Board suspends empty‑homes tax while lawsuit proceeds after 9–2 first‑reading vote

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 9–2 on March 18 to suspend implementation of the city’s voter‑approved empty homes tax pending the final outcome of a lawsuit challenging the measure.

The ordinance, introduced as item 2, would pause collection and reinstate the tax in the tax year immediately following a final court decision. The clerk noted that passage of the measure requires a two‑thirds vote of the board; supervisors advanced the ordinance on first reading with nine ayes and two noes (Walton and Fielder).

Supervisor Fielder said he would vote against the suspension, arguing the ordinance could prevent the city from collecting the tax if a court lifts an injunction before the litigation concludes. "If the courts were to lift the injunction at some point while the litigation continued, this legislation would prevent collection of the tax until the litigation is complete," Fielder said, and he described the tax as one tool to address the city’s housing affordability crisis.

Supervisor Connie Chan, who supported suspension, said administrative burdens and costs would fall heavily on the Treasurer and Tax Collector’s office. Chan described the operational complexity of the program and said the office had concerns about retroactive collection and recordkeeping if litigation created intermittent enforcement windows.

Amanda Fried of the Treasurer and Tax Collector’s office told the board the empty homes tax would require outreach and filings for roughly 80,000 parcels, most of which would not owe tax but who would still need to complete a declaration. Fried said early years typically see low revenue while the office ramps up communications, and that legal uncertainty would raise collection costs and require a specially trained unit coordinated with the city attorney’s office.

Controller Wagner and the Budget and Legislative Analyst disagreed on revenue projections cited in public discussion. Wagner referenced an earlier ballot‑handbook estimate of about $25 million annually; the BLA’s later, revised annualized figure, Wagner and staff said, was roughly $15.6 million and reflected an anticipated market response that would reduce vacancies. The discrepancy prompted questions from several supervisors about which estimate to use for fiscal planning.

Several supervisors, including one who referenced the city’s larger budget deficit, said they could not support suspension absent clearer cost‑benefit information. The ordinance advanced on first reading; the clerk recorded nine ayes and two noes.

Next steps: the ordinance passed on first reading at the March 18 meeting; future action required to finalize implementation and any subsequent roll call votes or amendments will be noticed to the public.

Sources: Board agenda item discussion and public record of the March 18, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting.