iterations of this proposal<\/a> for the better part of the past year, said families can no longer afford to wait for leaders to take action on the housing crisis. He said an owner\u2019s decision to keep a home vacant for more than half of the year in the middle of a housing shortage carries a real public cost and a tax should apply.<\/p>\n\u201cThat is a legitimate exercise of the city\u2019s taxing authority and it is meaningfully different from what San Francisco tried to do,\u201d Elo-Rivera said during a public meeting last month.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
He said the city hired outside legal experts to carefully review the proposal.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile amateur legal analysts are throwing spaghetti at the wall because they know the people are broadly supportive of this proposal,\u201d he added, \u201cI\u2019m very confident in the foundation we\u2019ve built.\u201d<\/p>\n
Known officially as Measure A on the June ballot, the proposed tax would apply to vacant homes that are not claimed as a primary residence, totaling $8,000 for the first year beginning in 2027 and $10,000 every following year. Corporate-owned empty homes would have to pay a $4,000 surcharge the first year and $5,000 every following year. The tax and surcharge would be adjusted based on inflation beginning in 2029.<\/p>\n
The city\u2019s independent budget analyst projects the proposal could generate between $9 million and $21 million in the first year, and in the following year, between $10 million and $24 million. But it all depends on how property owners respond. There are more than 5,100 homes that would qualify for the tax \u2014 about 40 are corporate owned.<\/p>\n
Several housing advocates and human rights groups, as well as labor unions, have come out in support of the ballot measure.<\/p>\n
Stephen Russell, president and CEO of the San Diego Housing Federation, said the proposal is based on sound economic theory. It\u2019s a step in the right direction that will produce more housing opportunities.<\/p>\n
Those in opposition are \u201carguing against putting 5,100 homes on the market for San Diegans,\u201d he added. \u201cEven if they had absolute certainty that it was legal, they still wouldn\u2019t support it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Some have formed committees to fight the ballot measure. That includes a group of realtors, and Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio\u2019s Reform California, which has already spent at least $12,500.<\/p>\n
The California Apartment Association, a statewide trade group that represents rental housing providers, told inewsource that it doesn\u2019t matter if San Diego\u2019s proposal offers exclusions, or if it\u2019s attached to a crisis.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt its core, the measure still targets owners who choose not to rent, either penalizing them for exercising that choice or effectively coercing them to give up that right to avoid significant financial penalties,\u201d said Mallory Homewood, an attorney with the group.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt a time when San Diego needs more housing, the city should focus on policies that increase the availability of affordable housing for families of all income levels, not punitive measures that raise serious legal concerns and are likely to end up in court.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018Walking into the buzz saw\u2019<\/p>\n
Despite the warnings, the San Diego City Council voted 8-1 last month to put this question before voters in June.<\/p>\n
The lone \u201cno\u201d vote was Councilmember Raul Campillo, who at the time said he was disappointed that he never received a robust legal memo analyzing the proposal\u2019s ability to withstand a lawsuit. In a recent interview with inewsource, he said he still hasn\u2019t received that memo.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019re usually given a memo that is lengthy, extensive, explaining to the council members how we\u2019re going to go about winning it, rather than just, \u2018Our conclusion is we feel good about it,\u2019\u201d Campillo said. \u201cFor nothing to be provided to a council member who\u2019s asking for it, truly, I\u2019m shocked.\u201d<\/p>\n
He gave a hypothetical example of a property owner who decides to leave the rental housing business and then, seeing signs of future economic distress, waits to sell rather than taking a loss.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI feel that we\u2019re walking into the buzz saw on this one,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd our own city attorney didn\u2019t give me any reason to believe otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n
When asked about this, a spokesperson for the City Attorney\u2019s Office said the city\u2019s proposal is \u201csufficiently different\u201d from San Francisco\u2019s tax. The office would not explain how or why.<\/p>\n
The judge\u2019s ruling in San Francisco hinged on two key legal issues: the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state\u2019s Ellis Act.<\/p>\n
That means the government can\u2019t force a property owner to give up use of their property without compensation, and it can\u2019t force them to remain in the business of rental housing.<\/p>\n
Both initiatives in San Diego and San Francisco impose a tax on vacant homes with specific exemptions. They cover different types of housing \u2014 San Diego\u2019s proposal targets vacant homes that aren\u2019t claimed as a primary residence, while San Francisco\u2019s tax targets apartment buildings with three or more vacant units.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But when pressed on what exactly sets San Diego\u2019s proposal apart, Elo-Rivera\u2019s spokesperson said it\u2019s narrowly focused on homes left vacant for more than half a year during a housing shortage.<\/p>\n
But that phrase \u2014 \u201cduring a housing shortage\u201d \u2014 isn\u2019t some magic wand that allows governments to bypass established legal rights, according to Chris Skinnell, an attorney with a Bay Area law firm known as Nielsen Merksamer. He represents the plaintiffs, including advocacy groups and individual property owners, in the lawsuit against San Francisco.<\/p>\n
Specifically, he said, the Takings Clause already assumes that the government would have a good reason to force an owner to give up their property. And there\u2019s no emergency exception to the state\u2019s Ellis Act, he added.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think the fact that you say it\u2019s an emergency changes the legal analysis,\u201d Skinnell said, adding that it misses the point.<\/p>\n
Other cities, including Oakland and Berkeley, have successfully passed similar vacancy taxes.<\/p>\n
However, folks in Berkeley are watching the San Francisco case closely, according to reporting from Berkeleyside<\/a>. A representative with the local property owners association told a reporter if the lower court\u2019s ruling is upheld \u2014 that the tax is unconstitutional \u2014 the association would take \u201cimmediate action\u201d to challenge Berkeley\u2019s tax.<\/p>\n\t\t\tType of Content<\/p>\n
News: Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Why this matters How to fix San Diego\u2019s housing shortage is a problem that has dogged city leaders…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":254169,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[5970,13134,101,103,102,104,106,105],"class_list":{"0":"post-254168","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-francisco","8":"tag-housing-and-development","9":"tag-san-diego-city-council","10":"tag-san-francisco","11":"tag-san-francisco-headlines","12":"tag-san-francisco-news","13":"tag-sf","14":"tag-sf-headlines","15":"tag-sf-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254168\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/254169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}