Supporters and opponents of a June ballot measure that would heavily tax unoccupied second homes in the city of San Diego are gearing up for what promises to be an intense and potentially costly campaign.
Ballot statements from both sides were submitted Wednesday to the San Diego City Clerk, one of several key steps required in advance of the June primary.
Lining up in support of the tax measure are Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s office, which authored the proposal, along with several community nonprofits and organized labor. Among those in the opposition camp are several local Realtor groups, as well as the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and the Latino American Political Association of San Diego.
It was only last week that the City Council endorsed placing the measure on the June 2 ballot after a previous broader measure that encompassed taxing short-term rentals as well failed to gain traction.
The proposed empty homes tax, which will appear on the ballot as Measure A, calls for an initial annual levy of $8,000 that would rise to $10,000 in subsequent years for thousands of second homes that have been identified as unoccupied for more than 182 days out of the year. For corporate-owned dwellings, there would be a $4,000 surcharge the first year that would jump to $5,000 the following year. It’s estimated that there are a total of 5,140 such homes in the city.
If approved by voters, the tax would become effective Jan. 1, 2027, with the first payments due by April 1.
“Measure A discourages corporations, out-of-state investors, and absentee owners from keeping homes vacant during a housing shortage and encourages vacant homes to be used as homes again,” reads the ballot argument submitted by proponents. “Those who make their homes available for San Diego families to rent or buy pay nothing. Those who keep homes empty pay a tax, with the revenue funding services that benefit all San Diegans.”
The argument in favor also points out that 99% of San Diego residents would not be subject to the tax because all primary residences are exempt, as are long-term rentals.
Those signing the argument in favor are Elo-Rivera; union leader Brigette Browning of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council; George Duardo, president of the San Diego City Firefighters union; Steve Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation; and Johanna Hester, a board member of Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund.
Helping lead the opposition campaign are local Realtor groups, including the San Diego Association of Realtors and Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, which together account for more than 13,000 members. While they are not among the signatories on the ballot argument, they will play an active role in getting the word out to voters, said Chris Anderson, president of the San Diego association.
The opposition’s ballot argument raises a number of points, among them that any new revenue generated is not guaranteed to go into a housing fund and the measure does not require any new housing to be built.
“A very similar tax in San Francisco was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable,” states the argument. “Measure A is likely also illegal and will be challenged in court, costing hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars in lawyer fees and dragging out for years. Remember the trash fee? They told us it would be one amount — it ended up being double. Measure A is more of the same!”
Those signing the ballot statement are Mark Kersey, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association; Delores “Dee” Chavez, past president of the Latino American Political Association; Andrew Banez, president of the Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Greater San Diego; Rick Gentry, former president of the San Diego Housing Commission; and Chino Torres, a Navy veteran.
While neither side is willing to reveal just yet how much they plan to spend on their respective campaigns, they acknowledge that they’re prepared to invest a decent amount of money toward getting their messaging out, whether it’s via digital platforms, mailers or by canvassing neighborhoods.
“This is a priority race for us,” said Browning, who leads the Labor Council. “We haven’t finalized our budget yet, but it’s a priority for the Labor Council to make sure this gets passed. We want our workers to be able to live where they work, and those who have the greatest wealth should be contributing their fair share, which is why we want to be a part of this coalition.”
Among the unions supporting Measure A is the Municipal Employees Association, which has its own political action committee that goes by the name of Protect Neighborhood Services Now. It’s likely that some of the funds in that PAC, which currently has about $1.7 million, could also be available for the campaign. Union general manager Michael Zucchet said Wednesday it was too soon to comment on specific financing and campaign strategy.
Anderson said she expects the San Diego Association of Realtors to apply to both the state and national Realtor associations in hopes of accessing some of their political action committee funds. The latest filing by the California association shows close to $2 million at the end of 2025.
“They are extremely well-funded for things like this,” Anderson said. “And whenever an issue touches our clients and their property rights like this, this is what we use it for. There are a lot of people who use their homes for six months or less out of the year, and they should not have to pay this charge. If they own their property, they should have the right to have the exclusive use in any way they want.”
According to an analysis prepared by the city’s Independent Budget Analyst, the city could expect to see $9.2 million to $21.4 million in revenue from the second homes tax in the first year of implementation. That could rise to $10.5 million to $24.3 million in the second year. The city would be free to use the new general fund money in any way it pleases.
In a previous analysis, the IBA estimated that far fewer than 5,100 homes would actually be taxed should the measure pass. It offered what it said was a more realistic estimate of 1,790 to 2,812 empty homes, which takes into consideration properties that would fall under a number of exemptions provided for in the measure, as well as those instances where owners opt to sell their properties or convert them to short- and long-term rentals.
A separate analysis by the City Attorney’s office, which voters will see in their pamphlets, states that the tax does not apply to “owner-occupied primary residences, long-term residential leases, and other empty homes under certain exemptions, such as during periods of military service, certain natural disasters, and after an owner’s death.”