The vacation home tax is moving ahead — for now.
On Wednesday, the Rules Committee advanced Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s proposal to tax vacation homes and empty second homes.
“Ninety-nine percent of San Diegans would not pay this tax, that is a fact,” he said.
Our Scott Lewis broke down the battle lines earlier this week. Elo-Rivera believes the city should generate revenue by forcing those with more to pay their “fair share,” as he puts it. Opponents see it as a threat to the business community and San Diegans who run short-term rentals as a small business.
“We should not curtail any conversation on any new revenue opportunity,” said Councilmember Joe LaCava, the committee chair. “This is not the only conversation we will have on this proposal.”
Councilmember Raul Campillo opposed the tax, and said 81 percent of vacation rentals are owned by San Diegans. He said if the tax passes, it will hurt hosts and guests.
Councilmember Kent Lee asked for further analysis on the tax from the Independent Budget Analyst Office (IBA). “I presume the revenues presented on the slide are overly optimistic,” Lee said. Initial estimates from Councilmember Elo-Rivera’s office said the measure could generate $135 million annually.
The proposal passed 3-1. Elo-Rivera’s office will work with the IBA, City Treasurer, and City Attorney’s Office to prepare more on the measure before returning it to the committee.
About that Palomar and UCSD Health Partnership
Palomar Health and UCSD Health are partnering to create a new quasi-public health care agency in North County.
As our Tigist Layne reports: Palomar’s board of directors agreed Tuesday to the partnership to “stabilize and expand health care services.”
As Layne has reported, Palomar has been in bad financial trouble in recent years. UCSD Health has also had its share of trouble. It announced it would lay off 200 employees over the summer.
It’s unclear if the partnership will help stabilize the organizations’ financial positions.
The two agencies are creating what’s called a joint powers authority. Two public agencies can form such a partnership when they want to share common powers, implement programs together and build facilities or deliver services.
“Did you ever partner with a classmate on an assignment?” Layne writes. “This is sort of like that but for public agencies.”
Layne has much more on the deal and her questions about it.
Read the full North County Report here.
Experimental Water Treatment Company Spills Diesel, Equipment in Tijuana River
A company the cash-strapped International Boundary and Water Commission paid to test experimental water treatment on the Tijuana River ended up spilling fuel and technology into the body of water after a recent storm.
Greenwater Services won a $2.5 million contract from the IBWC to do its “nanobubble” experiment back in August, as first reported by inewsource. But a storm last week swept much of their equipment into the river it was trying to clean.
One group responsible for setting up a trash boom paid for by the state of California said they warned the company its experiment was set up in a bad location.
It’s unclear whether the IBWC will spend more money to continue funding the project.
In Other News
- You know the plane that landed on Mission Beach due to engine failure Tuesday? Check out this instant-classic-of-an-interview with a skater who watched the plane land. “It was like, as if an angel just caressed the plane and just sat it down,” he said. (Reddit)
- A $50-million beachfront home in Del Mar has set the record for the most expensive home sale in San Diego County. The previous record was $47 million for a home in La Jolla. The article — like so many others! — erroneously calls La Jolla a city. (Mansion Global)
- Literally thousands of San Diegans have flooded the county with questions about their increased property tax bill. In many cases the explanation is simple: Residents are seeing a first-time charge for trash collection from the city of San Diego, which recently began billing for the service. (Union-Tribune)
The Morning Report was written by Mariana Martínez Barba, Will Huntsberry and MacKenzie Elmer. It was edited by Andrea Sanchez-Villafaña.
HELLO. Not a single word about the tragic situation of tens of thousands of San Diegians about to miss their next SNAP payments due to the ridiculous self inflicted kick in the balls GOP engineered Government shut down? With NO solution in sight, your ‘progressive’ news org hightlights Real Estate of the Rich and Famous! With the vast majority of average residents Housing Insecure, now many more are also Food Insecure, where is your heart? Put down your seven dollar lattes and cover real news. What a stain on your media “brand”. Oh, you DO have a whole self congratulatory section on your Twenty Years of Impact. Your whole team should go ‘food shopping’ at Dollar Tree, with or without SNAP and plan a meal. Get a grip. Regular folks are truly struggling. This isn’t news?
Excepts From The San Francisco Judge’s Ruling In Favor of Plaintiffs
Lawsuit Against San Francisco’s Empty Homes Tax
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED THAT:
“1. Judgement is hereby granted in favor of Plaintiffs……….”
2. Defendants and Real party in Interest……are prohibited from enforcing or administering Proposition M”
“Conclusions Of Law”
“1. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, and their action is not premature or barred by the “pay first, litigate later” rule. because the vacancy tax is challenged herein is not yet “due” No payment will be required until April of 2026 at the earliest. (See PUMF No. 4); Proposition M, S.F. Bus. & Tax Reg Par. 2953 (Imposition of Tax”) (Plaintiffs’ Appx. 49); request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgement/Adjudication, filed May 24, 2024, Ex. H (Oxford. 224-23), P 7 (Par. 6.9-1(k)(1); Defendants opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for summary Judgement/Adjudication, filed July 26, 2024, p.15 lines 1-3; see also Order Overruling Defendants’ Demurrer to the first Amended Complaint, filed Jan. 5 2024.
2. The Proposition M vacancy tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth amendment as alleged in the First Cause of Action in the First Amended Complaint.
3. The Proposition M vacancy tax is also preempted by the Ellis Act, Govt. Code Par. 7060(a), as alleged in the Second cause of Action in the First Amended Complaint.
4. Proposition M violates property owners’ fundamental liberty interests in familiar living arrangements protected by due process and equal protection clause, insofar as it taxes (actually, penalizes) units that are rented to family members of the owner while exempting units rented to strangers. As alleged in the Third and Forth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint.
5. Proposition M violates property owners’ constitutional right to privacy under the California Constitution, insofar as it seeks to compel them to share the property on which they reside with others, against their will, as alleged in the Fifth Cause of in the First Amended Complaint.”
It is a simple matter for me to cut and paste from the above “Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” into my own lawsuit. The Council Members and Mayor are all aware of the above judge’s ruling, I have let them know.
Thank You
Kevin Atkinson