When discussing the Astoria Vacant Home tax with its proponents I have come across two
consistent and intermittent deflections to my concerns: I am told that if passed it will only affect
non locals who maintain a largely unused vacation home; as an adjunct to this I am also told it
will not affect anyone but those greedy people who have two houses when some people don’t
have one.
I have been thinking about and researching this proposal since I first learned of it in April of this
year. I think that it contains a number of fallacies, and when examine closely, the arguments
made in support of the proposal simply fall apart.
First, this tax imposes a requirement that every person who owns a home in Astoria file an
annual report on how they use there homes, and penalizes those who fail to file. Secondly, many
people who have lived here, rebuilt and revitalized a town that in the 1990s consisted of a
downtown with boarded up buildings, and houses falling into decay, would be penalized by this.
These are the people who made this community the place that everyone is now fighting to live in,
and somehow, these neighbors are now being told that after significant contributions to the
revitalization, they need to step aside.
The proponents of this tax say, well 1 in 7 homes is empty. It appears that this number was
pulled from a Clatsop County study done in 2025. That study does not break down just what is
defined as an “empty” house, nor does it examine the issue of why those houses are empty. So,
that number could very well encompass homes that are structurally unsound, houses that are
being offered for rent, homes that are being offered for sale, homes that are owned by local
families who are in probate. The proponents of this tax will tell you, oh, we have exclusions for
so many things, but that begs the underlying question, what do you base you assertion that this
tax is needed because 1 in 7 homes is sitting fallow.
I have examined vacant home taxes in the various jurisdictions that have implemented them,
New York City, Berkeley, Oakland, San Fransico, and Washington, DC. None of those are
analogous to the one being proposed her in Astoria. Not a single one of the currently
implemented programs taxes single family dwellings in the manner proposed here.
Additionally, not a single one of these programs can point to any reduction in either the rental or selling cost of residences in their jurisdictions. Similarly, none of these jurisdictions can point to any increase in
work force construction as a result of these programs. For example, Oakland has collected over
$29 million in said taxes since the implementation of their program. This fact is front and center
on the Astoria Housing Alliances Web Site.
I reviewed the audit of Oakland’s vacancy tax, and only 4 % of the funds collected have been used on housing related issues. The majority of the funds have been used for administrative costs and to clean up unlawful dump sites.
Finally, I would like to note that the majority of these five jurisdictions have seen significant
litigation over these proposals. For example: San Francisco’s is on hold because a Federal Judge
found, among other things that such a tax violates the equal protection, due process, and takings
clause of the constitution; and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s is currently under
investigation by Congressional Committee.