California
Related: About this forumSan Diego voters rejecting measure that would heavily tax second homes
A highly divisive measure that would impose a hefty tax on the owners of second homes that lack a full-time resident was failing to garner majority support from San Diego voters as of Wednesday morning.
While thousands of votes remained to be counted, it appeared that the well-funded campaign to defeat San Diegos Measure A may have resonated with an electorate that was told that the tax would do nothing to address the citys affordable housing woes. The latest numbers from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters showed the measure still trailing by a wide margin.
The unofficial results show that there is a hefty rebuke from the taxpayers of San Diego that they dont want another tax, said Shane Harris, the No on Measure A spokesperson. It was not backed by fact. It was not backed by data. And its evident now that taxpayers do not want another tax. And this is a very clear rebuke, very strong rebuke in unofficial results that the trend shows that were going to win this outright, very strongly tonight.
Known formally as the non-primary homes tax, the measure seeks to impose an initial annual tax of $8,000 on second homes deemed unoccupied for more than 182 days in a single year. In subsequent years, the tax would rise to $10,000. For corporate-owned housing, there would be an initial surcharge of $4,000 that would increase to $5,000 thereafter.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2026/06/02/san-diego-measure-that-would-heavily-tax-owners-of-second-homes-trailing-in-early-returns/?share=twasi2arnodoor0ddien
bucolic_frolic
(56,052 posts)That tax would raise the cost of owning a second home, so renting it out or selling it out, the owner would want more money. Plus BONUS! The tax is less for corporate-owned homes, a break for private equity! Not a lot to like there, for taxpaying voters anyway.
dickthegrouch
(4,699 posts)If I understood the news reports this was supposed to reduce empty house hoarding.
Characterizing the measure incorrectly is probably one of the things that helped sink it.
However the extra money from the tax would just have gone into the general fund and not a special fund to help the homeless, that was my principal objection to it.