The Boulder City Council is exploring the idea of taxing homes that sit vacant for most of the year, a move aimed at unlocking more housing in a city with a shortage of supply.
Earlier this month, councilmembers asked city officials to explore what a tax on vacant homes could look like in Boulder. The tax would likely target second homeowners and aim to encourage them to rent out underused properties — making better use of the city’s limited housing stock.
City officials estimate that as many as 4,000 of Boulder’s approximate 48,000 housing units are vacant, according to a May 2024 memo. That’s nearly equal to the city’s entire inventory of deed-restricted affordable housing. A more recent estimate by city officials projects that a vacancy tax could generate between $1 million and $2 million annually.
The concept comes as the Boulder City Council looks for ways to address an estimated shortfall of 10,700 housing units over the next decade. In recent months, the council has approved zoning changes to encourage more duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods to boost housing density. It’s also considering a new fee on property owners who demolish homes and replace them with larger, more expensive ones, with the revenue going toward affordable housing.
“Some of the code changes we’ve made to try and have more dwelling units really fall flat if we can’t get people into those dwelling units,” Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Folkerts told Boulder Reporting Lab. “Buildings need to be for people. There are certainly more empty homes than there are homeless people in our community.”
It’s not yet clear when councilmembers might formally pursue such a tax. The council’s Financial Strategy Committee — made up of Councilmembers Nicole Speer, Ryan Schuchard and Mark Wallach — floated the idea of placing a measure on the 2026 ballot. For this year’s election, the committee is recommending two other ballot measures to address an estimated $380 million in deferred maintenance for city infrastructure.
“The financial priority for this year’s ballot measures should be taking care of existing infrastructure,” the committee wrote in a letter to fellow councilmembers.
Still, most councilmembers said they were interested in learning more about a vacancy tax at an April 3 meeting. Mayor Aaron Brockett asked staff to poll voters on the idea in the coming weeks.
Vacancy taxes have gained traction in some mountain and resort towns where affordable housing for local workers is scarce. But few places have successfully implemented them.
In 2018, Oakland voters approved a tax of $3,000 to $6,000 on homes used fewer than 50 days per year. San Francisco voters passed a measure in 2022, but a judge later suspended it after landlords sued, arguing the tax violated the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause by effectively forcing them to rent out their property. That case is now under appeal.
Other efforts have failed at the ballot box. Voters in Crested Butte rejected a proposed $2,500 tax on homes that sit empty for more than six consecutive months. And last year, voters in South Lake Tahoe shot down a similar proposal to impose a $3,000 to $6,000 tax on homes sitting vacant for more than six months a year.
Even if Boulder voters approve such a measure, enforcing it could be complicated. City staff in the Utilities Department have been analyzing water usage data to identify homes that may be unoccupied.
The Boulder City Council is scheduled to discuss 2025 ballot measures at a study session on May 8.
Reguflation: the added cost of doing business costs caused by overly restrictive government regulations and overreach. Personal property rights are rights. Regulating the occupancy of homes for social issues is nothing short of evil.
You have a strained and dubious definition of evil. So why not just share your true opinion…which appears to be that rich people and corporations should be free to buy up and squat on homes, at the direct expense of those that might actually intend to live in these homes and/or extort the less-affluent public paying higher rental rates. That’s real evil, bud…not taxing these property predators.
If you own the property you are not squatting
How about those of us in the same situation – but who aren’t rich people or corporations? Since we purchased a relatively dilapidated little house in Boulder years ago we’ve been saving up enough to remodel it to make it livable for ourselves, but City fees and regulations make it more and more expensive to upgrade. And to rent it out legally we would need to spend many $1000s to meet the SmartRegs and inspections for rentals that we could never recover from rental income. So we’ll keep saving while it sits vacant…
I think this is a great idea, though I understand that enforcement may be difficult. In my neighborhood in north Boulder, in just two blocks there are several houses which I have never seen anyone in. I always wonder what people are doing with these vacant homes. It is such a waste to have them sitting empty
A waste to whom?
rich trolls, I guess.
How about to humans who could inhabit them in a housing crisis Chas?
Why do you care? Are you envious of those who can afford to (and choose to) not live in their house 365 days a year?
Seriously? Pushing that tired rhetoric about jealousy to thinly veil your “freedumb” and entitlement….gross.
I’m curious, why do we always use the term “housing shortage” rather than a “resident excess”?
Great, great point, but you know everyone who wants to live in Boulder MUST be accommodated. Forget that Longmont builds a hundred housing units a month at cheaper prices or that Dacono and Firestone are even cheaper than Longmont. “But I want to live in BOULDER!! Whaaa, whaaa, please help me!!”
Please, let’s not confuse that contrived curiosity for anything more than a strawman.
This caught my eye and led me down a rabbit hole. Learning today that vacancy taxation is a nuanced topic. One size fits all isn’t possible.
I found that it’s easy to inadvertently conflate different types and definitions of vacancy, and not all city’s vacancy taxes are the same in intent, scope, or execution. The recent article linked below is a legal analysis of some the many facets of this matter.
One of the most widely referenced implementations is San Francisco, which exempts single family homes, duplexes, and a few other situations.
Homeowners being forced to enter the rental market is the biggest fear for most of us. Take our homes out of the proposal and a good chunk of emotion departs the conversation. How to consider taxing vacant rental properties and undeveloped lots is another matter, but one that can be constructed in a way that preserves owner’s property rights while advancing certain social objectives.
Mandating reduced vacancy might be a part of improving housing availability in Boulder but chasing after the city’s estimate of 4,000 vacant homes is folly. It can never be a major contributor of new housing opportunities.
Economically this could easily become another form of regressive taxation that disproportionately harms those of lesser means. Folks with underused property who can’t afford to improve it or pay the new tax will be forced to sell. Who will be buying? And it’s likely folks who can afford it but choose not to will also be able to afford the new tax. Again, it’s far more nuanced than this. Proceed with caution.
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2024-09/03_Dong_CMT_Final.pdf
So on homes that already pay property tax, Boulder now wants to tax them further when they sit empty??? This supposedly would “encourage” homeowners to rent out their homes when they are not there. What if I don’t care to be a landlord? What if the vacant home is my decision to treat my legally obtained and paid for abode as I please? Another intrusion into privacy by an out-of-touch progressive Boulder Council.
I’m sorry, but Boulder is not a tax shelter for rich people and corporations…so let’s spare all these dizzying mental gymnastics. As neither should be entitled to land-squat on a home to enjoy the benefits of appreciating home value at the direct expense of somebody else who might actually live in it. In fact, framing this as a dubious assault on privacy merely highlights how desperately persecuted/victimized the wealthy always act. Because home hoarding is not some inalienable right either, so stop pretending this is some usurping of authority. It’s straight-up entitlement expecting to reaping all the benefits but pay none of the costs…which if you don’t like, are equally free to leave and/or move elsewhere. Right?
LONG OVERDUE. But what’s really amazing how fast all the trustafarians, out-of-touch geriatrics, self-important Boomers, and other “anonymous” commenters/shills show up here to cry out for the freedumb for corporations and rich people to exploit real estate in Boulder as speculative investment vehicle. Talk about an indefensive position…unless you’re delusional enough to push entitlement is even a remotely valid reason. Despicable!
You weaken your own arguments with slurs. Plenty of poor boomers even in Boulder. If you think the system is that easy to change (like boomers have special powers) just try it yourself. This capitalist system has just about run it’s course and it was centuries in the making. The politicians that expedited this crisis decades ago are long dead.
Irrespective of any legality issues, the math says this ‘wealth tax’ is an ineffective waste of administrative time. Assume $2M generated by 4,000 homes, that is an average of $500 per home, trivial compared to the property tax (also a wealth tax) they must be paying. Certainly not enough to change owner attitudes on whether or not to rent.
Assume that $2M goes to helping people rent in City of Boulder with say a $1,000 pcm subsidy, you help ~160 people who would pay less anyway in other parts of the county, and you help them compete against other less deserving (?) renters. How do we decide on who deserves the subsidy.
Housing 160 lower income people sounds like a great trade off to me. You obliterate relatively affordable housing and build extremely outsized replacement homes which creates negative impacts on the city, you should pay for that privilege accordingly. Property tax does not cover it.
I offer as an example of this problem the Odonata development at 3rd and Pearl. Ten townhouses were completed there in the fall of 2021, priced at $3.1 million and $3.3 million. I walk my dogs past this site nearly every night. As far as I can tell, only four of these homes have ever been occupied. Just three have owners with Boulder addresses.
I don’t know whether these units were purchased as investments, pieds-à-terre, or for some other purpose—but what’s clear is that this is not the kind of development Boulder needs. This land could have supported 20 to 30 homes for people who actually live, work, and go to school in Boulder.
It is the role of government to shape development through incentives and disincentives that serve the public interest and improve the city for its residents.
Love this idea. Housing is expensive because of supply and demand. If you want to reduce supply at no benefit to yourself or the community, then maybe you have the right to do it, but our community also has the right to tax you into the ground for that privilege.
Wow! So now we know from the comments who has second unused homes (or builds those homes) in Boulder and feels they should continue having unfettered privilege to exacerbate our housing crisis. No fees for me, thanks! Boulder is not supposed to be an exclusive playground for the wealthy. We need young families to be able to afford to live here, and our resident artists and our essential workers or this town will become even more like a ski resort town without the ski resort, an Aspen of the plains where the rich flock to who want the advantages of proximity to the mountains without actually being in the mountains. Go away.
I am livid that city council FINALLY decided that maybe this measure should go on the ballot in 2026! It should have been done last year! But no, city council decided that first the priorities should be to jack up their pay significantly (because community service seems to be a foreign concept, and they are all pretty low income after all), and have more say over how boards and commissions operate. The second hand embarrassment is strong every time I think about it. Voters prioritized affordable housing and homelessness, not piddling around with inconsequential processes which seems to be an obsession.
Also, why can’t City of Boulder simply limit the size of new homes like Boulder County is doing in unincorporated parts of the county? Why is that difficult to do? Couldn’t it also apply to new homes constructed on the ruins of demolished homes within city limits? There is good reason the county is trying to rein in this negative behavior and it should be more widely adopted. Time to step up with some clear-sighted solutions.
It’s a start – but doesn’t go nearly far enough. $2M for 4000 units comes out to a meager $500/unit. IMO the vacancy tax should equal the property tax rate. I’d also like to see this applied to vacant commercial properties. So many small businesses that have been in our community for ages are being forced out by greedy landlords like Tebo only for the space to sit vacant for years. Enough is enough.
$500/unit! That is waaay too low!
I know city council is interested in taxing vacant commercial buildings too. I don’t know why it takes them so incredibly long to start doing things that really matter.
Yup, for the privileged few can make a difference in town. Why not!!!!!
I thought all homes were taxed regardless. So homes that sit vacant for a period of the year don’t pay property taxes?
Your property taxes are paid vacant or occupied.
If you don’t pay your property taxes 3 years on a row, your property is sold to the highest bidder at auction by the county sheriff.
Monitoring water use won’t work … I am sure someone will develop an app that will turn on the water and lights intermittently to make it look
Like someone is living there.
They should tax the empty commercial buildings throughout Boulder. It is a disgrace. Tebo is a primary owner of so many vacant buildings. Lower the rent so they can be occupied by businesses who can’t otherwise afford it.