Counter Point: ‘Yes on Measure A’

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.