The vacation home tax is moving ahead — for now.
On Wednesday, the San Diego City Council Rules Committee advanced Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s proposal to tax vacation homes and empty second homes.
“99 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.
Councilmember Joe LaCava, who chairs the committee, was in favor of exploring the tax. “We should not curtail any conversation on any new revenue opportunity,” he said. “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 people on both sides of the equation – 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,” said Councilmember Lee. 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.
forcing those with more to pay their “fair share,”
which is socialism by taxation due to mismanagement by the city. by that logic you should tax every extra hotel room and empty apartment then if you’re going to take away owners property rights.
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 would be a simple matter for anyone to cut and paste from the SF Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint” into a new lawsuit against any SD “Second Homes Tax”. The elements are the same. It is a violation of homeowners constitutional rights and against California Law. The Mayor and Council Members know this. I have emailed them all multiple times.
Vacation rentals disrupt neighborhoods, diminish the available housing market, and short-cut the hotel industry (which creates jobs). Taxing vacation homes and second homes where owners receive three and four times a normal monthly rental fee is a good idea.
Agreed. Also hotels have to pay workers $25 hr minimum which is a requirement not imposed on short term operators.
I use my second home part time. I never rent it. Being a landlord in SD is no fun. Making me pay to use it is a violation of my constitutional rights and California Law. As been determined by multiple courts and in particularly recently a San Fransisco Court.
Second Homes that would be be taxed do not receive “three and four times a normal monthly rental fee”. If they did they would not be taxed under the proposal.
So let me get this straight. I’ve worked my entire life to acquire 2 homes which I use both of. My family uses them both, but I can’t have 2 primary residences so the city is contemplating a “Takings” the use of my second home for it’s own use. They didn’t pay for it. They do not pay taxes on it.
Thank God its against the Constitution and California Law. Only thing this will do is line the pockets of homeowner’s attorneys at the expense of taxpayer’s money. If you read the SF “Empty Homes Tax” lawsuit. They got beat bad. This has already been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court at least twice.
you own a house, you pay taxes on it. you rent the house, you pay taxes on the income. now the proposal of yet another tax layered on top if the home if rented or empty. when will the systemic targeting of single family homeowners stop while pandering to the businesses? Community density, ADU rules, targeting the lot size, adding trash fees, and now targeting those who have worked hard to get ahead, are not a burden to society, being told they have to pay a “fair share” to the government. Call it what it is. It’s another tax increase to balance mismanagement by government.
I think increasing revenue IS improving management by the government, unless there are services you’d like the city to stop providing?
Besides, if someone doesn’t want to pay the tax, they can always just sell the property, and considering how expensive our housing market is in SD, they’d make a LOT of money doing so. No “small business” is buying these million dollar homes for Airbnb.
Such a clown. Just sell to the corporations. No, the city needs to trim the fat of too many managers in government as a first step.
And like I said, if you want fair taxation across all properties, then tax empty hotel rooms and empty market rate apartments, otherwise it’s a targeted tax selectively designed to target a small number of properties that would have no bearing on affordable housing. This is a tax grab by Elo.
What if I do not want to sell? I use my Second Home. My family uses my Second home. It’s my kid’s inheritance. It will cost me around $150K to sell it.
If you have 2 cars and only use one, then you should be forced to rent one to someone that has none. At a rental rate set by the City. When you need it, you will not be allowed to get it back. Like the strict city Anti-Landlord laws, you will need to pay the renter of your car to get it back. And if when you do get it back (if that would even be possible) it is completely trashed. Oops, oh well, to bad for you.
The proposed tax wont help anyone but poloticians. The tax won’t help San Diegans. It will actually increase the cost of buying a home as people wont sell and there isnt sufficient space to build. San Diego is running out of room. Bottom line and this is an attack on property rights. VOTE NO on any new tax!!! We will all suffer, not the politicians.
The politicians who brought you the trash fee doubling fine print are now claiming that if you’re a San Diegan, you won’t be paying this tax. The politicians should be spending their time and effort fixing the “structural budget problem” instead of finding more ways to fleece the citizens. Let’s wait until the scamming politician’s are termed out before we vote in any more taxes!
You know darn well Elo’s going to try to run for mayor.
Yup, and he will be elected by the same “takers” that believed the trash p/u fee, HSR, $25 min wage, etc. will “make things better.” Hey, it’s other people’s money, so why not?