Does James Khatami Really Live Here?

It turns out one Nevada City Planning Commissioner and City Council candidate may have a residency problem.

And not the ordinary “Bay Area transplant discovers A to Z Supply and suddenly wants chickens” kind of problem. A potentially legal one. 

Just Look at the Records

Public records paint a remarkably confusing picture about where Planning Commissioner James Khatami, who is running for city council, actually lives.

The deed history for the Khatamis’ San Francisco property on Bryant Street shows ownership dating back decades. Years later, the couple also acquired property on American Hill in Nevada City. On its face, that’s not unusual. Plenty of people own second homes in the mountains.

What is unusual is how the story plays out during Khatami’s campaign for city council.

Property tax records for the 2025–26 tax year show an active California Homeowners’ Exemption on the couple’s San Francisco residence — not on the Nevada County property. The San Francisco assessment roll reflects the standard $7,000 homeowners’ exemption reduction applied to the taxable value of the San Francisco home.

Meanwhile, a Nevada County Assessor inquiry dated April 24, 2026 shows the Nevada City property carrying no homeowners’ exemption while retaining a San Francisco mailing address for the owners. 

That matters because California’s Homeowners’ Exemption is not supposed to be a casual paperwork preference. Under California law, the exemption is generally reserved for a taxpayer’s principal residence. The claimant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the home receiving the exemption is their primary place of residence.

In plain English: California generally allows one principal residence — not a “city house,” a “mountain house,” and a “whatever-feels-convenient-during-election-season house.” Or in plainer English, it seems that Khatami primarily resides in San Francisco, but is running for office in Nevada City. 

Draft legal materials circulating among Nevada City residents outline the conflict directly, arguing that the San Francisco homeowners’ exemption and Nevada City residency declaration appear inconsistent with one another.

The filings specifically note:

• an active San Francisco homeowners’ exemption,

• a San Francisco mailing address,

• and Nevada City nomination papers filed under penalty of perjury claiming Nevada City residency.

To be clear: a homeowners’ exemption alone does not automatically decide legal residency. Courts and election officials can also consider:

• voter registration,

• vehicle registration,

• mailing addresses,

• utility usage,

• tax documents,

• physical presence,

• and overall intent.

But the homeowners’ exemption is not meaningless either. It is one of the clearest government-record indicators of claimed domicile because it involves an affirmative declaration regarding principal residence.

And right now, the multiple public records point toward San Francisco.

The “Proof of Life” Campaign

Then there’s the campaign itself.

Nevada City residents tend to know each other. They see each other at SPD Market, BriarPatch, Onyx Theater films, at the Farmer’s Market, and in endless Facebook arguments about parking, tourists, dogs, e-bikes, leaf blowers, and whether someone’s Victorian paint palette is historically oppressive. 

Which makes Khatami’s sudden digital appearance feel… odd.

The “Nevada City Peeps” Facebook group alone has more than 36,000 members and functions as everything from an emergency broadcast system to a public town square to a live-action sociology experiment.

Yet Jim Khatami’s Facebook profile appears to have materialized no earlier than January 2026 — precisely when his campaign began. The page contains only a small cluster of staged-looking posts and carefully selected photos, many uploaded on just two dates, portraying the candidate walking local trails and posing in curated Nevada City lifestyle imagery.

It doesn’t feel organic.

It feels like someone handed a consultant a checklist titled:

• Buy fleece vest

• Acquire trail dog photo

• Mention “community” repeatedly

• Learn difference between Nevada City and Nevada County

• Avoid eye contact with locals who ask follow-up questions

The entire presentation has the energy of a tech executive trying to speedrun “small-town authenticity” in under 30 days.

At times it resembles a political remake of Coming to America — except instead of an African prince pretending to work at McDowell’s, it’s a San Francisco homeowner discovering kombucha and pretending Broad Street is his natural habitat.

Follow the Money

Campaign finance records show a donor network heavily overlapping with Nevada City’s historic-preservation political movement and Measure W supporters.

Among the contributors listed is Barbara Larsen.

Measure W, rejected by voters in 2022, would have dramatically expanded Nevada City’s Historic Neighborhood District protections into additional residential areas surrounding downtown.

Supporters framed the initiative as preservation of neighborhood character and historic integrity.

Critics saw something else:

• more regulatory layers,

• stricter architectural oversight,

• reduced housing flexibility,

• and a practical blockade against additional affordable housing in much of town.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

The very same preservation-driven politics many economists blame for crushing housing affordability in San Francisco are now being imported into Nevada City by a candidate whose own primary residence records appear tied to San Francisco itself.

San Francisco spent decades layering historic controls, zoning restrictions, environmental review procedures, discretionary approvals, and anti-density neighborhood protections on top of one another.

The result?

• catastrophic housing costs,

• reduced housing supply,

• displacement of working families,

• and a city increasingly affordable only to the wealthy.

Now Nevada City risks importing the same philosophy one artisan ordinance at a time.

At some point “protecting neighborhood character” starts sounding less like stewardship and more like a polite progressive synonym for:

“No new neighbors.”

The Curious Form 700

There’s another odd detail buried in the public disclosures.

James Khatami’s Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests — filed for his Nevada City Council candidacy — reports “None” under reportable investments, business entities, and real property schedules.

Yet public property records clearly show ownership interests connected to the Nevada City and San Francisco properties discussed elsewhere in the residency controversy.

By contrast, other Nevada City candidates filed substantially more detailed disclosures regarding income, assets, and financial interests. 

A Residency Question That Raises More Questions

None of this means Khatami is automatically disqualified. That determination belongs to election officials or ultimately the courts if challenged formally.

But voters are entitled to ask obvious questions:

• Where does James Khatami actually live most of the time?

• Why was the homeowners’ exemption still active in San Francisco during the same election cycle?

• Why does the Nevada County property lack the exemption if it is truly the family’s principal residence?

• Why does the public mailing address remain in San Francisco?

• And why does the campaign feel less like a longtime local running for office and more like a LinkedIn relocation announcement with yard signs?

Those are fair questions.

Especially in a town where actual locals can tell the difference between someone who truly lives here and someone who just discovered Nevada City through a wine weekend and a Redfin alert.

Because governing a small town requires more than scenic trail photos and carefully curated campaign branding.

It requires actually belonging to the community you want to govern.