Fact Checking the No on N Misinformation

South Lake Tahoe voters have an important decision on the ballot this week as they weigh the merits of Measure N. While some have already voted, others have told us they’re still trying to decide how to vote. So with that in mind, we want to fact check some of the information in the flyers that have been inundating residents for the past three months. South Lake Tahoe voters deserve to be making informed decisions this election season based on fact-checked information and cited sources.

Per FPPC reports available on the City’s website, “No on N” is spending over $1 million on their campaign, largely funded by out-of-town money from the national and state real estate lobby. Much of the funds have been put toward flyers and YouTube ads designed to mislead voters. So no matter how you decide to vote on Measure N, here’s some information you can use fact-check their campaign materials for yourself. You can read the full Measure text for yourself here, and sources are cited below.

“We’re already doing enough for housing”
The Tahoe Prosperity Center’s 2019 South Shore Housing Needs Report found we need an additional 3,290 housing units in the greater South Shore area to adequately house our workforce through 2026 (page 6). “No on N” has cited plans to build 500-600 additional housing units as a reason why Measure N is not needed. Not only do many of these housing projects still lack funding – but even if they are funded and built in the next decade, they represent only a small fraction of the total need.

In a recent interview on Capital Public Radio’s “Insight,” “No on N” cited van pools from Carson City as a leading “solution” to address the staffing crisis as a growing fraction of housing converts into vacation homes – before going on to say “Even if we had the ability to build as many homes as would be necessary to house everyone who wants to live here and are essential workers in our community, you wouldn’t have the land or available space to actually do it.” This is, of course, exactly stating the number one reason why Measure N is necessary. It is *necessary* to incentivize more use of the existing housing in South Lake Tahoe, because we *cannot* build our way out of the housing crisis, just like “No on N” said on-air.

You can hear both these quotes for yourself in response to the host’s question at 18:40 into the full interview.

“It won’t help or fund affordable housing”
This is incorrect. As clearly stated in the ballot language written by the City Attorney, Measure N is a special tax and the funds can “only be used for housing, roadworks, transit, and administrative and legal costs.” In their independent analysis, the City estimated admin costs would be approximately 3% of the up to $20M in annual revenue, leaving more than $19M remaining for local housing, roads and transit projects each year, with housing as the community’s clear priority. Voters can see projects Measure N funds at www.VibrantNotVacant.com/projects.

Further, the shift in incentives alone helps create more full-time housing in South Lake Tahoe, increasing housing supply to help lower rents. The City’s independent report estimated Measure N would help recover up to 1,543 households for full-time occupancy (page 5), nearly half the housing units needed to adequately house the workforce in the greater South Shore Area according to the Tahoe Prosperity Center’s 2019 South Shore Housing Needs Report (page 6).

The Mountain Gazette gave their impartial take on “No on N”’s widespread use of this misleading talking point in their recent article.

“All of the revenue would have to go toward administration.”
This is incorrect. The City estimated admin costs would be approximately 3% of the up to $20M in annual revenue, leaving more than $19M for local housing, roads and transit projects each year. Voters can see projects Measure N funds at www.VibrantNotVacant.com/Projects, including paying for itself with a tiny fraction of the overall budget.

“It will make the rents go up”
This claim is especially outlandish. Properties occupied by renters will not pay this tax at all. Furthermore, Measure N incentivizes vacant homeowners to open up additional rental housing, expanding rental availability, lowering rents by increasing supply. The revenues raised will also be used to build housing that is deed restricted for affordable rents.

“It’s an invasion of privacy”
Measure N has no requirement for monitoring or a burden of proof. The declaration of occupancy form is just a simple self-reported form that property owners fill out once a year and give their signature to state that the home was occupied for the majority of the year. The policy is not about nitpicking the number of days locals are home, but rather disincentivizing homes that are blatantly vacant most of the time.

“Vacancy taxes elsewhere have failed”
Vancouver’s vacancy tax contributed to a 54% decrease in vacant properties, and generated $142 million in funds for affordable housing initiatives since it passed in 2017. You can read their 2023 Annual Report and an article summarizing the positive impacts.

Additionally, the Journal of Public Economics published an academic study on vacancy tax policies in France and determined that not only were vacancy taxes successful, but that negative incentives were significantly more effective than positive incentives at shifting to full-time occupancy. The journal article is available here. The “No on N” claims of failure are largely selective quotes from individuals who don’t like the tax, rather than credible reports of policy analysis.

As a community, we need to come together to solve the critical problems facing South Lake Tahoe. I will be voting Yes on Measure N because it simultaneously addresses our dire housing needs and most critical funding gaps. But however you vote, fact-check your sources, and know that the work continues after November 5 no matter the outcome. We cannot rest on our laurels if we want to have a vibrant, thriving community for generations to come. We must solve these problems together.

Nick Speal is a Sierra Tract resident and candidate for South Lake Tahoe City Council