Union-Tribune Editorial Board: Measure A Is City Hall’s Latest Reckless Gamble

The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board got it right.

In its endorsement urging voters to reject Measure A, the Union-Tribune called the measure City Hall’s latest reckless gamble.

That is exactly what Measure A is.

San Diegans have seen this pattern before: City Hall rushes into a major decision, skips the hard questions, underestimates the risks, and leaves taxpayers holding the bag.

The Ash Street debacle. The pension underfunding disaster. Years of budget mismanagement.

Now comes Measure A.

A Risky Tax Scheme Disguised as Housing Policy

Measure A would impose a new annual tax starting at $8,000 per home, rising to $10,000, and then even higher.

City Hall says the goal is to get more housing on the market.

But as the Union-Tribune editorial makes clear, the more obvious goal may be revenue — another attempt by City Hall politicians to squeeze taxpayers to cover the rising cost of salaries, pensions, and budget failures.

And even that revenue is far from certain.

The editorial points out that Measure A could end up costing the City more than it brings in, because of the legal challenges that are almost certain to follow.

San Francisco Already Tried This — And Lost

The Union-Tribune also highlighted one of the biggest problems with Measure A: a similar vacancy tax in San Francisco was thrown out in court.

That case did not even go to trial. A judge ruled against the City of San Francisco after property owners argued the tax violated constitutional protections and conflicted with state law.

So why is San Diego rushing forward with its own version?

That is exactly the question voters should be asking.

Before placing Measure A on the ballot, City Hall should have demanded a serious legal analysis of whether this tax could survive a lawsuit.

Instead, the City Council moved ahead anyway.

That is not careful policymaking.

That is a gamble.

Even Other Vacancy Taxes Show the Problem

Supporters may point to Oakland or Berkeley to claim these taxes are still standing.

But the Union-Tribune editorial explains why that comparison is not so simple.

Oakland’s tax is structured differently and applies broadly to underused land, including commercial and industrial parcels. Berkeley’s law is closer to San Francisco’s, and property owners there appear to be waiting for the San Francisco case to play out before moving forward.

The practical result?

In Berkeley’s first year, landlords reportedly refused to pay most of the tax assessed against them.

That is a preview of what San Diego may face: lawsuits, nonpayment, enforcement fights, and uncertainty.

Measure A Would Put San Diegans at the Mercy of City Hall Enforcement

Even if Measure A survived in court, the Union-Tribune raised another basic question:

Why should voters trust the City to administer this competently?

Measure A would require City Hall to determine which homes are vacant, which exemptions are valid, which owners owe the tax, and which residents have properly proven they should not be charged.

That means paperwork.

Audits.

Disputes.

Appeals.

Penalties.

And, importantrly, homeowners being treated as guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

For a City government that already struggles with basic management, that should concern every voter.

City Hall Has Not Earned This Trust

San Diego’s housing crisis is real.

But a real crisis does not justify a bad ordinance.

Measure A does not guarantee lower rents. It does not guarantee new housing. It does not guarantee the money will go into a dedicated affordable housing fund.

Instead, it creates a risky new tax scheme, gives City Hall broad enforcement power, and exposes taxpayers to serious legal and financial risk.

The Union-Tribune editorial board is right.

Measure A is not a housing solution.

It is City Hall’s latest reckless gamble.

Vote No on Measure A.

‍