Should San Francisco tax landlords with empty storefronts in the city’s beloved shopping districts?

That’s a question heading to voters on the March ballot.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Thursday to put the measure in front of voters. Since it was a special meeting before the Thanksgiving break, only eight supervisors were able to attend — but it was still enough to place the tax on the ballot.

The measure needs a two-thirds vote for it to become law.

“We’ve been grappling with the issue for years and ... it seems like nothing has been all that effective,” said Board of Supervisors President Norman Yee at the hearing, explaining his support for the tax.

Empty storefronts are pervasive in San Francisco, and supporters of the tax hope it will help address the issue. While many blame the rise of online shopping for dwindling foot traffic, a Chronicle investigation into the shuttered sites showed the reasons extend beyond what has been called the Amazon effect. Many landlords and small businesses blame the retail sector’s woes on San Francisco’s arduous permit processes, high rents and soaring cost of doing business.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, author of the proposal, said the measure is designed to tax “bad actor” landlords who intentionally keep their spaces vacant while they hold out for higher rent. But several small business owners and landlords say a new tax would add yet another hurdle to doing business in the city — and won’t do much to address vacancies.

If the tax measure passes, landlords whose storefronts are empty for more than 182 days at a time will be charged a fee based on the length of their ground-floor storefront — and how long it has been empty. The tax would start at $250 per linear foot in year one, rise to $500 in year two and then double to $1,000 for each year after that.

It would apply only to the city’s 30 or so neighborhood commercial corridors, including Union Street, West Portal and Haight Street. The tax would not be levied until 2021.

Landlords would qualify for exemptions for various reasons, such as if they have been hurt by a disaster or if they apply for permits to make improvements to the property.

The city controller estimates that the tax will raise between $300,000 and $5 million annually, which will go into the newly created Small Business Assistance Fund.

But Peskin said the goal of the tax is not to collect revenue. Instead, he hopes it will spur landlords to act faster in filling their vacancies.

Clinton Textor, a local real estate investor and broker who owns or leases seven properties in San Francisco — two of which are empty — largely blames the city for the vacancies in the first place. Textor said he’s been working with the city for months to get construction permits to fix up his spaces so a tenant can move into his Valencia Street storefront, which has been vacant for several years. He has owned the site for only about a year.

While he likely wouldn’t be subject to the tax since it exempts those who have permits pending with the city, he still said the idea is “misguided.”

“You can’t make us more motivated to fill that space than we already are,” he previously told The Chronicle.

Ben Bleiman, co-owner of Tonic Nightlife Group, operator of three bars — Tonic, Teeth and Soda Popinski’s — spoke in support of the tax at the hearing, but he cautioned that the problems facing small businesses are many and complex. “The incentives right now are against us,” said Bleiman, explaining that small businesses are being hammered as they compete with large companies.

He said he looks forward to working with the board to deal with the other challenges tenants face.

“What is more progressive than supporting small businesses over big businesses?” he said.

Trisha Thadani is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: tthadani@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @TrishaThadani