San 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 in early returns Tuesday night.

While thousands of votes remained to be counted, it appeared that the well-funded campaign to defeat San Diego’s Measure A may have resonated with an electorate that was told that the tax would do nothing to address the city's affordable housing woes. The first batch of results from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters showed the measure trailing by a wide margin.

“The unofficial results show that there is a hefty rebuke from the taxpayers of San Diego that they don’t 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 it’s 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 we’re 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.

"San Diegans showed up tonight against more than $1.3 million in big money opposition spending - more than four times what our coalition spent - and they did it because they're tired of watching homes sit empty while their neighbors sleep on the street and struggle to keep a roof over their heads," San Diego City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who put forward the measure, said in a statement. "Whatever the final number, the fight to make San Diego a place working people can afford has only just started. We're going to count every vote, and we're going to keep going either way."

Should the measure succeed, it would go into effect Jan. 1, with the first tax bills mailed out in early 2028. It was placed on the ballot by the San Diego City Council in hopes of returning as many as 5,100 residential properties to the rental and for-sale markets at a time when many residents are struggling to find housing they can afford.

Supporters of the tax argue that the city has an obligation to do whatever it can to relieve housing pressures so that more local residents have the financial wherewithal to live here. And for those homeowners who own a second home that remains unoccupied for much of the year, they should have to pay more for that privilege, proponents say.

Opponents counter that the measure would allow city government to infringe on homeowners’ property rights by effectively forcing them to become landlords or sell longtime dwellings that they continue to use when visiting family members, seeking medical care or looking for a pleasant getaway. Critics of the tax have said they will likely file a legal challenge should the measure prevail.

While there are technically more than 5,100 non-primary homes in the city that would be affected by Measure A, it's likely that the true number would be far less than that. The city's Office of the Independent Budget Analyst estimates there are 1,541 to 2,826 empty second homes that would be subject to the tax. That calculation takes into consideration properties that would fall under several exemptions provided for in the measure, as well as instances where owners opt to sell their properties or convert them to short- and long-term rentals.

The office further concluded that the tax would likely yield $9.2 million to $21.4 million in the first year. That revenue would go directly into the city’s general fund and would not necessarily be targeted for housing-related initiatives. It will be up to city officials to make that decision.

While not specifically spelled out in the measure, the method for determining which San Diego second homes would be subject to the tax would rely on what’s known as the rental unit business tax. The city was able to arrive at an estimate of partially used second homes by examining the number of residential properties whose owners sought a second home/vacation home exemption from paying the rental unit business tax because they do not use their properties as a primary residence or as a short- or long-term rental for more than 182 days out of the year.

Dueling campaigns to pass and kill the second home tax quickly ramped up after Measure A made it onto the ballot in March, with both sides accumulating healthy war chests.

The Yes on A campaign, which is sponsored by three nonprofits - the Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund, the San Diego Housing Federation and the San Diego Municipal Employees Association - raised more than $300,000, a fraction of the rival campaign’s treasury. Primary donors included labor unions.

The No on Measure A campaign, which amassed nearly $1.4 million, had enough cash to mail flyers and produce digital ads. The bulk of its financial support consisted of more than $880,000 from a California Association of Realtors political action committee and $500,000 from the National Association of Realtors.

The notion of taxing unoccupied second homes as a way to address housing affordability is not unique to San Diego. Municipalities and states across the country have devised various measures to effectively penalize owners of second homes for not having them occupied by full-time residents. San Francisco, which was set to begin collecting its voter-approved tax early last year, paused the measure after a Superior Court judge struck it down. It’s currently on appeal.

San Diego’s measure provides several exemptions, among them disaster periods when a home is uninhabitable, circumstances where the owner is in long-term care, financial hardship following the death of an owner, qualifying military service, and use of the home for whole-home short-term rentals.

Staff writer Jennifer Van Grove contributed to this report.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published June 2, 2026 at 9:38 PM.