Mansion Tax Heads to Voters

Santa Fe voters in the Nov. 7 election will weigh in on three ballot questions to amend the city charter following approval by the City Council in a meeting that lasted more than eight hours Tuesday night and into the wee hours of Wednesday.

Of the eight measures councilors weighed, the governing body voted 8-1 in favor of a ballot proposal that would tax high-end homes sales and use the money for affordable housing. Members approved a question about lowering signature requirements for referenda and initiatives on a 5-4 vote, and also moved forward a measure to spell out public involvement and resources for future charter commissions.

The tax proposal—which would result in a 3% tax on the portion of any home sales over $1 million to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund—was the only measure about which councilors invited public comment at the meeting. Those who testified acknowledged the question is contentious, but the vast majority of speakers said they support the idea and expect voters will, too.

The election will also feature four City Council seats, and several candidates testified to advocate for the measure, including District 1 candidate Geno Zamora, who noted his law firm has experienced trouble recruiting lawyers due to rising costs of housing in the city.

“If doctors and lawyers can’t afford to live in Santa Fe, how can our service workers?” Zamora asked before addressing his former high school classmate District 3 Councilor Christopher Rivera. “How many of our classmates couldn’t afford to live in Santa Fe? I’m tired of our greatest export being the graduates of our high schools.”

Pilar Faulkner, a member of the city Planning Commission who is seeking a District 3 seat, told councilors her son had recently moved to Rio Rancho and also cited the exodus of young people from the city among her reasons for backing the tax.

“As a mom, I personally have had to see my son leave the town he loves because he can’t afford to live here,” she said, adding later that voters on the campaign trail have raised the issue. “There has been not one person who is not in support of this excise tax and, in fact, I have been asked about the excise tax more than just about any other issue…I am not a big fan of taxes being where we go to solve all of our problems—generally I’m not—but in this case this is something the people need to be allowed to vote on.”

Many called the tax a first step, with some even proposing a percentage higher than 3% and most citing the need for more than just the one-time fee to help solve Santa Fe’s growing housing unaffordability.

Opponents, including the Santa Fe Association of Realtors, voiced concerns about potential legal repercussions and negative impacts on the housing market. District 3 Councilor Lee Garcia cast the sole vote against the measure, uttering a quick “sorry” after he voted no.

“Ultimately, this will go to the voters…it’s right that it does,” he said later.

Councilors were more divided about other proposed measures to amend the city charter, including one that would have polled voters on language to establish procedural rules for public officials acting in a quasi-judicial role, which they rejected on a 5-4 vote.

District 4 Councilor Jamie Cassutt said she wasn’t in favor of placing that question on the ballot due to confusing language with too much opportunity for interpretation on what terminology means from voters.

“We can’t deliver on what we don’t know what it is,” Cassutt says. “If my voters were to ask what this is, I would not be able to tell them.”

While she voted against the ballot measure along with councilors Amanda Chavez, Signe Lindell and Mayor Alan Webber, Cassutt said the city’s land use process need to be reviewed in the future.

Every 10 years, the city code requires a charter review. The city convened a Charter Review Commission toward the end of 2022 that worked with relatively little public input and city resources. The commission’s report ultimately recommended the council consider six amendments on the upcoming election ballot and Councilor Michael Garcia rushed to have the city attorney’s office draft language that would move them toward voters.

But most of those measures failed to gain traction, with councilors voting down or indefinitely postponing questions to change the roles and powers of the mayor and council; add language to specify operations for government finances; and create a new Human Rights Commission and Office of Equity and Inclusion. They also rejected an idea raised in a previous charter review process that would have established an Office of Inspector General.

The approved measures include a question on reducing the signature requirements for referenda and initiatives from 33.3% to 15% and one that would codify future charter commissions’ appointment, terms and functions.

Councilors who voted against the measures cited a need for more development of the proposals. Many of the recommendations can be implemented in the form of an ordinance without voter approval, noted Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth, District 2.

“To honor the work of the commission, the best thing we could do is take the time necessary to take these ideas, many of them very important, and really develop them further and get them to a place where they’re ready for voters,” she said. “We need to roll up our sleeves and do the policy work.”

Aug. 29 is the final deadline for the city to deliver ballot language to the county clerk for the contest; early voting begins Oct. 10.