San Diego Measure A Defeated: What the Vacant Homes Tax Rejection Means for Property Owners in 2026

What Was San Diego Measure A? The $8,000-$10,000 Vacant Homes Tax Proposal

Measure A, formally titled the "Non-Primary Homes Tax," would have imposed substantial annual taxes on residential properties within San Diego city limits that owners did not claim as their primary residence and left vacant for 183 days or more during a calendar year. The tax structure featured escalating rates and corporate surcharges designed to discourage property vacancy.

Corporate Surcharge

Properties owned by corporations, LLCs, or other business entities faced additional penalties on top of the base tax:

• 2027: $4,000 surcharge (total tax burden: $12,000)
• 2028: $5,000 surcharge (total burden: $15,000)
• 2029+: Inflation-adjusted increases

The measure defined "vacant" as properties not occupied as a primary residence for 183 days or more in a calendar year. This 183-day threshold became the critical benchmark that would have determined whether properties owed the tax. For example, a vacation home in Mission Beach used only during summer months (approximately 90 days) would have been subject to the full tax, while a property rented to tenants for seven months (approximately 210 days) would have been exempt.

According to the San Diego Independent Budget Analyst's fiscal impact report, the city projected the measure would generate between $9.2 million and $21.4 million in the first year (2027), rising to $10.5 million to $24.3 million in subsequent years. These projections were based on estimates that approximately 5,100 properties within city limits met the vacant property criteria, with about 40 properties being corporate-owned.

If approved, the tax would have taken effect January 1, 2027, with the first tax bills mailed in the first quarter of 2028 covering properties vacant during calendar year 2027. Payment would have been due by April 1 annually. The measure included a 10% penalty for late payments and required double payment for fraudulent reporting.

Which Properties Would Have Been Affected? Second Homes, Investments, and Vacation Rentals

Measure A specifically targeted properties that owners chose to keep vacant rather than occupied as primary residences or rented to tenants. Understanding which properties would have faced the tax—and which qualified for exemptions—helps clarify the measure's intended scope.

Properties Subject to the Tax

• Second homes and vacation properties: Coastal properties in Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Ocean Beach, and Mission Beach used only occasionally by owners (less than 183 days annually)
• Investment properties held vacant: Properties awaiting renovation, between tenants, or strategically held off-market
• Inherited properties: Homes received through inheritance that owners had not yet sold or converted to primary residences
• Corporate-owned residential real estate: Properties held by LLCs, corporations, or institutional investors (subject to additional $4,000-$5,000 surcharge)
• Properties undergoing extended renovation: Homes in long-term remodeling projects exceeding the exemption periods

Exempt Properties

The measure included several exemptions designed to protect owners facing legitimate barriers to occupancy or rental:

• Primary residences: Owner-occupied homes where the owner lived most of the year
• Properties rented 183+ days annually: Rental properties occupied by tenants for at least half the year, including both long-term and short-term rentals meeting the threshold
• Properties with 4+ units where owner occupies one: Multi-family properties where the owner lives on-site year-round
• Properties actively listed for sale or rent: Properties on the market (exact duration limits were to be determined in final regulations)
• Newly constructed homes: Properties completed within the past two years and actively marketed (up to two-year exemption)
• Properties uninhabitable due to natural disaster: Homes damaged by fire, flood, or other catastrophic events (up to two-year exemption)
• Owner death, care facility placement, or military deployment: Properties vacant due to owner passing, moving to assisted living, or military service relocation

According to Voice of San Diego's analysis published in January 2026, San Diego has at least 4,996 vacation homes that do not have a full-time resident and aren't being used as short-term rentals, nearly matching the 5,648 short-term vacation rentals on the market. Combined, these represent approximately 2% of the city's total housing stock, indicating the measure would have affected a relatively small but financially significant subset of property owners.

The 183-day threshold calculation raised practical questions about enforcement. Property owners would have been required to self-report occupancy, with the city reserving audit rights to verify compliance. For vacation rental operators, maintaining booking records showing 183+ days of guest occupancy would have been critical to avoid the tax.

Geographic Concentration: Coastal Neighborhoods with High Second-Home Ownership

While Measure A would have applied to all qualifying properties within San Diego city limits, certain coastal and downtown neighborhoods contain disproportionately high concentrations of second homes, vacation properties, and investment real estate—making these areas the primary impact zones.

High-Impact Coastal Neighborhoods

Estimated Property Impact

Based on the Independent Budget Analyst's projected revenue of $9.2 million to $21.4 million in the first year at the $8,000 base rate, the measure would have affected approximately 1,150 to 2,675 properties across the city. The wide revenue range reflected uncertainty about how owners would respond: some might have sold properties, others might have converted to primary residences or rented them out, while still others would have chosen to pay the tax and maintain vacancy.

Interestingly, voting results showed that areas with high second-home concentrations, including La Jolla and Rancho Bernardo, opposed Measure A by some of the widest margins, suggesting property owners in these neighborhoods actively mobilized to defeat the measure.

Why Did Measure A Fail? Campaign Dynamics and Voter Concerns

Despite support from labor organizations, housing advocacy groups, and progressive councilmembers like Sean Elo-Rivera, Measure A failed to achieve the majority needed for passage. Several factors contributed to the measure's decisive defeat:

1. Overwhelming Opposition Spending

The "No on A" campaign vastly outspent supporters, deploying $1.3 million compared to just $300,000 raised by proponents. The California Association of Realtors alone contributed over $1 million to defeat the measure, funding extensive advertising campaigns that framed Measure A as government overreach and a threat to property rights. This funding disparity allowed opponents to dominate airwaves and mailboxes in the critical weeks before the June 2 election.

2. Property Rights Messaging Resonated

Opponents successfully positioned Measure A as an attack on individual property rights, arguing that homeowners should have the freedom to use their properties as they see fit without punitive government taxation. Shane Harris, spokesperson for the No on A campaign, summarized this sentiment: "Tonight, San Diego sent a clear message" in favor of property owner autonomy.

Property owners like Charles Buchanan, who owns rental properties, expressed concern about being penalized during unavoidable vacancy periods: "I can't afford it" if unable to find tenants immediately. Tiffany Lanore of Encanto, whose family owns an inherited home that sits empty, convinced her relatives to vote against Measure A, illustrating how the measure affected diverse property ownership situations beyond wealthy second-home buyers.

3. Doubts About Effectiveness

Critics successfully argued that Measure A would not meaningfully address San Diego's housing crisis. The city's own Independent Budget Analyst report acknowledged that other jurisdictions implementing similar taxes—including Oakland, Berkeley, and Vancouver—did not see lower rents or housing prices as direct results of vacancy taxes.

Oakland collected an average of $5.53 million annually since implementing its vacant property tax in 2019, but the number of vacant properties did not decrease significantly. Berkeley's Measure M, approved in 2022 with 65% voter support, was projected to generate $4 million to $6 million annually but had not yet produced measurable impacts on housing availability. Only Vancouver showed substantial results, with its Empty Homes Tax generating $194.3 million since 2017 and reducing vacancy rates from 0.90% to a record-low 0.49% by 2024—but Vancouver's housing market dynamics differ significantly from San Diego's.

Opponents argued that Measure A "does not build a single new home" and diverted attention from more effective housing production strategies.

4. Legal Uncertainty and Implementation Concerns

Legal challenges to similar measures in other California cities raised questions about Measure A's enforceability. San Francisco's vacancy tax faced implementation difficulties and legal scrutiny, creating precedent concerns that influenced San Diego voters.

Additionally, the measure left key implementation details undefined, including precise monitoring mechanisms for the 183-day threshold, appeals processes for disputed designations, and exact parameters for exemptions like "actively listed for sale." This ambiguity created uncertainty among property owners about potential compliance burdens.

5. Geographic Voting Patterns

Neighborhoods with the highest homeownership rates and property values—including La Jolla and Rancho Bernardo—opposed Measure A by the widest margins. These communities, which would have been disproportionately affected by the tax, mobilized voters effectively to reject the measure.

What Happens Now? Property Owner Options After Measure A's Defeat

With Measure A defeated, San Diego property owners who might have faced the vacant homes tax now have clarity about their options moving forward. The measure's failure eliminates the threat of $8,000 to $15,000 annual vacancy penalties and restores complete flexibility in property management decisions.

For Second-Home and Vacation Property Owners

Owners of coastal properties in Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Ocean Beach, and Mission Beach can continue using their homes as seasonal residences without penalty. There are no occupancy requirements, no self-reporting obligations, and no risk of vacancy taxation. Property owners maintain full discretion over when and how they occupy their second homes.

However, the broader San Diego housing market context remains relevant. With median home prices at $1.059 million (May 2026) and rental vacancy rates reaching 5.7%—the highest since 2009—some second-home owners may still choose to sell or rent their properties based on market conditions rather than tax obligations.

For Investment Property Owners

The defeat creates specific advantages for real estate investors:

• Renovation flexibility: Investors can acquire properties requiring substantial repairs and complete renovation work without facing $8,000 to $10,000 annual penalties during construction periods
• Between-tenant vacancy: Properties experiencing normal turnover vacancy (typically 30-60 days in San Diego's current 5.7% vacancy environment) face no government-imposed costs
• Strategic holding: Investors can hold properties off-market during favorable selling conditions without penalty
• Multi-property portfolio management: Owners of multiple investment properties avoid compounding annual tax burdens that would have totaled tens of thousands of dollars across portfolios

According to rental market data, San Diego's apartment vacancy rate climbed to a 15-year high in 2026 due to 10,200 new apartment units flooding the market between 2025 and 2026, with another 4,000 units scheduled for completion through year-end. This oversupply context means some investment properties will naturally remain vacant longer as landlords compete for tenants—a situation that would have been heavily penalized under Measure A but now carries no additional tax burden.

For Corporate and LLC-Owned Properties

Corporate property owners who would have faced the $12,000 to $15,000 combined tax and surcharge can maintain their ownership structures without restructuring to avoid penalties. This is particularly relevant for:

• Institutional investors holding residential portfolios
• Small business owners holding property in LLCs for liability protection
• Family trusts and estate planning entities

Selling Remains an Option for Strategic Reasons

While the vacancy tax threat has been eliminated, some property owners may still choose to sell second homes or investment properties for other strategic reasons:

• Coastal property appreciation: Properties in high-demand beach neighborhoods have appreciated significantly, making this an attractive time to capture equity gains
• Maintenance cost avoidance: Second homes carry ongoing costs including property taxes (averaging $10,590 annually on a $1.059 million property at San Diego's 1% base rate), insurance (increasingly expensive in coastal areas), HOA fees, and maintenance
• Estate planning: Inherited properties may fit better into heirs' financial plans as cash rather than real estate holdings
• Diversification: Real estate investors may choose to diversify portfolios by liquidating some holdings

The Future of Vacant Homes Policy in San Diego

While Measure A failed decisively on June 2, 2026, the underlying housing affordability challenges that prompted the measure's introduction remain unresolved. The question for policymakers and housing advocates is whether vacancy taxes will return in future elections or whether alternative strategies will take priority.

Could Measure A Return?

Housing advocates including Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera have previously indicated willingness to bring vacancy tax proposals back to voters if initial attempts fail. The measure's 43.9% support—while insufficient for passage—demonstrates that a substantial minority of San Diego voters favor government intervention to discourage property vacancy.

However, the 12.6-percentage-point defeat margin suggests that without significant changes to the proposal's structure, exemptions, or revenue allocation, a similar measure would likely face the same outcome. Any future vacancy tax proposal would need to address the concerns that drove voters to reject Measure A: property rights implications, implementation feasibility, and demonstrable effectiveness based on other cities' experiences.

Alternative Housing Strategies Gaining Attention

With vacancy taxes off the table for the foreseeable future, San Diego officials are likely to focus on alternative approaches to increase housing supply and improve affordability:

• Accelerated housing production: The city continues processing permits for new developments, with 4,000 apartment units scheduled for completion through the end of 2026 and modular housing projects representing approximately 2,000 additional units in various stages of approval
• Affordable housing incentives: Despite decreased state and federal funding, developers built or acquired thousands of affordable housing units in the past year through creative financing and partnerships
• Transit-oriented development: Housing advocates continue promoting "housing on wheels"—concentrating new residential construction near transit corridors to improve housing access and reduce transportation costs
• Zoning reforms: Ongoing efforts to upzone neighborhoods and allow greater density may produce more housing units without requiring new taxation mechanisms

Market Dynamics May Naturally Address Some Vacancy

Current market conditions suggest that some vacant property issues may self-correct without government intervention. San Diego's rental vacancy rate of 5.7%—the highest since 2009—combined with apartment oversupply and flat rent growth (average asking rents at approximately $2,417 to $2,520 per month) creates financial incentives for property owners to rent vacant units rather than leave them idle.

For second-home owners in coastal areas, the equation differs: many can afford to maintain vacation properties despite carrying costs, and personal use value exceeds potential rental income. However, for investment properties held primarily for financial returns, market pressure to generate rental income may reduce vacancy without tax penalties.

For San Diego, the June 2026 vote likely represents a conclusive statement against vacancy taxation in the near term, allowing property owners to make long-term plans without anticipating similar measures in upcoming election cycles.

Frequently Asked Questions About Measure A

Conclusion: Clarity for San Diego Property Owners

The defeat of Measure A on June 2, 2026, provides definitive clarity for San Diego property owners. There will be no $8,000 to $10,000 annual vacant homes tax, no corporate surcharges, and no government-imposed occupancy requirements. Second-home owners in Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Ocean Beach, and Mission Beach can continue using their properties as they see fit, while investment property holders retain complete flexibility in property management decisions.

The 12.6-percentage-point defeat margin—driven by overwhelming opposition spending, property rights messaging, and doubts about effectiveness—suggests that vacancy taxation faces significant political headwinds in San Diego. While housing affordability challenges persist, voters have clearly indicated their preference for alternative solutions over punitive taxes on property vacancy.

For property owners who choose to sell based on market conditions, estate planning needs, or portfolio diversification goals, cash buyers offer speed, certainty, and convenience advantages that remain valuable regardless of tax considerations. With 7-14 day closings, as-is purchases, and no financing contingencies, cash sales provide a straightforward alternative to traditional marketing and showing processes.