By Kate Callen / June 27, 2025
In 2022, when San Diego Councilmembers Joe La Cava and Sean Elo-Rivera pushed for Measure B to levy trash fees on single-family homes, they sought to assure the public that all would be well.
They said the new fees would be an affordable $23 to $29 a month. They said this wasn’t a scheme to raise money for a cash-strapped city because the real aims were “responsible governance, local innovation, and world-class service.” They promised that the public would be fully engaged in every step of the process.
That was all false. Fees will be nearly twice the estimates, and they will get higher. The public was shut out of the process – and no, ushering people into conference rooms to look at table-top exhibits of tiny trash bins doesn’t count as “community engagement.”
And when they voted in the fees June 9 at a meeting packed with angry constituents, weary councilmembers finally spoke the truth: They felt they had to do this because they were desperate for money.
On June 24, just before the Council voted 7-2 to fold the trash fees into county property taxes, La Cava and Elo-Rivera again sought to assure the public that all will be well.
They said the City did everything it could to keep trash fees low. They said no one will lose their homes because they can’t pay increased property tax bills. And they insisted that new trash fees can’t be billed directly every month like other utility bills because, said La Cava, “it’s apples and oranges.”
So here’s the question: Why would anyone ever believe anything La Cava and Elo-Rivera say to the public?
Trust doesn’t come with a refill. After years of disastrous deals and broken promises, most elected officials at City Hall have lost all credibility. Their words have no value. Their public statements aren’t even worth reporting.
Three people who spoke at the July 24 Council meeting still have their integrity. Two are attorneys pursuing a public interest lawsuit challenging the trash fees. The third is a councilmember who voted against fee collection through property taxes. Here is what they had to say.
Mike Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson: I get that there’s an $80 million hole in the budget. But you’re filling it with $140 million. You’re trying to get folks to believe that somehow, you’re not just going to solve the budget problem, you’re going to have an unbelievable set of services. You’re not doing that in any other area. You’re not doing that to pay the flood victims or [for] streets and sidewalks.
Councilmember La Cava, it would be really nice if you would pay attention. When the judge looks at this, the judge is going to say, “How come you’re charging $140 million to plug an $80 million hole in the budget?
Maria Severson, Aguirre & Severson: The costs of services for collection in FY2023 was $63 million. In 2024, it was $74 million. It went down in 2025 to $70 million. And yet, supersized charges are going to be collected, and this is before you provide services. Under the [state] Constitution, you cannot do that. We have filed a challenge, and we will be amending our complaint because we have had a sea of your constituents who oppose this.
The fees are going to start July 1. And there’s a portal that’s going to start July 15. And then in October, there are going to be bins. And everyone’s going to get the same bins. But then you can return it for a rebate. That is so confusing and so wrong.
Councilmember Raul Campillo: I have significant concerns about the impact this collection method could have on low-income property owners, particularly seniors and homeowners on fixed incomes. Adding this fee to the property bill could create real hardship. There is a sense that this is more efficient and has a higher compliance rate. While that is appealing as a mechanism, efficiency alone cannot justify a system that many people feel is not the way to go forward. So I’ll be standing with my constituents who have expressed that they do not want this.
The Rag will publish regular updates on Aguirre & Severson’s public interest lawsuit. Details were outlined in a June 23 Rag post.
Thank you for your work.
It’s just sad that Elo-Rivera, who’s supposed to represent everyone equally, wants to play class warfare, and declare everyone deserves a place to live, while degrading the single family home neighborhoods, by believing 500 sq ft ADU’s are the way to be inclusive in a neighborhood, and those who resist are to be damned. WTF?
Thank you Kate Callen, once again, for an excellent article reporting on the City’s deceptive trash collection fees and those who are rising up to fight them!
“And then in October, there are going to be bins. And everyone’s going to get the same bins. But then you can return it[them] for a rebate.”
This is obviously a grossly and shamefully inefficient approach, but it is a conscious choice with an ulterior motive and purpose: netting greater fees for large containers, by counting on people to skip the cumbersome process of returning large bins in exchange for less expensive smaller ones, and by counting on many people to not know they can do so.
Thank you Kate Callan for the excellent summary/synopsis.
What the heck will the city do with thousands of 1 year-old large trash bins that will be traded in for smaller sizes to bring the high price down. Let me guess, they will be either thrown away, held for future use or “refurbished”. In any case, the cost will be added to the total cost that “needs” to be “recovered” by trash fees. Does anyone really think this is logical or prudent?
Paul and Honesty, I agree with your posts completely! Just more idiocy from our ignorant city council.
In David Garrick’s article on June 25th, he not only got the vote count wrong (he said 7 Yay -2 Nay; when it actually was 6 Yay – 2 Nay) but Garrick actually published La Cava’s nonsensical comment:
“Some critics suggested the city use water or sewer bills instead of property
taxes. LaCava said that wouldn’t work because renters pay water and sewer
bills, but only property owners pay trash bills.”
First off, La Cava knows better because he has been a property owner. Both Water/Sewer and Property Tax bills aren’t sent to a parcel, they are sent to a mailing address. So, if a tenant had agreed to pay for Water, they could easily have the bill sent to the property address where the tenant resides. But a property tax bill? If the trash fee was to be paid by the tenant, then the landlord would have to separately bill the tenant for the trash charge and pay the whole tax bill. This actually puts a burden on the landlord that will not be able to charge the city like the county does by charging 25 cents per parcel to bill property owners for the trash fee.
The city needs to stop it’s hiring addiction, fire middle and upper management to get our deficit cured and stop creating these schemes that just inflict pain on San Diegans. Meanwhile, they will be getting another raise come September.
Lisa, exactly! “The city needs to stop it’s hiring addiction, fire middle and upper management to get our deficit cured and stop creating these schemes that just inflict pain on San Diegans. Meanwhile, they will be getting another raise come September.”
That’s an idiotic explanation. The resident is ultimately going to be paying trash AND water, regardless of who receives the bill.
Landlords will roll their utility costs into the rent, just as they do HOA fees.
I handle my mom’s bills, and the water and trash is on the same bill in her town.
Excellent points by Kate and of all contributors. It’s too bad the voters continue to re-elect Mayors and Council Reps, who have consistently made San Diego more expensive to live in, than it was last year, not by COL, but by down right stupid money management, plots and schemes behind closed doors. Just remember these same people when you see their name on the political ladder climbing and don’t vote for them for anything else, not even dog catcher.
Pat S, I agree with your every word! We need to change the locks at city hall and save our city. It starts with true public service candidates in 2026. If we can elect 3 of the four challengers in the even-numbered council district, who put their communities first, we could change turn the destructive direction of this city.
All the best to those who have been against the trash fees and the homeowners and attorneys who have stepped up to the plate.
Too many San Diego politicians talking from two sides of their mouths.
I hope and pray that the judge votes in our favor.
Keep up the good work, and all the best!
P.S.
Looking forward to a favorable outcome