Re “Fate of hefty tax on empty second homes now up to San Diego voters” (March 3): Taxing “empty” properties in San Diego sounds like a quick way to ease the city’s budget woes and housing crisis. But how would the city know if someone lived in their home for the requisite 183 days? Will we be asking neighbors to keep count?
Also, the impact to permanent residents could be devastating. Imagine building many thousands in equity, hoping to eventually sell and use your profits to buy a cheaper place and fund your retirement. Then this law takes effect, and a dozen condos in your building hit the market as owners seek to avoid the taxes. The glut in supply causes the value of your condo to plummet, wiping out your equity.
The law of unintended consequences is real; the parking fiasco at Balboa Park proved that. It’s time for city leaders to learn that lesson.
— Bret Barrett, Downtown
Let me get this straight: 800,000 city voters get to decide on the property rights of roughly 5,000 homeowners. Really? In what world is this just?
— Glen Volk, Point Loma
The members of the San Diego City Council have now voted to put another new tax on the ballot, this time intended to punish people who own a second home (and no, they are not “empty”). Let’s take Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera at his word: it is to punish them, to pressure them to give up their houses. Not just taxation without representation, but punishment without due process. How very … democratic!
Here, again, ideology trumps logic and common sense. First, there is no logical connection between second homes and housing affordability overall; second homes are not concentrated in starter home areas. Second, second homes are net positives for the city’s budget and taxpayers because they pay full freight already, but their owners use very few city services.
Reject this nonsense, because it will produce zero new housing, and it hurts taxpayers.
And, for the record, I do not own a second home.
— Don Billings, Rancho Santa Fe