Senate committee hears competing views on allowing local vacancy fees for second homes

Senate Bill 1095A would authorize cities and counties to impose a narrowly tailored fee on vacant single‑family homes, middle‑housing and condominiums that are unoccupied for more than 180 days in a calendar year, the bill’s sponsor told the Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue at a public hearing April 16.

Senator Anthony Bridal, the bill sponsor, said the measure is a local-option tool requested by a Central Oregon city to address communities where rapid growth in second homes reduces housing available to people who work locally. “The goal here … is to really make sure that second homes and second homeowners are paying their fair share when it comes to impacts,” Bridal said, adding that any revenue should be spent on producing housing for local workers.

Supporters and opponents diverged sharply on multiple points: whether a vacancy fee can be narrowly tied to measurable local costs; whether the 180‑day threshold is arbitrary; legal and enforcement questions; and whether the fee would meaningfully increase housing production.

The League of Oregon Cities’ housing and land use lobbyist Alexandra Ring said cities are exploring revenue tools but warned SB 1095A may be premature in its current form. Ring said the tool could be useful if structured as a fee tied to specific impacts and suggested the scope could be broadened beyond residential to include disused commercial property to encourage redevelopment.

Jeremy Rogers, general counsel for Oregon Realtors, testified in strong opposition, arguing the bill would infringe property rights and is arbitrary in its 180‑day cutoff. He pointed to experience in California cities that have enacted vacancy taxes, noting litigation: “San Francisco last month suspended its vacancy tax after a court in November ruled that the tax violated the United States and the California constitutions,” Rogers said, and urged the committee to “put this policy aside” until legal outcomes are clearer.

Residents and local advocates offered mixed testimony. Jody Weiser, speaking for a local group, described multiple houses in her neighborhood that sat vacant for years and said a fee could make property owners act to return homes to use. Other committee members noted distinct policy questions for long-term vacant properties versus part-time second homes and raised enforcement challenges: the bill as drafted relies on local adoption and would allow exemptions for narrowly tailored reasons, such as military service or emergency response, Bridal said.

Committee members discussed alternatives and trade-offs: some argued that vacancy fees are a small tool compared with measures to increase supply, while others said the fees could be one element tied to local land-use pressures and the urban growth boundary. No vote was taken; the hearing provided testimony both for refining local-option drafting and for caution given potential legal and administrative complications.