By Lisa Mortensen
Well, the city has concocted another tax proposal to inflict pain on San Diegans and divert attention from the real issue of ballooning staff and salaries that has created an ever-increasing deficit. The city asks for your input on surveys of community projects that you may want to have implemented, but this is a diversion tactic to take your eyes off of the true culprits; our exploding deficit that is the making of our elected officials at city hall.
These ‘surveys’ are disingenuous and will lead us to be forced to create community foundations to pay for projects on our wish lists; all the while robbing the city’s taxpayer-funded accounts. This indirectly is a double payment for what we have already paid for in our property taxes and sales taxes. Now let me be clear, I am not criticizing foundations, we need them and the good work they do, but the city must also provide its fair share and not pull back on funding. Foundations are working harder than ever and our city and county must put their financial houses in order and continue to fund our community needs first and stop their hiring binge.
The $8,000 tax on 2nd homeowners who do not rent their properties more than 183 days a year will be on the city council agenda on Tuesday, March 3rd at 2pm.
Sean Elo-Rivera (SER) is pushing this terrible policy forward to be placed on the 2026 ballot. SER dropped the short-term rental industry (which is a for-profit industry) from the tax requirement after Airbnb formed a PAC and raised $2.5million dollars in defense to exempt them from this tax. Once again, individual homeowners who happen to have a 2nd home are now the target by the city for the $8,000 tax. For more information, please read SDUT article dated 2/26/26. (I am still not familiar with how to attach articles from this platform. Bear with me.
Whether you attend the meeting or watch virtually, please at minimum speak out in opposition to this terrible policy by clicking the public comment button below. I have already submitted my comment, which you can read in the published public comment section.
We must protect our taxpayer funds from a city that is robbing us blind.
[Comments were supposed to be made before the end of business on Monday. ]
And why would regular people care about not taxing those who can afford 2nd homes in this city?
Define regular people first.
Adding 8k to 10k to a wealthy Snowbird’s cost of having a second home in San Diego will just see them take their spending elsewhere. There are many coastal California Cities that would welcome wealthy residents who spend lavishly on the arts, restaurants, retail, etc. Once we have an Elo-Rivera paradise without La Jolla, Tourists, or wealthy Snowbirds, we will see massive sales taxes and fees to make up for all the losses. Just another fool’s errand.
“individual homeowners who happen to have a 2nd home are now the target by the city for the $8,000 tax”
I think it’s clear that vacant housing stock is the target. If you “happen to have a 2nd home” (or 3rd or 4th or 5th and so on) and it’s not being used as housing then the city is losing out on tax revenue from people who could live in that house, work in the city, buy goods from local businesses, etc. Also, while this is a small percentage of overall housing, if these properties come up for rent (or sale) it will increase the supply and decrease the cost of housing for those looking. So the city is either going to 1. get more housing or 2. collect a fair penalty from those not making housing available.
But the fundamental question here is, in America, why is it fair to penalize an owner for an empty house? Why is it fair to tax people for the failures of the city not balancing a budget and trimming expenses like the rest of us do? This proposal, and others, would have never seen the light of day if the city minded the store.
TBH, if someone owns a 2nd home in the city that they don’t live in full time or are not renting it out to a permanent resident, I have zero concern about any financial hardship this tax has on the owner.
We should stop all spending on bike lanes for this city budget too then.
Nah. They work for me. I thank you again Chris for your tax dollars. Now, go make me a sandwich.
You have to realize Chris my response to you is based on the I don’t care approach you took. If you want to approach things in a horizontal class vs class response while not addressing where the issue is vertically, Ala Elo, then you fail to see the picture. For instance, I have worked for my home. My mom has worked for her home. Labored, sweat, to get to our places. She’s 90 and I will eventually absorb her assets. So choices are rent it. Sell it. Or now pay a tax if I don’t want anyone in it. Rental people being what they are. Cap gains being what they are. Is the tax fair? For me, no. Reasons being, I have kids to eventually pass on to also. I take care of them so they don’t have to do the affordability dance. Now multiple property tax dodging 1031s should be fair game. Potentially 300k homes there in the state. So consider the tree you’re barking up at.
Chris,
When your mom passes away, the tax basis of her home can be stepped up to the current market value with an appraisal. If you sell the home soon thereafter, you will not end up paying any (or very little) capital gains taxes.
Ok Chris I can understand that, but I’m looking at (even if I didn’t mention it) people buying 2nd homes in the city just for the sake of having a 2nd home, or more specifically people who don’t live in the city and buy this 2nd home for a vacation home that they will occupy for maybe a month out of the whole year. The rest of the year it just sits empty. Things like that contribute to the affordability shortage. And lets not forget people who buy a home for the sole purpose of renting it out as a vacation rental. I think even you would agree with that.
Why isn’t the city targeting San Diego State for added taxation for not building housing on the Qualcomm stadium site over the past six years?
During that time the city has pushed bonus ADU policies on single-family neighborhoods and is now looking at taxing second homes, while over 100 acres of prime real estate, on a trolley line, sit empty.
Let alone any empty apartment rental anywhere?
Part of the problem is that a similar bill passed in the San Francisco Bay area was overturned by the courts. So if our city council passes this bill it will end up in the courts and the city will lose and incur more stupid legal fees. So it will end up costing the city more money at a time when they don’t have the money.
How is the city going to count the nights you sleep there? Enforcement?