- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Santa Barbara Property Owners Challenge Rent Freeze in Federal Lawsuit
Rental association and four property owners claim city's temporary protections are unconstitutional
Apr. 6, 2026 at 9:23pm
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A legal challenge to Santa Barbara's temporary rent freeze exposes the deep divisions between property owners and city officials over the future of rent control policies.Santa Barbara TodayThe Santa Barbara Rental Property Association and four property owners have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's temporary moratorium on rent increases and eviction restrictions. The lawsuit alleges the city 'failed to conduct adequate due diligence' and 'dismissed legitimate concerns' before adopting the tenant protections, which the property owners claim violate the U.S. Constitution's takings clause.
Why it matters
This legal challenge represents an escalation in the ongoing battle between property owners and the city over rent control policies. The outcome could have significant implications for Santa Barbara's long-term plans to implement a permanent rent stabilization ordinance, which property owners have strongly opposed.
The details
The 31-page complaint, filed in federal court, argues the current temporary ordinance is 'arbitrary and capricious' and was rushed through a process 'rife with personal and political bias.' The property owners are seeking to have the temporary ordinance struck down or rescinded, along with potential compensation. The lawsuit was filed by attorney Barry Capello on behalf of the SBRPA, which represents over 1,000 rental property owners, and four individual plaintiffs.
- The lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2026.
- The Santa Barbara City Council is expected to hear an update on the permanent rent stabilization ordinance on April 7, 2026.
The players
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
A trade association representing over 1,000 rental property owners in Santa Barbara who manage more than 23,000 housing units.
Barry Capello
Managing partner of the law firm Cappello & Noël, representing the property owners in the lawsuit.
Teresa Patiño
One of the four individual property owners who joined the lawsuit against the city.
JKRK, L.P.
A private entity registered by Robert Kooyman, manager of Hoppy Toad Land Company, that is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Kelly McAdoo
Santa Barbara City Administrator, who stated the city has not had time to fully review the lawsuit but that the rent freeze will remain in effect.
What they’re saying
“The complaint demonstrates a wide range of constitutional violations. It shows how arbitrary and capricious, and how rushed this ordinance process was, providing proof of its unconstitutionality.”
— Barry Capello, Attorney representing the property owners
“The individual property owners who filed suit are standing for all other Santa Barbara property owners. These residential rental property owners and the SBRPA had no other choice but to take legal action.”
— Barry Capello, Attorney representing the property owners
What’s next
The Santa Barbara City Council will hear an update on the planning process for the permanent rent stabilization ordinance on April 7, 2026, where they are expected to confirm the timeline to adopt a finalized ordinance in July 2026.
The takeaway
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing tensions between property owners and the city of Santa Barbara over rent control policies. The outcome could significantly impact the city's long-term plans for a permanent rent stabilization ordinance, which property owners have strongly opposed as unconstitutional and harmful to their business interests.





