San Diego supervisors adopt a targeted stance against 'tax giveaways' while rejecting a blanket anti‑tax measure

A substitute motion to oppose broad 'tax giveaways for the rich' and to ask the state for authority to place progressive revenue measures before voters passed the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 10, following extensive public comment.

Supervisor Jim Desmond (District 5) opened the item arguing the county 'doesn't have a revenue problem' but instead 'has a spending problem,' noting the county budget grew from about $6.2 billion when he became supervisor to roughly $8.6 billion and urging the board to 'tighten our belts' rather than seek new taxes. Desmond moved to approve an item opposing any 'new or unnecessary taxes.' He later abstained on the substitute motion.

The chair offered a substitute motion that replaced the original recommendations. The substitute directs the chief administrative officer to add language to the county's legislative program opposing 'tax giveaways for the rich that shift costs into low‑income working and middle class county residents' and to seek state authority to ask voters to approve progressive revenue measures 'that have benefit on the Californians that have benefited the most' — specifically naming billionaires, global investors and large real‑estate speculators as potential targets. The substitute also emphasizes protecting essential services such as 911, emergency response, health care, and nutrition support.

Public commenters were sharply divided. SEIU member and county employee Marissa Bell said opposing new revenue 'takes money out of the pockets of your employees, clients and residents' and urged the board to 'support responsible revenue solutions that actually protect workers.' Researcher Noah Yee Yick of the Center on Policy Initiatives told supervisors the county should 'step up' to fill gaps left by federal cuts and called for raising revenue from corporations and the wealthy. Other callers warned of proposed rises in documentary transfer taxes and urged the board to avoid placing additional burdens on homeowners.

Chair Lawson Riemer framed the substitute as a response to what she called 'misleading' language in the original item and stressed that scaring residents with 'imaginary taxes' does not protect families, particularly as the county faces an actual potential federal funding shortfall from changes to federal law. The clerk recorded the substitute motion as passing with Supervisor Anderson voting no and Supervisor Desmond abstaining; other supervisors present voted aye.

The board directed staff to add the opposition language to the county legislative program and to pursue state authority to place targeted, voter‑approved revenue measures on the ballot, with the stated objective of protecting core services.

The board did not adopt Desmond's original motion as presented; rather it approved the chair's substitute. No specific ballot measures or tax rates were enacted; the action puts the board on record and directs staff to pursue state authorization and legislative advocacy as described.