Why a ballot measure is filling your mailbox with ads

Has your mailbox been overflowing with mailers about Measure A lately? Ours too. Here's what the measure is all about.

Why it matters: The proposed tax on vacant homes would bring in millions to the city's general fund, and it's attracting sizable spending from outside organizations that want to stop it.

Catch up quick: Officially called the "Non-Primary Home Tax," Measure A asks voters to decide on taxing homes that sit vacant at least 182 days a year.

The tax would cost owners of second homes $8,000 annually in 2027 and $10,000 every year after.

Realtor groups say they are opposing the measure to protect homeowners from that tax.

The California Association of Realtors has shelled out almost $700,000 to oppose the measure, according to campaign filings.

That's funding mailers alleging the measure would bring privacy violation concerns and affect deployed troops based in San Diego.

Zoom in: The measure would apply to about 5,100 homes locally, Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera told Axios.

It would exempt some situations, like when someone has moved into a care facility or is away for military service.

Yes, but: Shane Harris, a spokesperson for the No on Measure A campaign, said service members would still have to apply for an exemption.

Hence the mailers warning the measure "could hit deployed service members."

"Imagine if you're on deployment, you're wondering if you did your exemption paperwork correctly," Harris said. "So the city is giving a half-false narrative, because the service members still have to apply for the exemption."

Elo-Rivera pushed back, saying the measure clearly exempts service members and would only affect a small group of wealthy homeowners.

"The tax is very, very clearly targeted at the much less than 1% of San Diegans who own empty second homes, primarily owned by people who are not even from San Diego," he told Axios.

"Shane doesn't know what he's talking about a lot of the time, but especially on this, and you can quote me on that," Elo-Rivera added.

Friction point: Harris also said the measure could require more staff to handle enforcement and that it would violate privacy when determining which homes are sitting vacant.

"Are you going to break privacy to prove that someone is living in their home 182 days a year?" he said.

But Elo-Rivera said the city already knows which homes would fall under Measure A, because their owners took a federal tax exemption.

The other side: State and local Realtor organizations oppose Measure A because it could end up taxing more than just those 5,100 homes, said Richard D'Ascoli, CEO of the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, which is against Measure A.

"The measure defines an 'empty' home as one that is 'vacant' for more than 182 days, but never defines what 'vacant' actually means," he said. "The city fills that gap however it chooses."

That could open up the city to lawsuits, he said.

Elo-Rivera said that the anti-measure spending is real estate agents trying to flex their clout and that the money coming from the measure could help the city tackle its stubborn homelessness problem.

The bottom line: The controversy around the measure will likely continue to fill our mailboxes and ad space until the election in June.