Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxes Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors hear push to double high‑end property transfer tax; supporters say proceeds will fund rent relief and social housing
Summary
Board heard a proposed November ballot initiative by Supervisor Dean Preston to double transfer‑tax rates on very high‑value property sales and direct half the revenue to COVID‑19 rent relief and half to permanently affordable/social housing. Dozens of callers urged the measure be put before voters; the committee filed the hearing and continued oversight steps.
A proposed ballot measure that would double San Francisco’s transfer tax on very high‑value property sales drew broad public support at the Rules Committee’s July 9 meeting.
The initiative, sponsored by Supervisor Dean Preston, would raise the transfer‑tax rate from 2.75 percent to 5.5 percent for transactions between $10 million and $25 million, and from 3 percent to 6 percent for sales above $25 million. Preston said the measure is intended to discourage speculation and generate revenue for what he called a “fair recovery package” that prioritizes rent relief and permanently affordable housing.
“Today we need to demand more from the wealthiest investors and institutions and we need to use the revenue that is generated by this increased tax to make sure San Franciscans can get back on their feet,” Preston said, summarizing the proposal and its policy goals.
Speakers who called into the remote hearing urged supervisors to put the measure on the November ballot. Public commenters—tenants, housing advocates and neighborhood leaders—said the revenue should be used to cover unpaid rent from the COVID‑19 crisis and to acquire and preserve affordable housing. “This is a recovery tax,” said one caller who identified herself as a tenant and organizer, calling the proposal a way to prevent homelessness and halt speculation.
Preston told the committee the Controller’s office estimated the change could generate on the order of tens of millions of dollars annually; he said the exact revenue would vary with market conditions. He also said sales to the city or qualified affordable‑housing nonprofits would be exempted to incentivize community and nonprofit acquisitions.
After the public comment period, the committee adopted a motion to file the hearing, a procedural step that keeps the matter on the Rules Committee’s docket and allows additional follow‑up and referrals. The committee’s roll‑call recorded supervisors voting to file the hearing. Committee members said they would follow up with the Controller’s office and budget staff on revenue estimates and implementation details before the full Board takes further action.
