INSIDE THE VACANCY TAX (Measure 4-247)

PART 3 OF 5: WHERE IS THE ACTUAL ASTORIA DATA?

There is no verified count of taxable homes. No Astoria-specific evidence proving the claimed crisis. No reliable estimate of what the program would cost—or how much money would remain. No clear plan showing what the tax would fund.

Yet Astoria voters are being asked to approve it anyway.

Parts 1 and 2 documented the political strategy and connections behind Astoria’s Vacancy Tax through direct quotations and linked sources.

To date, supporters have not identified one factual error, disputed one quotation, challenged one source or answered the questions about their missing data.

Instead, their response has focused on discovering who operates the VOTE NO Page—and asking group administrators to “get rid of” it.

They are attacking who is asking the questions instead of producing the Astoria-specific evidence needed to answer them.

Part 3 compares their claims with the proposed tax measure, Berkeley’s real-world experience and the Astoria-specific estimates cited to justify this tax.

The result is unmistakable: Measure 4-247 asks Astoria to create a costly new government program before proving the need, identifying the taxable homes, calculating the cost or saying exactly what the money would accomplish.

That is not a plan.

BERKELEY SHOWS WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS TAX MEASURE FOR ASTORIA LEFT OUT

Berkeley, California, has already implemented an Empty Homes Tax. Its records show what Astoria’s tax writers failed to calculate.

Berkeley committed hundreds of thousands of dollars, used several workers and built a complex system—and still had most of the billed amount unpaid at the time of its report.

Berkeley is more than 12 times Astoria’s size. The Census Bureau estimates Berkeley’s population at 121,911 and Astoria’s at 9,838. Berkeley reports 49,454 housing units—nearly ten times Astoria’s estimated 5,089.

Yet Berkeley ultimately billed only 188 properties containing 397 units for its 2024 tax. Those units represented about 0.8% of Berkeley’s housing stock. The same percentage of Astoria’s estimated housing stock would equal approximately 41 units.

If Astoria ultimately billed the same percentage of its housing stock as Berkeley—approximately 41 units—and every one paid the proposed $3,000 first-year tax, Astoria would collect just $123,000 in theoretical gross revenue.

That is an illustration using Berkeley’s actual results—not a prediction for Astoria. And it is the gross amount before the City subtracts one dollar to create, run, enforce or collect the tax.

Yet during signature gathering, the Astoria Housing Alliance publicly estimated that “more than 300 houses” could be taxed and claimed the tax could generate “nearly $1 million in the first year, and more the following years.”

• But it never identified those 300 houses.

• It never applied the 183-day rule, advertising periods, exclusions, exemptions or appeals.

• It never estimated how many owners would actually pay.

• It never subtracted the cost of operating the program.

The “nearly $1 million” claim depends upon assuming that more than 300 Astoria houses would pay the $3,000 tax—the very houses the Alliance never identified.

And even that claimed first-year revenue would not be due until October 31, 2028—after Astoria had already undertaken the work and expense of building the program.

Berkeley—with nearly ten times Astoria’s housing stock—had collected only $393,000 at the time of its official report.

The nearly $1 million figure was promoted while signatures were being collected. The houses behind it remain unidentified today.

Berkeley’s 2024 results included:

• 120 properties receiving owner-occupied or nonprofit exemptions;

• 51 properties receiving vacancy exclusions;

• 16 appeals;

• 188 properties containing 397 billed units.

By January 26, 2026, Berkeley had collected $393,000. Another $1,732,520 remained unpaid, including taxes, penalties and interest.

After bills were sent, Berkeley’s exemption and exclusion count increased from 112 to 171 as more owners submitted claims.

Berkeley also allocated $332,920 for workers, public information, systems and reports. It added an Assistant Planner, approved up to $40,000 for a six-month full-time temporary worker and approved a computer-system contract of up to $125,000 through June 2027.

The program also required Finance Department support, owner assistance, evidence reviews, site visits, notices, hearings, appeals and collections.

Berkeley’s records do not provide one complete count of every worker or one total cost for every department and outside service used. But they prove this was never a one-employee program.

The Astoria Housing Initiative—the private group that created this ballot measure—calculated none of that. It simply wrote “one full-time employee” into the measure without identifying which homes would be taxed. Without measuring the work required. Without determining what it would actually take—or cost—to run the program in Astoria.

If Berkeley’s real-world results are not enough to prove that Measure 4-247 is a reckless financial gamble, consider the Astoria-specific facts its writers failed to investigate before putting this tax on the November ballot.

“669 VACANT HOMES” IS AN ESTIMATE—NOT A TAX LIST

The repeated claim that Astoria has “669 vacant homes” is a Census estimate—not a physical count of 669 identifiable homes that would owe this tax.

The Clatsop County Housing Inventories Project’s June 2025 report estimates:

• 5,089 total housing units;

• 4,420 occupied units;

• 669 units classified as “vacant.”

But those 669 include:

• 132 units available for rent or purchase;

• 272 seasonal, recreational or occasional-use units;

• 219 “other vacant” units;

• 46 units sold but not yet occupied.

The 219 “other vacant” units include different situations, such as repairs, storage and elderly owners living with family or in care facilities. The 272 seasonal or occasional-use units do not show how many days the homes were used.

No one physically inspected 669 homes. No one applied the measure’s 183-day rule, advertising periods, exclusions, exemptions or appeals to them.

No calculations have been made applying the 183-day requirement, advertising periods, exclusions, exemptions or appeals to Astoria’s housing stock.

The report sorts Census estimates into categories. It does not identify one Astoria home that would owe this tax. Astoria still has no verified number of taxable homes and no list of taxable addresses.

The people who wrote the measure should have established those facts before writing the proposed tax and collecting signatures.

It should not become the City’s job—or the taxpayers’ expense—to discover after passage whether their assumptions were ever true.

THE REPORT DOES NOT PROVE THE CRISIS—OR THE “DAMAGE”—THEY CLAIM

The housing report does not show a rental shortage across every income level. It estimates:

• A 224-unit shortage for households earning less than $25,000 annually;

• A 533-unit surplus for households earning between $25,000 and $75,000 annually;

• A 419-unit shortage for households earning more than $75,000 annually.

Those figures compare household incomes with occupied homes at matching rent levels. They do not prove Astoria lacks 643 (224 + 419) physical housing units—or that 533 apartments are sitting empty.

They show that incomes and rents do not match in some ranges.

They do not prove that Astoria has too few homes overall.

They also do not prove that homes used fewer than 183 days caused the mismatch—or that taxing them would create housing at the needed prices.

How many units does Astoria actually need? For whom? At what price? How many homes that might be taxed fit those prices? What exactly would the tax pay for? None of those questions was answered before the measure was proposed.

Yet one supporter wrote:

“People who leave homes vacant in a small community are actively damaging that community.”

A person presenting the measure was quoted saying:

“Vacant homes are not neutral in our community.”

The campaign also claims these homes weaken neighborhoods, squeeze out residents and drive up costs.

Those are serious accusations—not evidence.

What Astoria-specific study shows that homes used fewer than 183 days weakened neighborhoods, raised rents, displaced residents or “actively damaged” Astoria?

Where is the local evidence showing that these still-unidentified homes caused an unproven housing shortage, raised Astoria rents or displaced Astoria residents?

The Astoria Housing Initiative identified a group of lawful homeowners, accused them of harming Astoria and wrote a tax to punish them—without proving the alleged harm exists.

Repeating an accusation does not turn it into data.

FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT WHO IS AFFECTED

The Astoria Housing Initiative repeatedly told the public:

“Unless you own a second home in Astoria, this won’t impact you at all.”

It also stated:

“If you have your home as your main residency and travel for work—you don’t pay.”

And:

“Anyone who owns their own home but needs to travel for work is exempt from the tax. This means that if you’re a fisherman, pilot, or a truck driver—you don’t pay.”

Those statements conflict with the measure.

Owning only one home is not an exemption. Calling it a principal residence is not an exemption. The measure contains no general work-travel exemption.

If a home does not pass the 183-day rule and no exclusion or exemption applies, its owner could owe the tax.

The measure also requires a yearly Tax Declaration for every residential unit. Every year—with no end date—every Astoria homeowner would have to report how their private property was used so the City could decide whether it passed the rule or owed the tax.

When directly asked to correct its public statements, the Initiative refused.

The Astoria Housing Initiative—organized by Andy Kipp’s Astoria Housing Alliance—wrote this tax and falsely told homeowners it would not affect them. The cold, hard truth is that, if passed, this tax measure would affect every single homeowner in Astoria. Every Astoria homeowner will have to declare how their private home was used during the entire previous calendar year—and have that information stored in a government database. Every. Single. Year.

ASTORIA CAN IDENTIFY REAL HOUSING

Astoria can identify 122 housing units completed since 2021: 40 at the Merwyn, 50 at Owens Adair II and 32 at the Baker Building. Another 63 are planned at Copeland Commons, and the City already has a $500,000 housing program.

Those are real units at real addresses. Astoria can count the housing already completed. The private group asking for this tax cannot identify the homes it expects to tax.

WHAT WERE PETITION SIGNERS TOLD?

People who signed the petition have reported that the measure does not match what they understood—or were told—they were supporting.

That does not invalidate their signatures. People are responsible for reading before signing. But were they clearly told about the $3,000 first-year tax, recurring $6,000 tax, 183-day rule, yearly declaration for every homeowner, licensed short-term-rental exclusion and rules left for the City to create after passage?

Reports from individual signers do not prove what every circulator said. But if important parts were minimized, omitted or inaccurately described, that belongs in the public discussion.

The signatures remain. So does the question: Were people clearly told what they were signing?

“BUILD MORE HOUSING” IS NOT A PLAN

New building may add to Astoria’s burdens without lowering housing costs.

Astoria has limited buildable land, landslide hazards, aging streets and sewers, overburdened transportation routes and public services existing taxpayers must fund. It also has finite employment and water-dependent land that cannot simply be turned into housing.

Before demanding more crowded development, rezoning or larger City boundaries, growth supporters should say how many units are needed, for whom, at what price, whether City services can support them and who will pay the full public cost.

Homeownership includes the rights to possess, use, control, enjoy, exclude others from and transfer private property—subject to lawful regulation. Taxing the lawful use of a home requires more than slogans and estimates.

Adding units does not guarantee lower prices. Astoria should not tax existing homeowners, strain aging infrastructure or surrender limited land to satisfy an unproven claim of a crisis. Growth without verified need, capacity and cost is not a housing solution. It is another unsupported bill for Astoria taxpayers to pay.

THE VERDICT

They wrote a $3,000-to-$6,000 annual tax before identifying how many homes—or which homeowners—they intend to tax; before proving, with Astoria-specific data, that Astoria has the “housing crisis” they claim; and without determining whether anything would remain after administration, enforcement, appeals, collection and legal costs—or whether the program would ultimately cost Astoria taxpayers more than it collected.

The people behind this measure had time to organize, campaign, collect signatures and write a tax. They did not take the time to prove the facts needed to justify it.

Measure 4-247 asks Astoria to approve the tax first—and discover afterward whether the claimed crisis exists, how many homes will pay, what the new City system will cost, what money will remain and what it will actually buy.

If this measure passes, the government receives the power, the new City system and the money.

Astoria taxpayers receive the cost, the uncertainty, the lawsuits and the unintended consequences.

No verified need. No verified number of taxable homes. No defined result. No justification for Measure 4-247.

ASTORIA VACANT HOME TAX.

A TAX WITHOUT A PLAN.

A TAX WITHOUT A PROVEN NEED.

A TAX WITHOUT A SINGLE IDENTIFIED TAXABLE HOME.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 4-247.

The complete ballot measure is the first link below. Please read it yourself. Do not take our word—or the campaign’s word—for what it says. The gaps are wide enough to drive a convoy of 18-wheelers through.

SOURCES

Measure 4-247—City of Astoria Initiative: Vacant Home Tax
https://www.clatsopcounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4478/Measure-4-247-City-of-Astoria-Initiative—Vacant-Home-Tax

KMUN—Housing Group Proposes “Empty Homes” Tax, April 8, 2026
https://kmun.org/housing-group-proposes-empty-homes-tax/

March 2025 Astoria Housing Supply Assessment
https://www.astoria.gov/assets/dept_3/pm/pdf/Housing%20Navigation%20PDF’s/Astoria%20Housing%20Supply%20Inventory.pdf

June 2025 Final Housing Inventories Report
https://www.astoria.gov/assets/dept_3/pm/pdf/Housing%20Navigation%20PDF’s/Astoria%20Final%20Housing%20Inventories%20Report%202025-06-05.pdf

Astoria Infrastructure Summary
https://www.astoria.gov/assets/dept_3/pm/pdf/Housing%20Navigation%20PDF’s/Astoria%20Infrastructure%20Inventory.pdf

Astoria Buildable Land Inventory
https://www.astoria.gov/assets/dept_3/pm/pdf/Housing%20Navigation%20PDF’s/Astoria%20BLI_Buildable%20Land%20Inventory.pdf

City of Berkeley—2023–2031 Housing Element
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_2023-2031%20Housing%20Element_02-17-2023v2_0.pdf

Berkeley Empty Homes Tax—April 2026 Update
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/Empty_Homes_Tax_Implementation_Update_II_REVISED.pdf

Berkeley FY 2026–27 Budget and Staffing Report
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2026_May_27_Budget_and_Personnel_Committee_AGENDA_PACKET.pdf

Berkeley Temporary Staffing Authorization
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/02-19-2026_RSB_ITEM_7D_CONSENT_ACRO_Services_P.O._Increase_Resolution.pdf

Berkeley Computer-System Contract
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/04-17-2025_RSB_ITEM_7B1_ACTION_Tolemi_contract_report_for_FY2025-FY2027.pdf