitors unfamiliar with the area may smoke outdoors, light fires or use sparklers — actions that may seem harmless but carry serious risk in wildfire-sensitive environments.

At the same time, many coastal neighborhoods have limited evacuation routes, making concentrated transient occupancy a serious public safety concern.

We have seen how quickly coastal fires can spread in places like Malibu and Pacific Palisades. These events serve as reminders that fire risk along California’s coast is very real.

Coastal Act Misunderstanding

Warner’s commentary argues that restricting short-term rentals threatens coastal access because they provide “lower-cost visitor accommodations.”

But the California Coastal Act does not say those accommodations must take the form of private homes operating as hotels.

The law calls for protecting and encouraging lower-cost visitor-serving accommodations, which can include:

• Hotels
• Motels
• Campgrounds
• Hostels
• Bed-and-breakfast inns

Nothing in the law requires residential housing to be converted into lodging operations to meet this goal.

Santa Barbara has historically supported coastal access through these traditional visitor accommodations — many located in areas designed to support tourism without disrupting residential neighborhoods.

Kracke Case Often Misinterpreted

The Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara case is frequently cited in short-term rental debates as proof that short-term rentals must be protected under the Coastal Act.

But that ruling focused on protecting affordable visitor accommodations, not guaranteeing the right to operate short-term rentals in residential housing.

Lower-cost coastal accommodations can be provided in many forms designed and zoned for visitor use — rather than inserting hotel-style operations into established neighborhoods.

Housing Question No One Talks About

Another argument often raised is the potential loss of transient-occupancy tax (TOT) revenue if STRs are limited.

But there is another side to that equation that rarely gets discussed: the loss of housing stock when residential homes are converted into full-time short-term rentals.

If even a portion of these investor-owned properties returned to the long-term housing market — or were sold to families — they could provide homes for people who live and work in Santa Barbara while still generating property tax revenue for the city.

The question isn’t simply about tourism revenue. It is also about the long-term stability of the housing supply and the safety of residents.

Litigation Cuts Both Ways

Warner raises the concern that restricting short-term rentals could expose the city to litigation.

Unfortunately, the legal risk cuts both ways.

Residents purchased homes in neighborhoods zoned for residential living, not for hotel-style operations with a constant turnover of visitors.

Santa Barbara already has commercial areas specifically designed to support tourism, where hotels and visitor accommodations bring visitors close to restaurants, shops and coastal attractions that support local workers and businesses.

Policies that blur the line between residential housing and commercial lodging risk inviting legal challenges from residents who relied on those zoning protections when choosing where to live.

Call for Balance

Residents are not arguing against visitors.

Santa Barbara thrives because people from around the world come to experience its coastline, culture and natural beauty.

What residents are asking for is balance — policies that protect coastal visitation while preserving the stability, safety and livability of the neighborhoods people call home.

When short-term rentals operate with hotel-like intensity in residential zones, the impacts are real and immediate. They are not theoretical projections or political talking points.

They are experienced by neighbors every single day.

Listening to residents after years of raising these concerns should not be viewed as political — it is simply responsible governance.

Santa Barbara deserves a solution that respects both the California Coastal Act and the residents who live here full time.

Protecting coastal access should never require sacrificing the neighborhoods that make Santa Barbara a place people want to visit in the first place.