By Chase
Here are some counterpoints to the Rag post “Why I’m Voting No on Measure A”:
“Supporters claim it will free up housing supply by encouraging owners to sell their property or rent it out to local residents.”
– I would claim it will EITHER free up housing supply OR raise revenue as a penalty for underutilizing housing. Every property owner this applies to has a choice, utilize the property, OR pay the tax.
“It includes retirees who maintain a second home to be closer to doctors, family, or grandchildren. It could impact military families deployed for extended periods if they fail to properly file paperwork with a new city bureaucracy. It affects people navigating inheritance, relocation, family illness, or other life transitions.”
– This statement can be boiled down to “it includes property owners who are underutilizing housing” and I fail to see how “if they fail to properly file paperwork” is included in this. Every US citizen is at risk of arrest if they fail to properly file their taxes…
“But the deeper problem is this: Measure A does not solve the housing crisis. It does not build a single new home. It does not increase density in the areas where it is needed most. It does not streamline approvals or reduce the barriers that make housing development so difficult in San Diego.”
– of course a single rule change is not going to solve the housing crisis, and of course it doesn’t build a single new home. As stated before, property owners will be given a choice: pay a penalty for underutilization OR utilize the housing.
It may come as a shock, but if 500 of these homes get sold to people who will actually live in them, it’s basically brings 500 units back on the market. I see no distinction between that and building new homes other than building new homes takes a long time and a lot of money. There is no reason not to try to improve every aspect of the supply and demand problem that is our current housing crisis. Increasing density is key, utilizing existing housing is also key and these ideas are not mutually exclusive.
“Instead, it relies on the assumption that taxing certain homeowners will somehow translate into more housing supply”
– The assumption is that it will EITHER translate to more housing supply OR supplement revenue for the city (or most likely, a little of both). If a property owner thinks that an extra 10k a year to have an empty home in San Diego is worth it, that’s fine by me as that’s 10k that doesn’t have to come from parking fees, trash fees, etc.
“If we are serious about solving the housing crisis, we should focus on what actually works: building more housing in places where people can live, work, and move efficiently.”
– If you’re serious about solving the housing crisis we can do a little of everything that makes a difference. I look forward to seeing your advocacy in the future for dense, transit oriented housing.
“At a time when San Diegans are already dealing with rising utility bills, new fees, and increasing everyday costs, asking voters to approve another tax without a clear spending plan only deepens concerns about trust and accountability.”
– I’m not sure how many of the owners of the 5000 identified underutilized housing units live in San Diego, but I would bet it’s a vast minority. What is being asked here is for owners to supplement city coffers as penalty for underutilizing housing so that the citizens serviced by the city are not burdened as heavily. Not having a “spending plan” is not important.
I fully agree with all this. The exception should be military deployments.
It will certainly keep Snowbirds from i choosing San Diego as their Winter/Spring home. It sends the message that “you are not welcome here ” Their deep pockets likely have an outsized impact upon the Arts, restaurants, and the local economy.. Then there is the creation of yet another new City Department with all the staffing, management, middle management, benefits & retirements, which explains the support from Employee Unions. I don’t see the sale of a bunch of 5 million dollar houses in La Jolla being something that benefits anyone outside of the CEO class, making a few $10,000/mth units available for lease when they buy a home. It’s just another “Eat The Rich” Class Warfare proposal that will raise no funds beyond expenses, and be just another intrusion into our lives, requiring us to prove that we do, in fact, live in our home. No thanks.
Proposition A is an invasion of homeowner privacy, pure and simple. I vote no and you should too.
Agree. Invasive, Divisive and Regressive.
Vote No on Measure A
Maybe when we require bike riders to have insurance and also register their bikes each year, then maybe this ‘tax the rich’ scheme wouldn’t be so punitive. Elo-Rivera should do us all a favor and offer to take a 30% pay cut, cut his staff by 30% and forego any further salary increases for the remainder of his term. That would be a better solution to solve our broken city. Then we wouldn’t need to concoct such punitive measures on San Diegans who are invested in this city.
“Maybe when we require bike riders to have insurance and also register their bikes each year, ”
LOL. What makes this so comical is folks like you are serious about this which is exactly why it’s hard to take you seriously.
Yeah, why do the responsible thing, Chris by registering your bike and having insurance. I guess responsibility is for adults only?
Thanks for the homepage post! I should have put a little more polish into my thoughts if I knew it was going to get the spotlight!
Thank you for the rebuttal, Chase! I fully agree. Of course there should be exceptions for military, and other marginalized groups, but we have to start somewhere to create change. I’m voting YES on A.
As well intentioned as A may be, let’s look at some facts.
1. By the city’s own estimates , out of the 5000 or so units that may get taxed, it will boil down to about 1500 after all exemptions are accounted for.
Not quite the gold mine people hope for.
2. A does not differentiate between a 5 BR home on the La Jolla coast and a small condo in Mission Beach that’s been a family for years.
3. Even though the City Attorney has promised that A is on firm legal ground, there are enough precedents that someone will sue, tying it up in legal hell for years and costing thousands.
4. Since most of the targeted homes are downtown and in La Jolla, how many that may come up for rent or sale would be deemed affordable.
To mix two animal analogies, rather than a gift horse, A looks more like a lame duck.
I agree with you fully Chaz. The yes voters can’t connect the dots on how this will benefit anyone. All it does is put money in the general fund to support the city’s bloated staffing. Measure A is a fraud authored by ‘Ego’-Rivera and supported by ‘Fraud Gloria’. That tells you everything you need to know. The obvious choice is No on Measure A.
You are right Chaz. Virtually all second homes are owned by the wealthy (by definition I think) and most will pay the extra $10k tax which is not going to change anythingl. Its a tiny addition to the general fund and will do nothing for helping with the housing problem. A few will spend more time in the house but only a few will actually sell.
And it would without doubt be challenged in court and probably loose anyhow. Don’t beat a dead horse. The city should spend our time and money doing something substantial.
Yup, some may take the additional write off, others could work around this to the point it becomes a piece of trash like Balboa parking fees. Another great Elo waste of time and taxpayer money.
I think Measure A is Unconstitutional.
Homeowners are paying taxes and not using resources. Subsidizing the rest of us.
Plus will costs million in legal lawsuits that the City’s will not win.
Solution: Save money on lawyer fees. Wait until the law is decided in the State of California. It does not matter if taxing empty 2nd homes work in other states or internationally. Laws are different in California.
“Measure A is Unconstitutional”
Agree. Seven times over — at least!
I’m not an attorney, so ask one:
Which Constitutional Amendments can be used to challenge this tax if it is passed?
Here’s my layman’s view. (with help from a couple attorneys I know and some online research)
1st Amendment: freedom of assembly, privacy as means of expression
3rd Amendment* interpretive in regard to providing housing under duress
4th Amendment: regarding papers and effects; personal privacy and security.
5th Amendment: takings clause, punitive, excessive fees
8th Amendment: unlimited fines and late fees; punitive
9th Amendment*: Is there a ‘right to privacy’ amendment?
14th Amendment: Equal protection (class); due process clause
*Some interpretive rulings have been rendered, supporting protection of privacy
Whats next, my unused Laptop or phone, or whatever personal oroperty the government decides could be better used elsewhere? If schools need laptops then your unused one needs to be shared or your taxed? What about an unused pickup truck that you use once in a whils to hsul stuff, or your unused RV. The RV could definately be used as housing.
You’ll enjoy this satirical piece from last month… ?
https://obrag.org/2026/04/more-creative-tax-proposals-to-help-city-hall-and-mayor-gloria-balance-the-budget-a-satire/
Measure A appears to target a politically salient symptom rather than the city’s main affordability driver. The most credible housing-economics work continues to emphasize that high prices in expensive coastal markets are driven primarily by chronic supply scarcity, entitlement friction, slow permitting, construction costs, and limited production in high-opportunity areas.
UC San Diego’s housing work emphasizes the importance of permitting and supply-side reform, and Brookings’ broader affordability work makes the same point. This is another pit neighbor vs neighbor stunt by Elo-Rivera who actively works to divide San Diego residents versus implementing root cause fixing solutions. Creating privacy invasive tax policy is anti-American, unconstitutional, and will back fire on those same people supporting measure A. They will not stop with these mom and pop owners (only ~40 out of the ~5,100 homes are owned by corp landlords, the other 5,060 are small mom and pop owners.
Lastly, this measure is likely to lose in court since other similar proposals in CA have been blocked by the courts, and will cost San Diego residents millions of dollars in court fees for an ideological headline stunt.
Anything proposed by Elo is a flat out NO. He, along with La Cava and the Mayor can never seem to find their way out of a paper bag, let along provide any competent leadership.
Funny this gets put onto homeowners when the city cut DIFs and then caved when it came time to stand up to the vacation rental companies.
Yes, I agree that Elo-Rivera is a small time muncipal thinker, who has reached his level
of incompetence! This measure will NOT solve the housing problem in San Diego and will probably be nullified by the Courts. He wouild be wise to take a basic course in Economics.
Okay, I haven’t showed my ugly fat phiz around here in a decade and change, but it seems like there’s a lot of huzzah about a pretty minor change here…
Is A going to affect a significant number of properties? Is it going to affect affordable housing in any meaningful way? Come now, let’s not be dense – this hits a handful of rich people who can absolutely afford to drop $10K in the city coffers if they’re leaving a vacation home vacant on purpose – let’s say that’s their civic contribution that would be realized in other ways if they actually lived, worked, and shopped here full-time. Or it hits STVR hosts, who can either factor the cost into their business model or give it up if margins are really that thin (maybe not everyone needs to fancy themselves an amateur hotelier). But let’s not kid ourselves and believe the kind of housing this will free up will be plentiful or affordable.
In the exceedingly rare instances where someone might be eligible for an exemption, will it be too hard to apply for? That’s something we can argue and refine but that’s the bathwater, or just the little bit of it that splashes out of the tub, not the baby. An argument that the whole proposal is DOA because military members are too stupid to file for an exemption is either dismissive of or telling tales out of school about what we really think of military intelligence.
Poor, poor grandma who needs a home near her doctor? If she’s really poor why does she have multiple houses, and if she’s not does this really affect her? I live in a neighborhood where “aren’t you afraid you’re going to get shot?” is the first thing outsiders ask me about where I’m from, and if Grandma has owned her mostly-unoccupied vacation house for any significant time I probably pay a lot more property tax than she does. You couldn’t trip over the limbo bar to gain my sympathy, it’s buried a few feet deep.
This is a tiny nod toward taxing the rich, but that’s all. It’s not significant or meaningful, it won’t do a lot, most of the housing stock in question even if returned to actual residents won’t make a dent in the astronomical cost of living in or anywhere near this city. But it’s a tiny step in the right direction – and watching how hysterical the moneyed class is about the rest of us asking for even the tiniest drop in the goddamned bucket we’re trying to fill without their help is telling.
Great hearing from ya, Dave!
Hiya Frank!
shoot me a personal email and let me know how you and your family have been obragblog@gmail.com
We published Dave’s comment as a post; Dave used to write for the Rag.