By Dave Rice
Is Measure 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.
Just a correction, Dave, the Airbnb lobby raised $2.5mil to torpedo Measure ‘A’ and Elo-Rivera exempted them. So, the ‘for profit’ sector is exempted from this proposal.
Meanwhile, homeowners who pay their taxes and their homeowners fees and also spend money when they are in town are being penalized under the guise that it will help what? When Elo buys his second property with his executive salary that we are paying, he’ll change the rules to satisfy his ‘Ego-Rivera’.
I doubt seriously this will do anything to satisfy your desire to ‘soak the rich’. I’d much rather have the wealthy be benefactors for our city and not subsidizing the city’s bloated staffing and salaries. Measure ‘A’ will coddle the city to live way beyond its means at taxpayer expense. Not sure how that’s o.k.
Not sure I said “soak the rich,” but if “tax” in any form is truly a synonym I stand corrected.
Missing the STVR carve-out is a pretty egregious error on my part, if I was still a reporter instead of a random look ranting on the Internet I wouldn’t have missed that (this was a long-winded reply to someone else’s blog originally, not a standalone blog of its own). It makes me think even less of the measure that I was already lukewarm on, but I’m still not regretting the yes box I checked a couple of weeks ago.
I think our big difference is that I don’t hate city workers or begrudge them their salaries – I want more workers (non-cop variety) providing more services, and I want them to be paid for their work. I doubt we’re going to agree on what a fair wage looks like, and I’m okay with that.
The points presented are distractions IMO. This has everything to do with city mismanagement and the ways they try to cover their mistakes. And this way is simply trying to tax your second home again, after already paying property taxes because of budget mismanagement. And now it could be staffing the housing police.
There are many reasons under the sun for someone to own a second home, but to vilify it begs the next question of what’s next when the budget isn’t balanced. Maybe since the city wanting to cram people into mass housing and forced transit, it’s your second car next that isn’t driven 182 days. How about those unused boats down at the bay not being used enough? Or those RV’s for that matter? Never mind the parking issues that have been created because of the mass housing /ADU policies, requiring little parking while giving away DIF to builders. This city caved when it came to STVRs and the result is to pick on 5000 properties. Nobody is doing anything about the corporate side of housing availability.
Nobody wants to be limited in being sucessful, but this measure flies in the face of it. For myself it is an issue about freedom from unnecessary government intrusion and double taxation.
I’ve already said this wasn’t originally meant as a blog of its own, so apologies if my arguments weren’t very well fleshed out. Maybe my take on second homes comes across a bit harsh, but I wasn’t trying to make a villain out of someone so much as suggest that if you’re so wealthy you can maintain multiple housing units for the use of a single family unit, the numbers we’re talking about here probably aren’t going to bankrupt you. If they are, you’re probably not making the brightest financial decisions.
Multiple housing units? Or a second home? That can be two different things. But for the local government to just reach in a pocket for an extra 10K, and shake the owner down for easy money, you’re supposed to feel good about that? But yet, if you’re renting the place, you’re likely doing all the depreciation mumbo while pulling in money, paying the property and rental taxes, to not get punked for the 10K. These council people can’t even attend work to justify their salaries to begin with. It’s closing a budget gap with juvenile methods. But, it been a fun discusion. No on A.
So, if I have a primary home, and then another secondary home, both of which are reserved for the use of my family and my family only, I’d say that I have one family occupying multiple units of housing. I’m not sure there’s anything unclear about that description, or any way to spin it that doesn’t involve a single family occupying multiple units of housing.
If I owned two houses while living in one and letting someone else’s family live in the other, I wouldn’t be occupying both. Again pretty clear.
Among other things I’m a property manager, so I’m probably “doing all the appreciation mumbo while pulling in money” for my owners, whatever that means. I won’t argue that this is good, primarily because I don’t understand your point but also because I don’t love capitalism but accept it’s the system I’m forced to exist within. That said, the people I work for are offering their housing to others who, for whatever reason, can’t afford to or choose not to own real estate. They’re not leaving housing vacant for no discernable reason.
You don’t like what council members are paid: noted. Not sure it’s directly tied to this issue aside from tangentially, but noted.
Just a thought or two. When exactly did citizens of America adopt the vilification of financial success? Robin Hood may have planted the seed when we were kids, or before we were kids. I get that there is corporation and government corruption. I agree that the balance of power is fragile and the three branches of government help to deter at least some of the corruption and greed for power and money. However, when lobbies like Big Pharma and and the Military Industrial complex tip the balance, there is reason for concern. We have seen first hand what City overreach coupled with a marriage between corporations and local and state government does to our lives. Everyone’s dream is different, if we have independent thinkers. A powerful group can change the dream to serve their goals. Imagine a world where people chosen to run government believe they know what is best for their “subjects”. The proletariat, after-all, are ignorant, probably independent thinkers, likely even capitalists! They cannot be trusted to make informed decisions. No worries. We will change the way they think. Game Over. There is a great book I have mentioned before, called Virus of the Mind. It exposes the powerful and insidious techniques that are designed to change thinking. Imagine the arrogance a group of leaders must feel in order to change ‘our’ world, because they know what is best. Oh, wait San Diego, you don’t have to imagine. Your community planning boards have no power, staff and elected officials change laws to meet their goals, not ‘ours’, and voters shake their fist at the changes, and keep voting people ‘in’ who ‘know’ what is best for the people. VOTE WISELY ON JUNE 2nd! Find leadership that LISTENS to you!!!!
Ok then, let’s go deep on Measure A:
Measure A puts every homeowner under duress.
For each residential unit they own, each year, the options are:
Move In
Rent Out
Sell Off
or Pay Up
Now, yessir, there are Exemptions (§32.0106) and Exclusions (§32.0107) and plenty of them! But each one is either conditional or time-bound. Or both. Examples:
–Military: Active-Duty and Reserves are pretty much covered, fully exempt, but once discharged, our Vets get nothing special.
–Catastrophic Event: If your home is lost due to a catastrophic event, the clock starts ticking and you have two years to navigate through the permitting process, settle with insurance as needed and fully rebuild. How many of the 15,000+ homes lost in the Eaton and Palisades fires of January 2025 can meet that January 2027 deadline?
–Dying to Win: Under Measure A, even Death is limited! (§32.0103 pg 8 : settle estate in 2 years)
As a practical matter, the vast majority of homeowners won’t be caught up in the first sweep — (we don’t know how exactly how that’s gonna work and they ain’t tellin’), but the “City Manager, or designee” would likely run their records and send notices to those 5100 possibilities. Low hanging fruit.
And that’s when the burden of proof shifts to the owner “to demonstrate their entitlement to the exemption annually…” (taxable per §32.0110 and §32.0107(b) )
It’s also when the attorneys (already circling overhead) answer their phones and the legal challenges begin.
As it stands now, the Measure A issue 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.
Vote NO on Measure A
Re: Dying to win coinsides with living in the property to transfer the origional tax basis or selling to cash out at the step up basis in lieu of an owners death. To avoid the measure being tossed out in that situation.
“Buy, Borrow and Die” the phrasing goes, I believe.
If that “Wins,” then would “Rent, Save and Live” be a “Loser?”
Maybe.
Your thoughts?
Did I fail to mention in my last post that Proposition A is an invasion of private property? How we fill our property is not the business of Toad Glorius or the City Council. Funny thing is, we homeowners follow the City of San Diego General Plan, Zoning, and even pay those outrageous trash fees. But don’t you City Councilors go poking behind our front doors. Two NO votes here were posted on Saturday.
Vote, San Diego!
Voting is more important than who wins.
Vote No on Measure A
That’s important, too!
Measure A targets a visible symptom, not San Diego’s main housing problem. The strongest housing economics research shows affordability is driven primarily by chronic undersupply, restrictive land use, slow permitting, and high construction costs—not by a limited number of non-primary homes. Brookings and UC San Diego both emphasize supply and permitting reform as central to affordability. San Diego’s own budget analysts also warn that vacancy-tax revenue and impacts are highly uncertain. Measure A risks becoming a legally vulnerable, economically uncertain tax that raises money without meaningfully lowering housing costs. Ultimately, pitting neighbor against neighbor and intruding on privacy and property rights. If we want affordability, we should build more housing faster—not rely on symbolic eat the rich taxation that becomes tyranny by the majority!
We don’t have a housing crisis; we have an affordable housing crisis. Developers have gotten away with building market-rate and for-profit developments for decades. And, in the main, San Diego politicians have allowed them to get away with it.
I’ve been flogging this dead horse for years, but the definition of “affordable” when it comes to housing units is heinously skewed. I wrote a whole cover story about it nearly a decade ago for the rag that poached me from the proper Rag…
I voted NO on Measure A. I was lucky enough to purchase our home in Clairemont
when it was required that no loans were granted for properties where
the payments exceeded 20% of your salary. Yep, I paid $22K for my Clairemont
home, but my salary was $500/month as a tech at UCSD. We managed. Then,
thankfully, there was Prop 13! Which they have managed to dilute to the point that
trying to give your grandchildren a place to live and, hopefully prosper is damned
near impossible. As it stands today young people cannot afford to buy any simple two bedroom,one bath homes because they no longer build them. Starter homes we called them.
Instead they pay exorbitant rents, because they can’t afford the down payment and
drive expensive cars on lease. However, now our area is being inundated with ADU
building everywhere with no requirement for parking! Our glorious leaders state
that if you live within walking distance of public transportation you don’t need a
car. This is SOCAL folks, not NYC, Chicago, Boston or any other of those east
coast mega bee hives that are being abandoned for sunny southern California.
Yes it’s expensive here, but until they solve the lack of water issue and the sewage
infrastructure designed for single family homes we had better not keep putting
lipstick on pigs. They want to tax anyone with the foresight and money to purchase
a second home for their future families, so when will they want to tax our empty
bedrooms?
A brilliant (if controversial) political tactician once said (paraphrasing):
“The price of Victory is a constructive alternative and a better way forward.”
To that end, I’m willing to discuss “a better way forward” and make good on my boast that there are DOZENS of better alternatives to the presumable defeated Measure A.
I’ll start with these 3 and continue, but only if there’s interest on this forum.
1) Encourage SB9 and SB79 projects and be grateful for the opportunity. Here in Lake Tahoe, we have an extra layer of governance known as the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA), sort of an EPA all our own. It has federal powers and would never allow a 7-story building, nor should it. But even SB9 isn’t allowed here, although we’re working on that and the TRPA is aware of the need for more housing.
2) Convert selected commercial (not industrial) zoned areas to mixed-use to allow for housing additions. Maybe this is being done already, please forgive if that’s the case. It’s something that can be initiated or pressed forward at the next City Council meeting.
3) Streamline the ADU process by creating a “pre-approved” template. Make it as simple as possible with as few restrictions and constraints as possible. Again, please let me know if this is already in the works.
The overarching purpose here is to allow, explore, expand, initiate, duplicate, cherry-pick, enhance, incentivize and/or continue housing programs and ideas.
Sorry sox, but the ADU process was broken from the start. Minimal setbacks, DIF gone, garage conversions, no additional parking requirements, removing SFR’s for opportunistic infill building/ flipping. No place for condo owners to move up with less SFR inventory and the budget between the condo/ SFR price difference being around 500K now.
Now the powers at be want to persuade you into massive high rise building at the coast, mass transit, walkable communities with bike lanes and sell you overbuilding in high desired areas creates affordability (imagine the empty room taxes there) while not listening to your input. Because in our equity minds we all deserve to live at the beach. Or, behind door number 2, you can build desal water plants and oil wells up and down the coast. These are two of the current political wet dreams out there. The wet dreams being in the back of the pants, not the front.
San Diego County pre-approved plans.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/bldg/adu_plans.html
But County ADU Soft Costs…..
ADU Plan Review $2,181.60
ADU Permit Fee $2,080.80
Cnstr.Demo $3,000.00
Water $9,374.00
Sewer $2,410.15
SDGE $30,000.00
High/Middle $3,600.00
Elementary $3,600.00
TIF(Sweetwater) $4,801.06
PLDO(Sweetwater) $5,589.00
Fire Department $2,236.00
Wow — that’s about $66,000. Sounds prohibitive.
What kind of rents offset that?
Thanks for the info, though.
And thanks for the draft of Measure A from back in April.
That helped me get rolling before I could lay my hands on the final draft!
Much appreciated!
I’m not sure what the rent would be? Maybe $3000 for a 2 BR 2BTH 1200 SF in Bonita?? $36K is just the soft costs. SD County has a very good team of permit helpers to help you estimate the costs. I called each of the above departments to get those numbers. SDG&E will not talk to you until you have a permit and fill out a work order on their site, but the County permit department gave me that number as what they are seeing from SDG&E.
But I will not ever be a landlord again. I’ve had too many bad experiences and am too old to deal with the San Diego laws. My goal would be to put a grandchild back there to keep an eye on myself and my wife. IF I can find a way to finance it.
I know one person who passed and it took a week to find him. Another had a stroke and spent 2 days on the bathroom floor before someone found him.
My next door neighbors are 2 sisters who are in some stage of dementia or alzheimers. They need someone every day to come over and care for them. I hope to avoid that.
If I GC it myself, it will cost around $300K doing what I can myself. I have family in some of the trades who will give me as much a break as they can.
There’s a “How To ADU” group on FB and the consensus is it is not a good financial endeavor in spite of all the propaganda being put out that it is. If you run the numbers and need to finance that $366K. It will take a long time to be in the black. Most regrets are that they ever did it in the first place. In addition, the full cost to build will not show up in the Comps if you sell it.
And BTW if you have a Company or GC do the management of the project, that $366K jumps to over $500K.
But for an aging family member, or like my case it may work. If I can finance it. I’ll need help from family.
The good thing is that there is no time limit on how long it takes. I can get the underground plumbing and slab poured first. Then framing, roof, windows, doors and sheathing to make it watertight and finish the rest as money becomes available. My permit will expire but renewing the permit is a trivial cost. Maybe $1500 to $2000. The permit department said they have permits started in 2019 still open and being worked.
Thanks for these details and insights. Mind if I share them with South Lake Tahoe City Council members? We have housing challenges of our own and are looking for workable ways to address them.
For some reason your last comment asking to share with your CC is not showing up, but it is OK to share my thoughts.
Regarding the housing crisis, my VERY uneducated thoughts:
1. Long before I bought my non-primary, I believe it was built by some government action as low income housing. Not sure if it was SD or Fed. It is very well built except it had the plastic pipes prone to bursting that got fixed in a Class Action. I believe the rules had income limits and you had to stay put for maybe 10 years.
2. SD County had an ADU soft cost grant that has expired. I know the fees are not just fleecing the homeowners because ADUs do add to the burden of the resources/infrastructure. Maybe revive this?
3. I believe I read there is coming a Federal grant of some sort for housing that will need to be matched by the City. Maybe this would be acceptable to the tax payers. Maybe the City could sell bonds to cover it?
4. There was a proposal of some sort that was raised at the state level to waive the increase in property taxes for a period of time for the ADU build. That was DOA. I would have liked that as my property taxes will more than double with an ADU. If I can find a way to finance it. My SS check is stretched to the limit.
5. Being a Veteran, on my Non-Primary, I used the VA loan program. I believe the benefit of this was no down and no PMI. You still need financing from a bank.
6. On my Second Home, I used the Cal-Vet Program. This was much better than the VA loan program. There are no bank loans. The state of California finances the cost of the house and sells bonds to cover the cost. Cal Vet does not want your home back. If you can not make payments for some unforeseeable reason, they will work with you.
Maybe these programs could be extended to non veterans? I think the taxpayers would buy that?
Believe me, I am not immune to the wows of first time home buyers. When I bought my non-primary, it cost $75K. The monthly mortgage was $600. My bi-weekly take home as a recent EE graduate was $600. My wife, 3 kids, and myself lived on $600 a month in 1980. Not so easy, we made sacrifices.
I think we can work together to solve the affordability crisis without making one group out to be the villain of the crisis.
Edit: 1990, not 1980.
I have a question for the more knowledgeable here.
The San Diego STRO for Tier 1 Part Time cost is $226 a year.
This is renting it for 20 days or less. Why wouldn’t someone just convert their Non-Primary to this and rent it for a couple of days? There is no limit on the number of Tier 1 STROs San Diego will issue, but only one per person.
What am I missing?
More alternative housing ideas and examples. Can San Diego learn from these?
4) Look at Houston. Half again more populous than San Diego. But with 1/3 the homeless according to Point-In-Time. An unfair comparison to be sure. And yet, there may be more to it. Might something that helped Houston also help San Diego? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html
My takeaway: when the various powers that be check their egos at the door, progress may fill the vacuum. “The bottom line is that nearly everybody in Houston involved in homelessness got together around what works. That’s our secret sauce.,” — Annise Parker, former Mayor, Houston, Texas.
5) Along those collaborative lines, look at South Lake Tahoe. Seven different organizations, public and private, teamed up to purchase a derelict motel and adjacent 30 acres of environmentally sensitive land. This was a case of Conservation trumping Development, so there will be no housing conversion. But it set a precedent and is another example of what can happen when agencies get together with a common purpose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doHoN-r3dY4&t=1s
6) Next up: Montgomery County, Maryland. There have been a number of mixed-use, mixed-income developments here, dating back to 2020. This is a news story from last year about the Hillandale development but dive deeper for updates and to learn more about NoBe II, The Laureate, The Sage and others.
https://wjla.com/news/local/hillandale-gateway-montgomery-county-construction-underway-mixed-income-development-housing-shortage-affordable-homes-dmv-maryland-families-rent-hoc-financial-income-homeowners-property-tax-credit
…more coming on this forum, if you’d like.