By Shane Harris / Voice of San Diego / May 29, 2026
I don’t own a home in San Diego. Like many residents, I rent. I feel the pressure of rising costs. I understand how difficult it is for working people and families to find stable, affordable housing in this city. And like most San Diegans, I want real solutions to our housing crisis. That’s exactly why I’m voting no on Measure A.
Initially, the City Council wanted Measure A described as an “empty homes” tax until a judge ruled that the city could not use that misleading language. Now the measure is identified as a “non-primary homes” tax. Supporters claim it will free up housing supply by encouraging owners to sell their property or rent it out to local residents. It sounds simple, even appealing. But when you look closer, the reality is far more complicated — and far more concerning.
This measure isn’t just about abandoned or speculative properties. It creates a tax of up to $10,000 annually on homes deemed not to be a primary residence and “vacant” for more than half the year. That definition sweeps in far more people than many voters realize. It also puts the city in the business of monitoring how many days San Diegans spend in their own homes, shifting the burden onto residents to prove they lived there rather than requiring the city to prove they did not.
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. These are not faceless investors gaming the system; they are real San Diegans with legitimate reasons for how they use their homes.
Framing this as simply an “empty homes” issue is misleading. And that matters, because public policy should be rooted in clarity and honesty.
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.
Instead, it relies on the assumption that taxing certain homeowners will somehow translate into more housing supply. That assumption is not backed by a clear plan or proven mechanism for delivering results. In fact, the city’s own Independent Budget Analyst report acknowledged that other jurisdictions that implemented similar taxes did not see lower rents or lower housing prices as a result.
Even the roughly 5,000 homes the city says it would initially target are largely not located in areas where new transit-oriented housing development is feasible. They are not near major job centers or transportation corridors where density makes sense. They are not the types of properties that will suddenly become accessible, affordable housing for working families.
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. That means aligning housing with transit, infrastructure, and economic opportunity. That is the kind of policy that expands access. I call it “housing on wheels.”
Measure A does not do that.
What it does do is generate revenue — revenue that would go directly into the city’s General Fund. And we have already seen where that has gotten us: a budget deficit now exceeding $120 million, driven by overspending rather than a lack of revenue. There is no dedicated funding stream, no lockbox, and no guarantee that the money raised by Measure A would be used to increase housing supply or improve affordability.
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.
Measure A also creates a new layer of bureaucracy in a city already grappling with how many employees will eventually need to be cut. It requires homeowners to report how their property is used and opens the door to audits, disputes, and penalties. It expands government oversight into private property in ways many residents may find intrusive.
As a renter, I want more housing options. I want lower costs. I want a future where homeownership is within reach for more people. But policies like Measure A do not move us closer to that future.
If anything, they risk discouraging investment, creating uncertainty, and distracting from the real work that needs to be done to increase housing supply.
This is a smoke-and-mirrors measure. I call it “piecemeal taxation.” It sounds like a solution, but it does not address the root of the problem.
San Diego deserves better.
As ballots arrive in mailboxes, voters should look past the label and ask a simple question: Will this actually fix the housing crisis?
In my view, it will not.
And that is why I am voting no on Measure A.
Shane Harris is the CEO of S Harris Communications and the spokesperson for No on A Campaign.
These homeowners pay property taxes and the Elo pickpocket basically amounts to double taxation which should be dismissed in court should the measure pass. How many more middle managers will be effectively be the housing police? Successful people should not be the target of government and all should be governed equally. The class warfare disguise in lieu of a budget deficit needs to stop.
To a point I understand your view. However, was it not the Mayor waiving $120 million in impact fees, that got us into this budget deficit of… checks notes… $120 million? That did not seem to get folks invoking “class warfare” when it truly was. One class walked away with profits, while those of us who did not make a profit are being nickle and dimed to death now to make up for it. I can fully understand why people now want those tables turned. Additionally, this author should deal with facts. He does not.
This was an interesting horror story. But that is all it is – a story being told to scare you. It is not based in fact and uses unrelated issues to sway the reader. If people want to live by transit, they should live by transit. But if they want a house away from traffic, they should be allowed to find a home off the main corridor. What they should not find is a bunch of homes in a quite neighborhood empty while someone waits for a short-term renter to come along instead of going to one of our many hotels in San Diego.
And as for the statement that this will not work – IT HAS WORKED! When cities have cracked down on short-term rentals and investor-owners, inventory has increased and prices have come down. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia is just one example. Does that mean they stopped building high-rises near transit for those who love city life? No, of course not. What it did do was to give those who did not want to live along a traffic corridor to move into a house, where they could make it a home, surrounded by a community they could get to know, while building equity for themselves instead of someone else.
Houses should be homes, not lines on a ledger.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/25/once-australias-second-priciest-city-melbourne-has-become-more-affordable-what-happened-and-will-it-last
Agreed! After reading my first thought was, “cool story bro.”
Think of the poor elderly who must maintain second homes to be close to their doctor…what?!
If it’s not your primary home, and it’s not providing a home for a long term tax paying SD resident, then it’s an investment that comes with a detriment to the people of San Diego, in the form of missing out on a resident’s personal and tax contributions to the city and community. Pay taxes on your investments or divest. Stop lying and crying.
Everyone, pay attention: Paid spokesperson for Measure A who willfully misrepresents themselves as some sort of “public” representative, with a made-up seal and everything! Falsehoods written above include:
– “driven by overspending rather than a lack of revenue” Just such an extraordinary oversimplification that is also not rooted in reality. See the 1/13/26 commentary in the UT from the California Policy Center. The city does not take in enough revenue.
– “creates a new layer of bureaucracy” Nope! This is information the city already has.
– “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.” Those retirees are holding a second home! Those military families already need to file paperwork correctly! AND! They are ALREADY CARVED OUT of the measure.
Direct from the city attorney:
“The tax will not apply to owner-occupied primary residences, long-term residential leases, and other Empty Homes under certain exemptions, such as during periods of military service, certain natural disasters, and after an owner’s death.”
TL;DR: This is paid advocacy, and the issues raised here are already addressed within the measure.
Still too many unanswered questions:
For example, nothing concrete on administration or Enforcement of the Measure.
How’s that going to work?
§32.0108 reads:
“The City Manager, or designee, shall enforce the provisions of this Division and
may promulgate reasonable rules. regulations. interpretations. and guidelines to
implement and enforce the provisions of this Division.”
That’s a nothing burger. Sounds like, “we got this, don’t worry, we’ll tell you later.”
And it raises several questions about these “designees:”
Who are they? What will they be paid? How are they vetted? How many will there be? Many other questions, too.
And don’t the Voters of San Diego deserve to have answers BEFORE the Election?
We don’t know and they ain’t sayin’.
Vote NO on Measure A
Just some counterpoints:
“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’m not going to waste away my whole afternoon but I just find all of these arguments to be very disingenuous especially considering that the (paid spokesperson) author already agrees that there is a supply-side issue for housing.
We reposted this comment as an article, Chase.
I’ll be more succinct.
RE ” , , , 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…”
Rebuttal: I’m not a risk of arrest for failing to properly file my property tax barring fraud. I am at risk of foreclosure and given that measure A says nothing on the MANNER in which the city will verify HOW it will validate that my home as, ” owner-occupied primary residences”, Harris’s point has merit. Devil is in the details apologies for the hackneyed phrase.
RE creates a new layer of bureaucracy” Nope! This is information the city already has.
Rebuttal: You don’t know that to be a fact. If you do then explain how the city will do so re above.
RE The city does not take in enough revenue.
Rebuttal: First, post a link to the UT article you refer to. I’ve been a resident for almost 40 years through dem and rep administrations and I don’t recall the city budget being the concern that it is now. If the city has a budget concern it’s because of poor fiscal management . Just the Ash ST fiasco settlement cost the city $130M. That number is climbing since the city is still paying for maintenance on an near worthless building . And no I am not blaming solely Gloria for that fiasco. It’s genesis lies with Falconer but the point is why provide the city with more public funds, regardless of source, when they have so mismanaged the public funds to date?
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/san-diego-to-offload-101-ash-street/509-3eb1e2f5-0ed2-4574-995f-da13e82e2573
Promised I’d be brief. Cheers.
Vote NO on A …… it’s just another attempt to steal money from citizens because city hall pays city employees TOO WELL. tired of SD politicians constantly sticking us with fees, rate increases, taxes!
First, there are not 5,000+ non-primary homes subject to this tax. It’s about half, and likely fewer in subsequent years. So – NO discernable impact on available housing. And can be assumed, none in the “affordable” category. Educate yourselves:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/26-05-iba-analysis-of-the-fiscal-impact-of-the-proposed-empty-second-home-tax.pdf
From the U.S. Supreme Court: “The city’s theory is deceptively simple: “Once a landlord, always a landlord or sell the property.” The contention is, in effect, that the property owner has a duty to relieve the municipality of its invalid order by dispossessing himself of his property. Or to put it another way: persons who do not choose to abjectly submit to the city violating their fundamental rights should get out of town. If the city forces this owner to involuntarily transfer his property to a third person, the result is no less a taking than if the municipality itself were to assume title to the property. … Neither the federal nor state Constitutions permit the city to achieve its purpose by impressing this owner and his property into the mold of a public utility bound in perpetuity to provide, maintain, and operate a housing business.”
Should Measure A pass, it WILL be litigated, and paid for with your tax dollars.
Agree with your bottom line:
Measure A will be either settled at the Ballot Box or in Court.
Best for all if we just Vote NO to avoid the cost, delay and divisive stress that a Yes vote would bring.
Actually NBC 7 has a report online where the city council backers of Measure A claim that aside from the San Francisco Measure that’s been in the courts, multiple cities in CA have enacted this kind of tax successfully. They say Measure A was crafted to avoid the legal problems that caused it to be stricken down in court. I encourage everyone interested in this issue to check it out.
Unfortunately, the NO on Measure A side out spent the YES on A side by about 8 to 1. ALL that Realtors money ? ? ? sure came in handy given that so far it’s losing by a significant margin. Realtors get a commission for selling the very kind of subject to Measure A according to NBC 7. This Measure was a reasonable way to get much needed city revenue.
The nonprofit news site CalMatters and LAist have written about how Prop 13 has really hurt cities ability to get enough revenue to pay for the services residents want and expect. The city also failed to get passed the 1/2 percent sales tax in 2024 that would’ve helped stave off the very fees and cuts to services most San Diegans seem to dislike SO much. A similar small sales tax hike also failed for the county. At some point people have to realize that even with the best fiscal management GOVERNMENT COSTS MONEY ? to operate.
That’s why it’s only fair to require those who can afford it to pay enough in taxes to adequately provide that revenue. Measure A would’ve either helped with that or brought second non primary residency homes ? into being primary residency homes ?. Full time residents to a community generate more revenue for those communities by way of paying more taxes and fees and by patronizing local businesses.
Yet, the voters have spoken: no on A.
Well, it’s not all bad news for vacation homeowners. They can sell their homes, use the proceeds to buy a nice motor home, and live in Mission Bay Park for free.
Measure A is prima facie ridiculous. Suppose you are a homeowner who is away for 185 days. To avoid the tax, you simply “rent” your home to a friend for a week. Then the home is not vacant for more than half a year. Nobody will ever pay the tax, and nothing is done to solve the housing crisis. I think our mayor and Sean Elo Rivera need brain transplants. This measure will cost millions to enforce, and it will accomplish none of its intended purposes.
Yup, rent it to a family member. It’s comical how many ways this will be a moot point.
On Measure A:
Let’s take a look at the Exemptions (§32.0106) and Exclusions (§32.0107). Yes, there are plenty of them. But notice that each one is either conditional, time-bound or both. Active-duty military and reserves are mostly exempt, but that disappears once discharged. Vets get nothing special. And is 2 years enough time to navigate through the maze of permits needed to start and finish rebuilding home lost to fire or other catastrophic event? Under Measure A, even Death is limited!! (2 years to settle estate per §32.0103 pg 8 ).
Now, check out the rest of the ordinance:
–No sunset clause (Berkeley’s Empty Home Tax has one)
–Presumption of “guilt” (taxable per §32.0110)
–Taxes indexed to inflation starting 3rd year (§32.0104(c)) with no yearly cap and no limit.
–Huge powers given to City Manager and unnamed “designees,” raising more questions
–Criminal penalties (most other Vacancy Taxes seek civil penalties only)
–Bigger tax bites than other Empty Home Taxes (Berkeley, even SF)
–No limits how tax proceeds are spent (General Fund means virtually anything!)
–10-year auditing period (other Vacancy Tax schemes have 5-year audits)
This deck is stacked — in favor of the City and against homeowners.
And if Measure A passes, every homeowner is put under duress.
So if you’re thinking of voting for this Invasive, Divisive, Regressive Measure, please reconsider: Vote No on Measure A
I see Mr. Harris is a renter. There has been very little discussion about how Measure A affects them. Turns out Measure A isn’t a good deal for renters either.
What renters have to lose:
1) Privacy rights: Renters have them, too. Maybe you aren’t down with the City (and others) knowing your comings and goings, where you live and when. And subject to audit for 10 years?
2) Landlords under duress: are they as likely to forgive and/or cooperate when you’re a little late or a little short? Will they be as quick to call the plumber or HVAC repair?
3) More paperwork, larger security deposits and HIGHER rents.
a) From new landlords: to offset the risk of additional fines/taxes.
b) From new owners: to account for Prop 13 reset.
Vacancy Taxes like Measure A are fool’s gold for renters.
Just more reasons to Vote No!
I Voted No on measure A,
City hasn’t been able to afford “code compliance” officers for many many years now (well, maybe 2) so how are they going to enforce this stupid unfair useless new law?
Did I miss the argument that “permanent residency” is 6 months and one day, leaving 6 months left for
what? Not permanent affordable renting for regular folks, that’s for sure….
But I do know there are lots and lots of code compliance cheaters, in mission beach , etc, who have taken over public sidewalks for their personal decks….
Hey City, Maybe start by enforcing the laws we already have?
What kind of penalties should be imposed on people who are occupying public sidewalks ?
Ps, in case y’all didn’t know, those cute little sidewalks in Mission Beach are really twice as large