Updated to make this post public. I am not a member of those local rants and raves pages, and so can’t post there. So, I hoping by making this public it will garner more discussion of these issues.
So, in between baking cake layers I decided to take some time to review the “Vacant Home Taxes” that have been enacted.
I have been particularly troubled by the assertions made by those supporting the adoption of such a tax structure in Astoria that Astoria will not be a policy “guinea pig”. They back up this assertion by vague statements about these things being successfully implemented in other jurisdictions
First, we need to acknowledge that the other jurisdictions they are referencing total five municipalities. This in and of itself should give us pause when Andy Kipp and his crew tell us that these policies have had successful implementation and outcomes. The five municipalities at issue are: New York, Washington D.C., Berkeley, San Francisco, and Oakland. That these jurisdictions represent major metropolis’s is something that we, in thinking about implementing such a tax should remember. It is incumbent upon us, as citizens of this community, to recognize that solutions that may work in a major metropolis, do not necessarily scale down successfully.
Secondly, given the rabbit hole of legal litigation this research took me down, I would hesitate to adopt the phrase “successfully implemented” to describe said policies.
The brand spanking new policy in New York City is mired in such a legal shit storm, that I suspect any monies they might eventually collect will be used to pay copious legal fees.
The policy in San Fransisco has been struck down by a Federal Judge sitting in a very liberal jurisdiction. Among other legal issues, the Judge held that said tax is in violation of the takings, due process, and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution.
Similarly, Berkeley’s is mired in litigation, and may eventually be found to suffer from the same constitutional infirmity as San Francisco’s. Enforcement of this tax appears to be spotty at best, with property owners either refusing to pay, or actively challenging the imposition of the tax administratively or in court. In one such case, the City waived a previously imposed $ 1.4 million tax associated with one property.
Berkeley has made available information about the costs of creating the structure needed to administer this program. As of April 2026, the city had spent $372,000 to set up and administer the program. As of April 2026, the city had collected
$ 404,000. Thus, total net revenues as of April 2026 stood at a whopping $ 32,000. To my mind, this does not represent successful implementation.
Washington D.C. and Oakland have not seen as much litigation surrounding their tax structure. However, as explored below, this might be attributable to the manner in which they define what “vacant” properties are subject to the tax.
It should be noted, that I am not saying that Washington D.C. and Oakland have not experienced litigation on this subject, it just hasn’t been the type of paralyzing litigation that has occurred in NYC, San Francisco, and Berkeley.
It should also be noted that following the recent 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County, the House Oversight Committee is in the process of reviewing the constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s policy.
Which brings me to what I intended to do before I was swept down the legal rabbit hole, a comparison of the various policies, how they define vacant properties, and the tax amount imposed.
Oakland defines a vacant property as any property that is left unused fewer than 50 days a year. So as long as you use your property at least 50 days in a year, you will not be subjected to their “vacant home tax”. This, I suspect is the reason that Oakland has not seen as much litigation surrounding its policy. The tax ranges from $ 3,000 to $ 6,000 per annum depending on its classification as residential, commercial or undeveloped.
Washington D.C.’s tax is primarily a blighted property tax (Astoria already has a blighted property ordinance, how do you think all those boarded up Flavel properties were wrested from the family’s control?). D.C.’s definition is any real property or structure that is not lawfully and regularly occupied by an owner, tenant, or authorized person, with no evidence that the resident ever intends to return. It essentially applies to abandoned buildings. The fees are structured based on assessed property value and a designation of the property as either vacant or blighted. If simply vacant, the fee is $5 for every $100 of assessed property value; blighted, $10 of assessed property value. Again, I suspect this definition is the reason that D.C’s ordinance has not seen a ton of litigation.
San Francisco’s Vacant Home Tax only applies to buildings that have three or more rental units. Single family homes and duplexes are specifically excluded from the tax. The tax applies to such units if they have been unoccupied for more than 182 days in the year. The specific amount of the tax is based on the type of property at issue and the square footage of that property.
Similarly, Berkeley’s Vacant Home Tax excludes properties with less than four rental units in a building and single family homes. Like San Francisco’s it applies to eligible units that are left vacant for more than 182 days per year. The associated tax ranges from $ 3,000 to $ 6,000 per year.
NYC’s definition is a mess and I am unable to find the exact language they are using to define what residences will be impacted by it. Based on numerous articles I have reviewed, it appears that even NYC officials don’t know what the definition is as they have had to retract/recall thousands of bills previously sent.
If you’ve born with me through this entire discussion, you should probably have a glass of wine.
Now we turn to the proposal in Astoria. The proposal at issue is not analogous to any of the currently implemented policies in any of the five cities that have so implemented them.
The proposal here will apply to every single occupancy home, it does not address vacant land, or commercial buildings. It imposes a $ 3,000 – $ 6,000 tax on those homes that are not occupied for at least 181 days of the year. Unlike Berkeley’s and San Francisco’s tax, which are specifically designed to address multi-unit properties, Astoria’s proposal seems to exclude from their definition of who is subject to said tax multi-unit properties.
The two examples cited by the Astoria Housing Alliance as having been successfully implemented are Oakland, and Vancouver BC.
I have researched Vancouver B.C.’s policy and have left it out of my discussion for a variety of reasons. The primary reason being the distinction between our respective constitutions and how those constitutions treat property rights.
I do wish to take a moment to address the claim made by Astoria Housing Alliance that Oakland has collected at least $ 29 million since 2019 (a bit over $ 6 million a year). By including this figure, the proponents of the local ballot measure ask you to draw the erroneous conclusion that all that money has gone toward alleviating housing pressures. This is simply not the case.
The measure passed in Oakland specifies that no more than 15% of revenues received can be used for administrative purposes. A recent audit conducted by the City of Oakland found that approximately 3/4 of the revenues collected were used to fund public works projects associated with illegal dumping. Only 4 % of revenues collected have gone toward housing related issues. Additionally, the included analysis indicates that since implementing this policy there has been an increase in vacant properties. As Oakland’s audit is the most comprehensive audit I can find of a vacant home tax, I am attaching it for anyone who wishes to do so to review.
So, this ends this week’s treatise regarding the proposed “Vacant Home Tax”.
Oakland Audit Report follows here.
VOTE NO VACANT HOME TAX 