Judge Strikes Down ‘Empty Homes Tax’ Measure, Upholds Electoral Integrity

San Diego’s “Empty Homes Tax” Measure Renamed After Court Challenge

A San Diego Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that the city’s proposed “Empty Homes Tax” ballot measure must be renamed, delivering a significant setback to proponents of the controversial initiative scheduled for the June election.

Judge Blaine Bowman ordered the title changed to “City of San Diego Non-Primary Homes Tax” after agreeing with former Councilmember Scott Sherman that the original wording was misleading. The judge noted that homes subject to the tax could be occupied for up to 182 days annually—nearly half the year—yet still be labeled as “empty” under the measure’s provisions.

The ruling requires that all instances of “empty” in the ballot language be replaced with “non-primary” in both the summary and analysis. Additionally, Bowman ruled that suggesting tax revenue would go toward “housing and infrastructure” was deceptive since proceeds would flow into the city’s General Fund without specific spending requirements.

The measure, spearheaded by Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, would impose an annual $8,000 tax on over 5,000 properties deemed non-primary residences, with an additional $4,000 surcharge for corporate-owned properties. Elo-Rivera quickly downplayed the court’s decision as a “technical” adjustment, but the ruling represents a substantive challenge to how the initiative has been framed.

Councilmember Raul Campillo, a Harvard Law graduate and former prosecutor, was the lone dissenting vote when the measure was approved for the ballot, having previously raised legal concerns similar to those validated by the court. The City Council had moved forward with the proposal despite warnings published in a Union-Tribune editorial a month ago, which urged thorough vetting to avoid legal pitfalls similar to those that doomed a comparable San Francisco measure.

The court’s intervention undermines the narrative that owners of these properties are “greedy hoarders” of housing stock desperately needed amid San Diego’s ongoing housing crisis. The more neutral “Non-Primary Homes Tax” designation could make the measure significantly harder to sell to voters in June.

The ruling also calls into question the council majority’s decision to proceed quickly with Elo-Rivera’s proposal rather than taking the more cautious approach advocated by Campillo. Critics suggest that if the basic ballot title contains legal flaws, other aspects of the measure may face similar vulnerabilities.

This legal setback fits into what some observers describe as a troubling pattern of misleading practices by city leaders. Over the past four years, San Diego officials have faced criticism for implementing new trash collection fees, making contested claims about outsourcing options for municipal services despite contrary language in the City Charter, and creating what critics call unnecessarily complex systems like the Balboa Park parking program.

The controversy highlights ongoing tensions in San Diego’s housing policy landscape, where officials continue to search for solutions to address housing affordability and availability. While proponents argue that taxes on non-primary residences could encourage more efficient use of existing housing stock, opponents contend that such measures represent government overreach and unfairly target property owners.

San Diego voters will ultimately decide the fate of the renamed measure in June, though the court-mandated changes may significantly impact public perception and voting patterns. The ruling serves as a reminder that ballot language precision matters, particularly for initiatives that could have substantial economic impacts on property owners and the broader real estate market in one of California’s most housing-constrained metropolitan areas.