It was a month ago today that a Union-Tribune editorial warned the City Council of the risks it faced if it put an “Empty Homes Tax” on the June ballot without a thorough vetting to see if it had the same failings as a similar San Francisco measure that was thrown out on summary judgment without ever going to trial.
Councilmember Raul Campillo, a former prosecutor and deputy city attorney with a Harvard law degree, had voiced similar concerns at a council committee hearing. But only Campillo voted no when Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s proposal came up for a final vote. Soon San Diegans will have a say on whether to impose an annual $8,000 tax on more than 5,000 allegedly largely unoccupied homes — with a $4,000 surcharge for those owned by corporations.
But they won’t be voting on an “Empty Homes Tax.” A San Diego judge agreed Thursday with former Councilmember Scott Sherman that the ballot measure’s title was fundamentally misleading — if someone could live in a home for 182 days, or 49.9%, of the year, but still have to pay the city tax, it’s hardly “empty.” Superior Court Judge Blaine Bowman ordered the title be changed to the “City of San Diego Non-Primary Homes Tax” and that “non-primary” must replace the word “empty” in the summary and analysis of the proposed ordinance that will be printed on the ballot. Bowman also agreed that it was misleading for ballot language to suggest revenue from the tax would go to areas “like housing and infrastructure” since it would go into the city’s General Fund without restrictions on its use.
The change in the title is not a “technical decision,” as Elo-Rivera quickly spun it. It is a huge and telling change. It sharply undercuts Elo-Rivera’s demagogic framing of owners of these homes as being greedy hoarders of desperately needed but “empty” housing stock. Selling the neutral and far more accurate “Non-Primary Homes Tax” will be much more difficult.
Bowman’s decision also undercuts the idea that the council majority was wise to heed Elo-Rivera’s call for quick action instead of Campillo’s call for caution. If the District 9 representative, who has a California Western School of Law degree, failed to come up with something as basic as a legal ballot title, why assume the rest of the measure he’s put before voters would hold up?
But even if the “Non-Primary Homes Tax” does survive a legal challenge, the dishonesty reflected by trying to call it the “Empty Homes Tax” won’t go away. It’s part of an ugly larger pattern that will hang over most of the current generation of city officeholders for the rest of their political careers.
In the last four years, our elected leaders have overseen a multipart bait-and-switch scam on city voters to win imposition of new trash collection fees on 200,000-plus homes; they’ve asserted that outsourcing of trash services is not a legal option for the city even though the City Charter says of course it is; they’ve claimed to be warriors on behalf of tech-challenged individuals when it came to evil digital supermarket coupons but have been indifferent to the far bigger hassles the city caused for this group with its labyrinthine Balboa Park parking program.
Going forward, candidates for city office must address this history — not just potholes, pensions and homelessness. Until we no longer have officeholders who see constituents as chumps to be manipulated, shabby conduct will remain the norm.