Re “Proposal to tax empty homes gets update” (Feb. 21): Here’s yet another proposal by Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera pitting a large group of voters against a small group to create new tax revenue.
Elo-Rivera’s claims appear disingenuous. First, the 5,100 homes affected represent less than 60% of the 8,800-plus housing permits issued in 2024, so claiming that if these homes were suddenly available it would make a dent in the “housing crisis” does not hold water. Second, he claims these unoccupied homes have a negative economic impact while ignoring that the owners pay property taxes on these properties while using none of the public benefits they pay for — no children attending local schools, no traffic created, no trash pickup used.
Finally, there is no mention of where the collected taxes are going to be used. If it truly is to cover the supposed economic impact of these properties, how exactly is the money going to be used to offset those impacts?
— Steve Schneider, Tierrasanta
My wife and I must be evil. Why else would San Diego think it appropriate to charge us $8,000 or $10,000 a year for the privilege of owning a vacation home in downtown? Perhaps it’s because we both worked long and hard to save enough money to buy a tiny one-bedroom condo. Maybe we are evil because I have dreamed of living in San Diego since I was a child cheering on John Hadl and the Chargers. Are we evil because we pay nearly $10,000 in real estate taxes, even though we are only in the city about four months a year?
We must be evil because we think this proposed vacation home tax is an example of egregious governmental overreach in pursuit of an easy source of funds. If this scheme is to truly make more housing available, why are there so many condos for sale in downtown?
— Franz Edson, San Diego