San Diego voters will decide in June whether to approve Measure A, a proposal that would tax homes left vacant for more than half the year.<\/p>\n
If approved, Measure A would tax owners of second homes $8,000 in 2027 and $10,000 annually after that.<\/p>\n
Supporters say the measure is aimed at addressing San Diego\u2019s housing crisis by encouraging owners of vacant second homes to put properties back on the market. Opponents argue the measure is unconstitutional, unfair to homeowners and likely to face costly legal challenges.<\/p>\n
Supporters and opponents of Measure A ramped up their campaigns on Thursday on the streets of downtown San Diego.<\/p>\n
City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who supports the measure along with a majority of the city council, said thousands of homes sit empty while many San Diegans struggle to afford housing.<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, because we’re in a housing crisis and there’s 5,100 homes sitting empty for the majority of the year owned by out-of-state investors while folks are struggling to afford rent, while folks are never seeing themselves have an opportunity to buy a house, while people are sleeping on the streets,\u201d Elo-Rivera said. “And this is a way to put homes back on the market.\u201d<\/p>\n
Councilmember Raul Campillo opposes the measure and said it will likely face legal challenges if approved by voters.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt’s essentially an eminent-domain argument about a taking of the value of that property,\u201d Campillo said.<\/p>\n
Campillo said the city already spent about $1.9 million to place the measure on the ballot and argued that taxpayer money could be better spent elsewhere.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat’s not a risk that’s worth it,” Campillo said. “Let’s find better ways, let’s find better spending, let’s find better cuts, let’s find different forms of revenue, and let’s actually deliver for voters,” Campillo said.<\/p>\n
Opponents of Measure A say the proposal would unfairly impact homeowners and working families who inherited a second home or rely on it for retirement income.<\/p>\n
Supporters argue the measure would generate funding for housing and homeless assistance programs while helping free up more homes in the city\u2019s housing market.<\/p>\n
NBC 7 sent follow-up questions to Elo-Rivera’s office:<\/p>\n
The opposition says if you’re a member of the military, you have to file an exemption to make sure you’re not taxed. True?<\/p>\n
“San Diego is a military town. The men and women who serve are our neighbors, and we honor them not just with words but with how we write our laws \u2014 which is why we put real thought into making sure no service member gets caught up in this tax.<\/p>\n
“Here\u2019s how it actually works. To even potentially be subject to Measure A, a service member would first have to own an empty second home, meaning a home where they don\u2019t claim the homeowner\u2019s exemption with the county assessor, and a home that isn\u2019t being rented to anyone, short-term or long-term. Let\u2019s remember that is less than 1% of the overall population of San Diego.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“If a service member happens to fall into that narrow category, yes, they file a short exemption form \u2014 the same kind of routine paperwork we already ask service members to file for property tax benefits, voter registration and dozens of other programs that protect them. The idea that filling out a one-page form is the same as taxing deployed troops is the kind of thing you say when you don\u2019t have a real argument.”<\/p>\n
If this was about housing, the money would have been invested into housing. Why is it marked to go to the general fund? How can you guarantee it would be used for housing?<\/p>\n
“Measure A is about housing in two ways.<\/p>\n
“The first, and most important, is what the tax actually does. It encourages investors and absentee owners to either rent their empty homes out or sell them. That returns housing to the market without the city spending a dollar. That\u2019s the core of the policy.<\/p>\n
“The second is the revenue. We structured Measure A as a general tax because general taxes require a simple majority to pass, while special taxes require a two-thirds supermajority.\u00a0 That threshold is designed to make it nearly impossible to win when asking wealthy investors to contribute. We weren\u2019t willing to let that procedural hurdle kill a policy this city needs.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“As for how that revenue gets used, that happens through the annual budget process. This is the same process every other city dollar goes through, with full public input. And I will keep fighting, as I always have, to direct those resources to housing, homelessness prevention, and the services that keep San Diegans in their homes.”<\/p>\n
A similar case played out in San Francisco and was struck down by a judge as unconstitutional. Why would this make it further along?\u00a0<\/p>\n
“We worked closely with the city attorney and outside legal counsel to model Measure A after Berkeley\u2019s Measure M \u2014 a policy that passed, has been implemented and is working as intended. We deliberately studied what went wrong in San Francisco and drafted around those issues.<\/p>\n
“It\u2019s also worth noting that the San Francisco ruling is still on appeal, and empty homes taxes have been adopted across the political spectrum \u2014 including in conservative states like Montana \u2014 because the underlying principle is common sense: It\u2019s bad for a community when homes sit empty in the middle of a housing crisis. The wealthy opponents of this tax may very well sue, but we did our homework, and we\u2019re confident Measure A is on solid legal ground.”<\/p>\n
Will this cost taxpayers more than $1 million to place it on the ballot?<\/p>\n
“There is a cost, primarily for printing, to adding any measure to the ballot. That\u2019s the price of letting voters decide a question this consequential, and I think it\u2019s a price worth paying.<\/p>\n
“Here\u2019s the comparison I\u2019d ask people to make: Measure A is projected to generate up to $24 million annually, year after year. The cost of putting it on the ballot is one-time. If voters pass it, that investment returns itself many times over in the first year alone, and we put real pressure on absentee owners to return empty homes to the market in the process.<\/p>\n
“And let\u2019s be honest about who\u2019s making the ‘ballot is too expensive’ argument. The same corporate real estate interests spending $700,000 to lie about this measure are now telling us democracy costs too much. They\u2019re not worried about the printing costs. They\u2019re worried San Diegans are going to vote yes.”<\/p>\n
What about families that acquire second homes to house their relatives because they can’t afford their own? Wouldn’t that further a housing crisis? Taxing them?<\/p>\n
“Measure A applies only to homes that are declared as non-primary and are sitting empty for more than half the year. A home where a family member is actually living is by definition that person\u2019s primary residence. The home is lived in. Measure A isn\u2019t for homes that are being lived in.<\/p>\n
“What Measure A targets is the opposite scenario: homes that no one is living in. The opposition keeps describing situations the measure doesn\u2019t apply to, hoping to confuse and scare people. They\u2019re doing this because they know from their own polling that everyday people agree that empty second, third and fourth homes should be taxed.\u00a0The measure is clear: if someone is living in the home, it isn\u2019t taxed.”<\/p>\n
This story was originally reported for broadcast by NBC San Diego. AI tools helped convert the story to a digital article, and an NBC San Diego journalist edited the article for publication.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"San Diego voters will decide in June whether to approve Measure A, a proposal that would tax homes…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":535357,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5134],"tags":[5229,1582,276,7065,3549,7264,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-797064","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-housing","12":"tag-san-diego","13":"tag-sandiego","14":"tag-united-states","15":"tag-united-states-of-america","16":"tag-unitedstates","17":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","18":"tag-us","19":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797064","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=797064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797064\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/535357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=797064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=797064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=797064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}