RNPH

This is about the most moronic answer I’ve ever heard to that type of question. None of these candidates have any answers. How about starting by cutting government fees which add up to sometimes way over $100,000 per Home. California initiated an huge municipal money grab when the markets were hot in the early 2000s. They have kept those fee structures in place, and in many cases raised them. You can forget about any affordable housing with any of these people on that stage in charge….

Here's @XavierBecerra on how he'd balance his pledge to cut California's home construction costs against the parts of his plan that would appear to raise them:

@sdcta Wake up San Diego until we vote these people out this madness will continue…. Gross incompetence at its highest level.

Staffing reductions in the #SanDiego Fiscal Year draft 2027 budget are not equally distributed across departments. Parks & Recreation and Library are taking big hits (147 lost positions total). Elected officials? Not so much. Between the mayor, council, and city attorney, only five positions are being cut. sandiego.gov/sites/default/…

He shouldn’t even be out on the streets he should be in a mental institution. Unfortunately, San Diego has only one psychiatric hospital. Let’s build more housing for the homeless at $1 million a unit and meanwhile let’s leave all these mentally ill people out on the street…. The elected leaders of San Diego are crazier than this guy on the street….. incompetence at the highest level…

🚨Dramatic takedown in downtown San Diego. A 25-year-old parking attendant was sitting on an electrical box near the Tailgate Padres Parking lot when 20-year-old Lathapoun Keovongsa approached and struck him multiple times in the head with a wooden cane - an unprovoked attack. The victim suffered lacerations and was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries. Officers later located attacker, but he refused to listen to police commands and non-lethal rounds had no effect. The K9 was deployed, and he reportedly struck the dog multiple times. The K9 bit him on the arm, allowing officers to take him into custody. Charges include assault with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest, and harming a police dog.

The whole thing is a disgusting money grab by a city that has been run into the ground by a group of extremely incompetent people…. They’re trying to maintain the status quo grift for all the administrative bloated staff that pushes worthless paper all day and plays on their smart phones…..

Measure A, the Non-Primary Homes Tax (formerly known as the Empty Homes Tax), is on the June 2 ballot. The proposed tax is deeply flawed. 1. Measure A has no sunset clause, meaning it will stay on the books until repealed by the voters. 2. There is no guarantee that any additional funds raised by Measure A will be spent on public safety or critical infrastructure maintenance. 3. The city could use the revenue to hire additional mid-level managers, contributing to the pension crisis. 4. Measure A is intrusive and gives the city extraordinary audit powers. 5. Given the relatively small number of homes involved, there is no reason to believe it will significantly improve affordability. 6. The legal status of the tax is uncertain. A similar tax in San Francisco has been struck down by the courts. 7. Measure A will not contribute to ‘equity’ or ‘fairness’. Owners of vacant homes already pay property taxes. Empty homes do not impose an additional burden on city residents. 8. The city may be overestimating revenue from the new tax, promising ‘up to $51 million’ annually while the Independent Budget Analyst is projecting between $15.3 million and $30 million. 9. The IBA Report “underscores that it is appropriate to assume a high drop-off or exemption rate and decreasing revenue over time.” 10. This is only one of several #SanDiego taxes on track for 2026. The city rushed to get the tax on the June ballot so it won’t interfere with other taxes on the November ballot. sandiego.gov/city-clerk/ele… A full analysis of the tax is available at the SDCTA website. sdcta.org/policy-reports…

@business @Matthew_Winkler @opinion This has to be satire…..

Gavin Newsom's stewardship of California's economy has been so stellar that even Elon Musk admits he can't quit the Golden State, says @Matthew_Winkler (via @opinion) bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

@sdcta The ridership decline is because it has become a moving insane asylum… I ride the trolley often, but I can understand why a lot of people stay away. The mental illness is completely out of control. People do not feel safe. Until that changes, the decline will continue.

Despite a ridership decline, #MTS income is stable due to increased sales tax revenue. "The bad news on passenger revenue is mostly canceled out by good news on interest earnings and sales tax revenue, which are several million dollars over projections." #SANDAG could contribute even more revenue to the bus and trolley system if it reduced the number of multi-million $ studies churned out each year. #SanDiego government agencies don't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. sandiegouniontribune.com/2026/03/19/few…

@DanFleming99 What city is this?

The language in these rent stabilization ordinances is tragically comedic. To start, the city council members decided their police powers give them the right to determine rent increases private property owners can charge because rent increases "impact the public peace, health, and welfare of the City and its residents." The city council believes they get to decide what a fair return on others' private property is. And if a landlord disagrees on what a fair return is, the landlord has the "privilege" of submitting a petition to the City Manager who then has the sole authority to determine what is or isn't a fair return BUT... ...before the City Manager considers the petition, the City Manager gets to determine the cost of the review of the petition, and the landlord must pay the invoice before the petition is considered. "Fair return" is subjective. Nowhere is there an explicit definition using a %. I'll take a wild guess and estimate that over the last 4 years zero petitions have been filed.

@bariweiss @CBSNews Can you please do an expose of this on 60 Minutes? This needs to be amplified to an extreme…..

Incredible investigation today from @CBSNews. Our reporters visited "ground zero" for hospice fraud: Los Angeles, California. One building had 89 registered hospices . . . Read it here: cbsnews.com/projects/2026/…

@maskedlizard1 @PacificLegal Yes, I assumed that several groups would be interested in litigating this if the voters pass the ballot measure. It’s about time the Supreme Court takes this on once and for all on property rights and the intrusion of them by municipalities and governments.

@RNPH288303 @PacificLegal We are putting together a coalition to fight the SD empty homes tax and are prepared to litigated if the measure is adopted.

BREAKING: San Luis Obispo told homebuilders they could get their permits — but only if they handed over a home at a massive loss or paid a $98,900 inclusionary housing fee. Today, we filed suit to stop the government from imposing unconstitutional fees on builders.

@DallasAptGP The office building market is in severe distress right now. The city needs to follow Fort Worths path and buy a distressed office building. Common sense needs to prevail here.

Here’s all the background on what’s going on surrounding Dallas City Hall. Dallas City Hall was designed by I.M. Pei and opened in 1978. Brutalist concrete. 1500 Marilla. It’s been the seat of city government for 47 years. The building has serious problems. Water intrusion. Concrete deterioration. Obsolete HVAC. Electrical systems that don’t meet modern standards. Hundreds of areas not ADA compliant. Asbestos. Decades of patchwork repairs. A report from the Dallas EDC and engineering firm AECOM estimated the cost to fully modernize the building at up to $1.1 billion over 20 years. Immediate urgent repairs alone: $329 million. The building would need to be vacated for at least five years during the work. That’s the financial case. But there’s a bigger reason this is moving fast. The $3.7 billion Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center rebuild is under construction right next door. City Hall sits at the eastern edge of that project. Council Member Chad West, who chairs the Finance Committee, said it plainly. If City Hall stays, the convention center has to be designed around it. If City Hall goes, the entire eastern portion of the district can be reimagined. The convention center is on a timeline. Design decisions can’t wait years. Then there’s the Mavericks. The team has been eyeing downtown for a new arena. CEO Rick Welts said there’s no deal yet but they’re waiting for the city to signal there’s something to talk about. Council Member Cara Mendelsohn wore a Mavericks jersey to a public hearing. The vote does not commit the city to leaving. It directs City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert to gather more information. Explore redevelopment options for the site. Identify locations for relocating 311, 911, and emergency operations. Look at real estate options for moving other city staff. The opposition had real arguments. Cost estimates jumped from $93 million in 2018 to $345 million last fall to $1.1 billion this month. Multiple residents and former city officials called the numbers exaggerated. Preservation groups have collected thousands of petition signatures. The Landmark Commission has already initiated historic designation, which puts a two-year hold on demolition. Council Member Bazaldua asked how he’s supposed to make a billion-dollar decision when he’s only being shown one scenario. Council Member Ridley has argued since November that the process is moving too fast. The preservationists make a fair point. So do the people who say Dallas can’t spend a billion dollars on a building most residents have never been inside. What’s clear is this. The Cedars and the southwest corner of downtown are at the center of the most consequential land use decisions Dallas has made in decades. Convention center. City Hall. Possibly a new arena. All within a few blocks of each other. This is going to play out over years. But last night was the vote that set it in motion.

Brief Summary of San Francisco’s Empty Homes Tax Case In November 2022, San Francisco voters narrowly approved Proposition M (the “Empty Homes Tax” or residential vacancy tax). It imposed annual taxes on owners of multifamily residential buildings (generally 3+ units) for keeping units vacant more than 182 days per year, with rates starting around $2,500–$5,000 per unit and increasing over time. The goal was to discourage long-term vacancies, increase rental housing supply, and fund affordable housing/homelessness programs. Property owners (including groups like the San Francisco Apartment Association and individual landlords) sued in February 2023 (Eric Debbane, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-23-604600, San Francisco Superior Court). On October 31, 2024, Superior Court Judge Charles F. Haines granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling the tax unenforceable. Key grounds: • Violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (by forcing owners to rent or pay a penalty, effectively taking property rights without compensation). • Preempted by California’s Ellis Act (protecting landlords’ right to withdraw units from the rental market). • Infringes on substantive due process, equal protection, and privacy rights. The court issued a judgment on November 26, 2024, prohibiting enforcement effective December 6, 2024. The City suspended the tax pending litigation, and no payments were required (original deadline April 2025 halted). The City appealed to the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Case No. A172067). As of early 2026 (with briefs filed through late 2025, including amicus support for property owners from groups like the California Apartment Association), the appeal remains ongoing. No final decision has been issued yet; the tax stays suspended and unenforced unless the ruling is reversed. This case is a significant precedent on property rights vs. local housing policies in California.

The San Diego City Council voted 8-1 Tuesday to place a measure on the June 2 ballot that would tax empty homes in an attempt to increase the housing supply. If approved by voters, the city would impose an $8,000 tax on vacant second homes in 2027 and a $10,000 tax from 2028 on. An additional surcharge of $4,000 for 2027 and $5,000 for 2028 on would be imposed on corporate-owned vacant homes.

Brief Summary of San Francisco’s Empty Homes Tax Case In November 2022, San Francisco voters narrowly approved Proposition M (the “Empty Homes Tax” or residential vacancy tax). It imposed annual taxes on owners of multifamily residential buildings (generally 3+ units) for keeping units vacant more than 182 days per year, with rates starting around $2,500–$5,000 per unit and increasing over time. The goal was to discourage long-term vacancies, increase rental housing supply, and fund affordable housing/homelessness programs. Property owners (including groups like the San Francisco Apartment Association and individual landlords) sued in February 2023 (Eric Debbane, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-23-604600, San Francisco Superior Court). On October 31, 2024, Superior Court Judge Charles F. Haines granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling the tax unenforceable. Key grounds: • Violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (by forcing owners to rent or pay a penalty, effectively taking property rights without compensation). • Preempted by California’s Ellis Act (protecting landlords’ right to withdraw units from the rental market). • Infringes on substantive due process, equal protection, and privacy rights. The court issued a judgment on November 26, 2024, prohibiting enforcement effective December 6, 2024. The City suspended the tax pending litigation, and no payments were required (original deadline April 2025 halted).

San Diego voters will decide whether to tax property owners who keep homes empty. From investigative reporter @dulaneycd. inewsource.org/2026/03/03/san…

Brief Summary of San Francisco’s Empty Homes Tax Case In November 2022, San Francisco voters narrowly approved Proposition M (the “Empty Homes Tax” or residential vacancy tax). It imposed annual taxes on owners of multifamily residential buildings (generally 3+ units) for keeping units vacant more than 182 days per year, with rates starting around $2,500–$5,000 per unit and increasing over time. The goal was to discourage long-term vacancies, increase rental housing supply, and fund affordable housing/homelessness programs. Property owners (including groups like the San Francisco Apartment Association and individual landlords) sued in February 2023 (Eric Debbane, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-23-604600, San Francisco Superior Court). On October 31, 2024, Superior Court Judge Charles F. Haines granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling the tax unenforceable. Key grounds: • Violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (by forcing owners to rent or pay a penalty, effectively taking property rights without compensation). • Preempted by California’s Ellis Act (protecting landlords’ right to withdraw units from the rental market). • Infringes on substantive due process, equal protection, and privacy rights. The court issued a judgment on November 26, 2024, prohibiting enforcement effective December 6, 2024. The City suspended the tax pending litigation, and no payments were required (original deadline April 2025 halted).

I just spoke before the San Diego City Council urging them not to advance the proposed Residential Vacancy Tax ballot proposal. Per the memo my office issued to the council: If this proposal were truly about housing, the revenue would go into a housing fund — not the General Fund to help plug a $121M deficit. We need real housing solutions focused on supply, collaboration, and accountability. As a former kid who picked myself up from the broken foster care system and built myself up from the ground & still building I get people who have done the same. Some of these 5,000 2nd home owners have done the same. #protecthomeownership

Brief Summary of San Francisco’s Empty Homes Tax Case In November 2022, San Francisco voters narrowly approved Proposition M (the “Empty Homes Tax” or residential vacancy tax). It imposed annual taxes on owners of multifamily residential buildings (generally 3+ units) for keeping units vacant more than 182 days per year, with rates starting around $2,500–$5,000 per unit and increasing over time. The goal was to discourage long-term vacancies, increase rental housing supply, and fund affordable housing/homelessness programs. Property owners (including groups like the San Francisco Apartment Association and individual landlords) sued in February 2023 (Eric Debbane, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-23-604600, San Francisco Superior Court). On October 31, 2024, Superior Court Judge Charles F. Haines granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling the tax unenforceable. Key grounds: • Violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (by forcing owners to rent or pay a penalty, effectively taking property rights without compensation). • Preempted by California’s Ellis Act (protecting landlords’ right to withdraw units from the rental market). • Infringes on substantive due process, equal protection, and privacy rights. The court issued a judgment on November 26, 2024, prohibiting enforcement effective December 6, 2024. The City suspended the tax pending litigation, and no payments were required (original deadline April 2025 halted).

@CohenSite A real estate developer who supports a Democratic socialist giving us advice on the oil industry…..

There’s zero chance Richmond or El Segundo close anytime soon

@sdcta That vote demonstrates just what a moronic ruling class we have in San Diego…. Hopefully people will gain some common sense and start voting these people out…..

There are very many problems with the Empty Home Tax moved forward by the #San Diego city Council yesterday in an 8-1 vote, not the least of which is legal uncertainty. “Many who opposed the measure asked the council to wait until there’s a verdict in San Francisco’s appeal of a court’s decision that a similar empty second homes tax is unconstitutional.” SDCTA Golden Watchdog winner @paulkruegersd noted that “It’s not the voters who are going to decide this measure, it’s the courts.” Paul’s testimony may be viewed online at the three hour mark: sandiego.granicus.com/player/clip/93…. timesofsandiego.com/politics/2026/…

This is what originally made California a great state. This is why my family immigrated to California in 1962. They started dismantling the industrial infrastructure in this state in the 90s and with the ever worsening, environmental regulations it essentially strangled the ability to operate in California

"We built up scaffolding of environmental laws from the 1960s onward that have basically made it illegal to do stuff. California, bit by bit, has restricted what I call chemistry at a foundational level. Where now it's basically illegal to do chemistry with metals. And if it's illegal to do chemistry with metals, you can't build anything with the electric stack. California was an industrial superpower. We built half the world's battleships at one point. We built the Kaiser shipyards. The bridge super structures for aircraft carriers were built right around here. California really prided itself on being at the forefront of the EV revolution and the solar revolution. But because of past reckless environmental stuff, we've built laws that have effectively banned us from being able to compete...despite a lot of the best engineers in these technologies being here." @sdamico @aphysicist

Thank you for your efforts on this…. The trampling of property rights in the state of California is out of control. They’ve already tried this in San Francisco and so far they have been defeated…. No one wants to talk about cutting down on bloated staff increases that exploded during Covid.

I’m glad you’re making an effort but until government agencies start lowering their development impact fees, their building permit fees, water and sewer connection fees, mandates for electric only homes that cannot be served. Environmental impact fees. Mandates for EIR’s that can be challenged nonstop.

I’m so excited to finally have this Terner Center report in my hands! These insights will help guide my legislative work this year to unlock more housing construction innovation. We know the housing crisis is formidable—it’s time to get creative in how we solve it.