By Paul Krueger
The San Diego City Council’s Rules Committee voted Wednesday, Oct. 22, to advance discussions on a proposed ballot measure that would impose a new tax on short-term vacation rentals (STR) and unoccupied second homes.
The committee voted 3–1 to continue studying the proposal — which would charge STR owners $5,000 per bedroom annually — and to consider placing it before voters on the June or November 2026 ballot.
Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who introduced the measure, won support from Council President Joe LaCava and Councilmember Kent Lee. Councilmember Raul Campillo cast the sole vote against advancing the proposal, arguing that it would hurt local property owners and the city’s tourism economy. Councilmember Vivian Moreno was absent.
Elo-Rivera said the tax would help make housing more affordable, protect renters from displacement, and preserve neighborhood character.
“This is not about punishment — it’s about priorities,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of San Diegans will not pay this tax. If you live in your home, rent out rooms, or have a long-term tenant, you won’t be affected.”
He told vacation rental owners that they were “being used as pawns in a game played by Airbnb,” arguing that corporate interests were profiting at the expense of local housing availability.
Under the proposal, whole-home vacation rentals and unoccupied second homes would be subject to the tax. Elo-Rivera estimated that more than 10,000 properties, mostly in beach communities and downtown, could be affected.
Council President LaCava said further discussions are warranted before any final decision.
“There will be additional deliberations before this goes to the full City Council for debate,” LaCava said. “We should not curtail any conversation about new revenue-generating proposals that could fund essential public services.”
Campillo strongly opposed the measure, calling it unfair and economically harmful.
“The goal of generating more revenue might be admirable, but the numbers don’t add up,” he said, arguing that the city’s $135 million-per-year revenue estimate was overly optimistic.
He warned that the tax would reduce the number of vacation rentals, raise costs for tourists, and harm small businesses that rely on visitor spending.
“If you don’t use your private property the way the city wants you to, and you live in a certain neighborhood, they’ll tax you,” Campillo said. “That’s what economists call a ‘punishment’.”
He added that higher taxes could push local owners to sell to outside investors seeking higher returns. “If we care about fairness and local jobs, we cannot move this proposal forward,” he said.
Councilmember Lee said he supports further study of the idea, noting that the city urgently needs new revenue sources.
More than 100 people attended the meeting, filling the council chamber. Dozens spoke during more than two hours of public comment, most opposing the potential tax.
Supporters of the proposed tax included Michael Zucchet, head of the Municipal Employees Association.
“It’s a revenue generator that won’t increase costs for 99 percent of San Diegans, but will increase opportunities for 100 percent of San Diegans,” Zucchet told committee members.
Other proponents embraced the STR tax as a fair and targeted approach to raising revenue for city services.
Former City Councilmember Barbara Bry, who now leads the group San Diegans for Housing, also voiced support.
“These are homes that could house low-income families,” Bry said. “Housing is for people, not profit.” Supporters also argued that short-term rentals have reduced the supply of affordable housing and that the tax represents “an opportunity for local government to provide for those who have less.”
Other activists described the proposal as a step toward fairness and a progressive measure that would ensure owners of profitable short-term rentals “pay their fair share” to fund homeless services and affordable housing.
But opponents strongly disagreed. Scott Chipman, a longtime supporter of the city’s vacation rental policies, said, “Imposing heavy taxes crosses the line from taxation to punishment. Councilmember Elo-Rivera is deepening social division and creating envy by scapegoating property owners.”
Critics also warned that the tax would discourage family tourism, force visitors into hotels, and invite legal challenges. They also argue it would do little to make housing more affordable.
Some local labor voices have also broken ranks with the proposal. Some local labor voices have also broken ranks with the proposal. Jesse Garcia, representing the Carpenters Union, said short-term rentals provide steady work for local tradespeople, cleaners, and maintenance workers. One carpenter and union member said his family built a two-bedroom STR as an investment and that “these properties create local jobs and economic activity.”
Opponents also argued that short-term rentals are already heavily regulated and taxed, and converting them to long-term rentals would not make them affordable. “Those homes would rent for $3,000 to $6,000 a month,” one property owner said. “That’s hardly affordable housing.”
The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce also opposed any tax increase, saying it would reduce tourism revenue and unfairly burden small property owners.“San Diegans don’t want more taxes — we want solutions,” a Chamber representative said.
This is a very bad idea.
The city is already snorting profits from the vacation rental business $50 million plus. If they will now get tax revenue like this it will be like mainlining drugs, there will never be a way to go back. This will solidify the short term vacation industry in the city and it will be an engine to permit more and more because the city will make more and more.
A very bad idea.
I understand the motivation and appeal of revenue sources that will only affect a small portion of the population. But, we need to remember that visitor spending is the #2 contributor to our economy and it is not a limitless flow to be tapped at will. Vacation rental owners already pay a license fee, property taxes, and TOT fees. Tourism provides jobs and income to many of the people this tax is trying to help. Tread carefully.
There are plenty of hotel rooms and actual “homesharing” Airbnbs to accommodate tourists (about 2,400 of them).
Running the numbers using Airbnb listing data, the potentially affected Tier 3/4 licensed STR properties are occupied 24% year round on average (87 days), with a conservative $48,000/year revenue.
The short-term rental market in San Diego is oversaturated, and travel is down on top of that. Appears Airbnb is being used to facilitate hoarding of extra homes rather than actually serving tourists efficiently.
Every time the city needs more money they hit up the tax payer. Most short term rentals are owened by mom & pop investers trying to get a little ahead of the economy. The ” big time corporations “are not involved to the extent media makes it appear.
Here’s a novel approach; “thin out the government herd”. Why do we have more mid level employees and less services. Come on; first semester economics. Don’t spend more than you take in. The San Diego government has to stop trying to be ” the Golden castle on the hill” and come back down to reality and give the residents what they deserve.
PVD, not exactly. Most of the new tax measures, past and current, are sales tax measures and hit up the average citizen. Sales taxes are the most regressive taxes to enact and enforce. The same sales tax increases hit the rich person as well as the poor person. But, of course, it’s not the same.
So why, you might ask, are the progressive Democrats on the County Board and different unions circulating petitions to raise the sales tax? Would someone please answer and enlighten me.
I think because property taxes are capped by prop 13 localities have few other options besides raising the sales tax.
Prop 13 is probably the most regressive element of California’s tax system. Its benefits scale with wealth not with need. At most, its tax break should only apply to one home per person. Instead it applies to corporations and 2nd homes. It’s insane that a first time home buyer will often pay 8 times the property tax of an identical 2nd home next to them that was bought a few decades ago.
Here’s to hoping that reform is possible one day.
I am currently sharing my home space with someone I don’t know. They sleep 14 feet from the head of my bed. They have been there for 10 days. They are an over-sized vehicle, an old school bus, so they are parked there illegally under two categories – oversized vehicle, and more than 72 hours. After 2 72-hour periods, they city GetItDone notified me that they have left a flyer on their windshield to provide a list of “safe parking” locations for them. I somehow think they were so pleased that the city cares so much for their welfare that they will stay where they are. They are still there. I do not hear them or see them coming and going during the day, only at night. Can we perhaps charge them $5000 per sleeping space per year? Oh, wait. They don’t have any money. So, yes, I DO prefer AirBnB to the temporary neighbors I frequently have. Could the city perhaps focus a little more on GetItDone?
Good luck. I reported a dead tree on city easement months and months ago. At some point in time city sent someone out to put a nasty, huge red X on the trunk. Since then, nothing. It held in the wind yesterday, but is leaning over the street, waiting for the right victim to park across the street or wander out to the side yard of the house across the street. I’m sure they will “lose” the complaint I filed when the tree kills someone.
That shouldn’t be taken so lightly. A few years back a tree fell over on a house in the heart of OB. Everyone inside was killed. Huge tragedy. I forget all the details. Whether a City tree or if it was on private property. Regardless, it was a terrible tragedy. I’ve had 3 Get It Done submissions for different things submitted since about August and nothing happened for any of them.
Update: This is the reply I got from the City Get it Done: “Current Status:Closed
An officer visited the site and issued a warning to the vehicle operator. A referral to Safe Parking was made.” I will try a new one.
That’s par for the city. I guess we should be proud that the city is lenient with people living in vehicles, but that shouldn’t include allowing them to do it in residential areas. Maybe try this, if the bus ever moves: get as many friends and family with cars they don’t need every day to park in every space around your property.
I think this school bus is going on 2 weeks parked there. So, oversized vehicle, inhabited, and hasn’t moved in 2 weeks. You had more accomplished with your Get It Done than I did, nostalgic. I got a reply that said due to limited staff and quantity of submissions, addressing my submission on Get It Done would be delayed. Two thumbs down.. And calling non emergency police accomplishes nothing. It’s all AI and automated now and it tells you to submit your problem on Get It Done.
This article turned into comments with reflections about using Get It Done. Which is a hot topic for sure! Here goes nothing — submitting my fifth Get It Done since August. No action on the previous submissions. Today’s submission is for graffiti on City property. I’ll submit 1 submission, but the graffiti is on 3 City signs, 1 City wall, and 1 City electrical panel. Here goes nothing.
Staying on the topic of the article now, maybe some of the many many people whose rents were raised so significantly that they had to move. Or maybe they were given notice by their landlords to move because the property was going to be remodelled. Or given notice for some other reason which were all ploys to turn the places into vacation rentals. Maybe some of those folks who had to move out of their much loved OB apartment into some place they don’t like that much can get a little slice of those new tax dollars from vacation rentals. Wishful thinking but I’ll throw the idea out there!!