The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has voted to place a retail vacancy tax on the ballot next year. If it passes, it will add yet another layer of failed retail legislation on top of the old.

This isn’t the first time San Francisco leaders have made this mistake. In 2006, when the economy was booming, vacancy rates in neighborhood retail were less than 5%. Rents were increasing as overall property values were trading at all-time highs. Smaller, mom-and-pop shops struggled to compete with large chain stores like Starbucks, so they pressured local officials to create formula retail restrictions stating that if any store had more than 11 locations anywhere in the world, then they would have to go through a special public review process.

This process takes so long that it deters most chains from wanting to sign a lease. In 2008, the market crashed and retail vacancies increased. Since chain stores are typically the tenants for larger spaces, in a number of cases, these spaces still remain vacant today.

Meanwhile, retail is undergoing dramatic changes. Thanks to online competition and rising overall costs, many brick-and-mortar local enterprises are really struggling. The surrounding vacant retail spaces don’t help, since they discourage foot traffic near their stores.

City officials expanded formula retail restrictions in 2014, including any business with 11 stores or more, located anywhere in the world. Further restrictions included business services like insurance businesses, real estate firms, and shipping companies. On top of all of this, even as a small business owner, if you change the use of the space, your store can be in purgatory for 4-8 months while you wait to learn if the change will be accepted.

For the 2015-16 year, the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development estimated a citywide commercial storefront vacancy rate of about 5%. Today, the citywide average retail vacancy rate among neighborhood commercial districts is about 12%.

How can vacancy rates be so high in such a strong economy and a thriving city? It’s because of the city’s failed retail policies.

We need to revisit formula retail restrictions. Local officials should increase the overall number of stores operated by a business to determine if they should have to go through a public review process at all. If a store is international but has fewer than 11 stores in this country, it should not have to go through the approval process at all.

Next, the entire process to secure a permit for a formula retailer or a store seeking a change of use should not take more than 90 days. Limit the window for public objections to 30 days. If there are no objections, the business should be allowed to move forward immediately. If there are objections, then the process to get approved or denied should not take more than 90 days. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be accomplished.

Lastly, the mayor and the board need to listen - not only to local merchants, but to everyone involved in retail, including landlords and commercial brokers. They need to remember that a vacant store means less rent paid to landlords. In the long run, that will lower property values, creating blight and less revenue from property taxes.

Real estate brokers who specialize in these markets understand these impacts. We only make money when we lease property — therefore, we know the market better than anyone. Yet we are not invited to participate in the decision-making process.

City leaders do not know how many retail vacancies we have, and they pass retail legislation without considering its true effects.

Instead of agitating for a new tax, city leaders should be reviewing past legislation to determine why it’s not working. Things that don’t work need to be changed.

Hans Hansson is president, principal, and founding partner of Starboard Commercial Real Estate, the largest privately owned, locally based commercial real estate firm in San Francisco.