The Idea Behind Measure A Has Been Tried Before. It’s Never Worked.
Measure A supporters want San Diego voters to believe they've come up with a novel new idea to address housing costs.
They have not.
The idea behind Measure A has already been tried in other cities.
And the record is clear: these taxes create bureaucracy, trigger lawsuits, invade privacy, burden residents, and fail to deliver the promised housing results.
So the question for San Diego voters is simple:
Why would we make the same mistake here?
What Other Cities Have Seen
Cities that have adopted vacancy taxes have seen the same problems again and again.
Millions in taxpayer funds wasted.
Invasive bureaucracies.
The burden of proof placed on residents.
No real decrease in rents or housing costs.
That is not a housing solution.
That is a warning.
San Francisco: Ruled Unconstitutional
San Francisco passed an empty homes tax similar in spirit to Measure A.
Then it was challenged in court.
A judge struck it down, leaving taxpayers with legal costs and uncertainty.
The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board has already warned that Measure A risks becoming another reckless City Hall gamble.
They also warned us that CIty Hall already had to back down on the trash tax and the Balboa parking fees after those City Hall fiascos were scrutinized.
San Diego should listen.
Oakland: Bureaucracy Cost More Than Expected
Oakland’s vacancy tax was supposed to raise money.
But city finance reports showed the fund had a negative balance because higher administrative costs and lower-than-expected collections overwhelmed the program.
That is what happens when politicians promise easy revenue and ignore the cost of creating a new bureaucracy.
Measure A would require San Diego to build its own enforcement system, review exemptions, process paperwork, handle appeals, conduct audits, and chase collections.
That costs money.
And taxpayers pay the bill.
Vancouver: Privacy Problems and No Rent Relief
Vancouver is one of the most cited examples of a vacancy tax.
But the experience there has been troubling.
Officials discussed using data mining and government records to enforce the tax. Residents were forced into paperwork. Homeowners and renters were pulled into invasive audits.
And despite all of that, the tax did not lower rents.
That should matter.
Measure A is being sold as housing policy, but the evidence from other cities shows these taxes do not solve housing affordability.
Toronto and Ottawa: Proving You Live in Your Own Home
Toronto residents complained that the vacancy tax became an “annual chore” just to prove they lived in their own homes.
In Ottawa, the system was called red-tape heavy and criticized for capturing too many people who should not have been caught in the first place.
That is exactly the kind of bureaucracy Measure A would create in San Diego.
If you claim an exemption, you have to prove it.
If City Hall says your paperwork is not good enough, you can be hit with the tax.
If the City makes a mistake, you have to fight your way out.
Washington D.C.: Improper Assessments and Unfair Impacts
Washington D.C.’s experience also shows the danger of these systems.
Reports found homes improperly assessed and lower-income residents harmed by misclassifications.
That is the problem with complicated tax bureaucracies.
They are never as simple, fair, or targeted as politicians promise.
Don’t Let San Diego Make This Mistake
San Diego has real housing problems.
But Measure A is not a real housing solution.
It is another bad idea from City Hall: a $10,000 tax, a new bureaucracy, broad enforcement power, and no guarantee of lower rents or new affordable housing.
Other cities have already tried this.
It has not worked.
San Diego should not repeat their mistakes.
Vote No on Measure A.
