Fact check: New campaign ad features false claim about San Diego vacancy tax

This story is featured on the KPBS Voter Hub as part of our Public Matters nonprofit news partnership. Explore what’s at stake this election season to make informed decisions on your ballot.

A new political advertisement ahead of the June primary features a false claim about San Diego’s proposal to tax property owners who keep second homes vacant for most of the year. 

The claim starts about halfway through a 30-second video circulating throughout the San Diego region. The voiceover says Measure A “threatens every San Diego resident and family with a $10,000 per home tax.”

In reality, less than 1% of the homes in San Diego would be subject to the tax. The proposal narrowly targets property owners who do not claim homes as a primary residence and leave them vacant for more than 182 days in a calendar year. About 5,100 homes meet that threshold in San Diego, records show.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the No on Measure A campaign, which paid for the advertisement, said it comes down to the burden of proof. Property owners would be required to prove their home wasn’t empty for most of the year to avoid paying the tax, “which means all San Diego residents are at risk of being subject to the tax.” 

But that is quite a leap. Here’s how it actually works:

Property owners who do not have a homeowner’s exemption on file with the San Diego County Assessor’s Office are assumed to be operating a business as a housing provider or landlord. As a result, the city of San Diego sends a bill called the Rental Unit Business Tax. But what if the home isn’t being rented, and is instead used as a second home or a vacation home?

The property owner can file what’s called a “vacation home/second home exemption” to avoid paying that business tax. And that’s the method city officials plan to use to identify taxable properties. So, it would be more accurate to say the burden of proof is on the owners of about 5,100 properties that maintain the second home exemption in San Diego. 

Supporters of the tax proposal say the advertisement amounts to spreading lies and disinformation.

“Investors hoard homes while San Diegans pay the price,” said Andrea Guerrero, executive director of the Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund. “Voting ‘Yes’ on Measure A requires wealthy investors to put more than 5,100 empty homes back on the market or compensate their community for the privilege of keeping them empty.”

A spokesperson for the No on Measure A campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The 30-second ad featured two other claims, saying that Measure A won’t “solve homelessness” and it won’t “solve housing.”

Both of those claims are true. But none of the city officials who brought this tax proposal forward, or studied it, have ever said it would solve homelessness or the housing crisis.

San Diego Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who has championed iterations of this proposal for the better part of the past year, said the goal is twofold:

• Some non-primary homes that sit empty for most of the year will return to the market, providing much needed inventory to the city’s housing stock.
• Provide new revenue to the city’s general fund.

The proposal has been largely billed as an additional tool to reduce vacancy and ease housing affordability. The central argument is that homes should not be allowed to sit vacant in the middle of a housing crisis.

What are supporters saying?

The Yes on Measure A campaign has been circulating its own advertisements since last month. It features three claims that argue a “yes” vote means:

• More homes and lower prices.
• Investors pay their fair share.
• San Diego communities thrive.

A general rule in economics says when supply increases, prices decrease. As for the claim about “more homes,” it really depends how property owners react to the new tax. And as for “lower prices,” that’s much less clear. Even if all 5,100 homes returned to the market, the impact on affordability would be “minimal due to the scale of new supply,” according to a member of the city’s Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

The claim about investors paying their fair share is an ideological argument that assumes all of these owners are investors, which doesn’t appear to be the case. About 40 of the 5,100 homes are corporate owned, records show.

And whether the proposal will lead to thriving communities depends on how city officials choose to spend this new revenue, which would go toward general city services. If approved by voters in June, the first tax bill would be sent to property owners in January 2028. So, this would do nothing for the $146 million deficit officials trying to cover in the upcoming budget.