By Kate Callen / June 23, 2025
If you are furious because City Hall intends to get out of the fiscal mess it created by charging you unlawful trash fees, Mike Aguirre wants your help.
Aguirre is the lead attorney on a lawsuit seeking to block the trash fees on state constitutional grounds. He and co-counsel Maria Severson outlined the key legal issues to a packed forum on June 21 at the Mission Hills Library.
The 70 people who attended expected to be asked for donations. But Aguirre and Severson weren’t there for money. They wanted volunteers.
“To the extent you want to help us,” Aguirre said, “I want to use the Public Records Act to dig into the public records that are available to build a mountain of evidence to present to the judge. … We can’t take [the city] at their word. We need to find out all the particulars.”
Like the pension shakedown and the 101 Ash heist, the trash fee swindle has become another Enron-by-the-sea civic degradation. But what if this one turns out differently? What if, unlike before, the City’s lies and deceptions are clearly documented and dragged out into full public view?
Aguirre and Severson walked the audience through their case that the trash fees violate California’s Proposition 218, which limits the ability of local governments to impose taxes. “There are three reasons under the law that this tax increase should not go forward,” said Aguirre.
First, the City can only charge for the actual costs of trash collection, which still haven’t been determined. Second, the City cannot use trash collection fees to pay for anything else – like, say, storm drain clearing or street repair. Third, the collection of trash fees must be fair; people should only pay for services they need.
But the City’s campaign for the new fees was never about fairness, covering real costs, or actual need. It was all about financial desperation.
After Measure B passed narrowly on a pledge of low monthly fees, Severson said, “the City hired a very expensive expert to do a study that we believe was ‘results-driven’: ‘We need these numbers, we’ve got to somehow reverse-engineer the numbers to get what we need.’”
The City’s other craven (and likely illegal) maneuvers included tampering with the protest vote by burying it inside a mailer – “the more your rights are taken away, the smaller the type gets,” said Severson – charging for services before they are delivered, and misleading the public with extravagant promises.
“They were like Oprah,” said Severson. “You get a new can! And you get a new can!”
The reverse-engineering and PR experts weren’t cheap. HDR Engineering Inc. conducted the trash fee study for a whopping $4.5 million. Cook + Schmid received a full $1 million for marketing and outreach. (Principals of both firms will likely be deposed for the lawsuit.)
So an effort to replenish city coffers began by shelling out $5.5 million. For a local government that’s teetering on bankruptcy, San Diego sure likes to spend money.
On Tuesday, June 25, Aguirre and Severson will go to court to ask for an expedited schedule. “We have the public records and the staff reports,” Aguirre said. “We know how they came up with the numbers. We know how they sold it to you.”
Instead of assigning the case to one of the City Attorney’s 350 staff lawyers, the City is spending even more money that it doesn’t have by hiring JarvisFay LLP, a costly Oakland firm that defends local governments in Prop 218 cases.
Aguirre and Severson will hold a meeting for volunteers at their downtown offices. Once trained, citizen researchers can work at home and deliver their findings through a drop box access.
This will involve a lot more work that signing a form and mailing it off in a stamped envelope. But it will be much more satisfying. And it could have a far greater impact.
“Aguirre and Severson will hold a meeting for volunteers at their downtown offices.” What is the process to volunteer? When is the meeting?
Debbie, thanks for asking, I’ll update the story as soon as I have more information.
Anyone who’s interested in volunteering to help with the lawsuit should visit the Contact page for Aguirre and Severson at:
https://www.amslawyers.com/contact/
Fill in your name and email address. Type “Trash Opposition” in the box that asks for a description of your legal issue. Click the box that says “I Have Read The Disclaimer” (it’s a required field). Then click the “Send Message” button.
One comment that sticks to my mind is what Council member Campillo said with regards to the interpretation that no casting a vote by any of the eligible is to be counted as a YES vote, I am yet to hear of any other process where this is accepted. Why not question the validity of this?
Done! Thanks for the info, Kate. It was easy to fill in the volunteer form, and I look forward to helping out and working together with other citizens to support the legal time. Special thanks to Mike Aguirre, Maria Severson, and the community members who worked with them to launch this effort.
A correction (and an especially embarrassing one for a writer who considers herself a feminist): Aguirre is not “the lead attorney” here. This public interest case was brought by the firm Aguirre & Severson, and Aguirre and Severson are working jointly on it.
I have to disagree with this effort. The People’s Ordinance has for decades unfairly charged some and not others for trash collection. And the plans to rectify this inequity have also been discussed for years. The time has come, and it is necessary to keep the City financially viable. The problem has been and continues to be the pensions. While they never should have happened, they did and now we must pay. Unless Aguirre can find some way to reverse them.
What?! The fairness myth continues.
In San Diego, single-family homeowners will soon be charged a separate fee for trash pickup, rather than it being fully covered by property taxes. While property taxes contribute to the city’s general fund, which then supports various services including trash collection, there’s no dedicated line item in property taxes specifically for trash services.
It’s a tax. Added on top now, of my previous trash paying property tax. Which is not based on services provided, or cost, but an ambiguous figure crafted by a $5 mil consultant.
Private companies are the base of San Diego’s waste collection system, hauling about 70% of the city’s trash. City crews, on the other hand, only account for about 30% of the waste collected. While the city has not done enough to keep the fees it charges to these companies at pace with inflation and city costs, as well as ensure the haulers are doing their part to help bring the city closer to its recycling goals.
Who was not charged for trash collection?
Right! Homeowners are already paying some of the highest property taxes in the nation, which would be more than enough if local government spent our money wisely.
This effort is a very worthy cause. Pensions aren’t the problem. Politicians are the problem. Overspending on useless causes are the problem. Don’t be ignorant.
My concern so far as the trash fee is not only the fact that we have to pay for something we already pay for (a press release from the city acknowledged this).
It is the manner in which this was done, one only has to read the U/T editorials (plural) to see the intention behind how this was presented, from the initial rate (around $30) to the revised rate (50ish?), to the “mea culpa” from city staffer, to the placement of the form to be filled out in case you opposed the fee (last page of a six page document that resembled junk mail) and then the fact that not casting a vote counted as a YES vote! Where in hearth is this a valid, honest, democratic, valid process?
The city has made decisions that have us in a bind, their solution? double parking rates downtown, charge for parking where it is free etc etc. And I ask, are WE still paying thousands of dollars a month for an occupied building on Ash street, the same one that Gloria supported when a council member? How much longer are WE to carry this load? Can it be sold for what is owed and move on? Or is that too much to ask?
Done. Thank you for doing this.
my concern is that we locals are paying for the insensitive tourists on a vacation from their reponsibilties…
truth
This whole trash fee ordinance is illegal.
Back when the ballot was voted, all registered voters could vote. They sent the voting envelope to homeowners only, why? The ballot said the trash fee wouldn’t be more than $29, and now they change that because they made a mistake? And only one signature per APN could vote to oppose the trash fee. The envelope the City sent had no indication that it was for voting on the trash fee, so a lot of people probably threw it away. And no response counts as a “yes”, seriously? Is this legal? And why charge for a 95 gallon bin if you only use 35 gallon for each bin? How is that fair? And why add it to the property tax bill? We could go on and on listing all the incoherencies on this trash fee, let’s hope it gets removed.
My family has grown up & left me so now I live alone. I keep my trash barrel & greens barrel inside my garage until I put them both out 1x per month. I declined a blue barrel because I have very little to recycle. I don’t use the little garbage can either.
I like the privacy of having the barrels inside the garage but 3 65 gallon barrels would take up too much space.
I do not trust the city’s vote counting & am disgusted with the unnecessary fees added to my county homeowners annual tax bill.
I’m positive one added years ago “by vote” in Linda Vista is fraudulent & should be eliminated!
Our homeowners taxes rise every year & beside that, new homebuyers are paying exorbitantly
higher taxes which should keep city/county governments afloat.
One last thing: The city/county governments were expecting seniors to sell their homes & rush to senior complexes, creating housing supply & higher tax bases for those sold homes.
Instead, seniors have decided to age in place on their fixed incomes. This was a classic case of government counting its chickens before they were hatched!
When they voted for the fee that is double what the ballot said, council members voting yes said it’s about the money. They need the money. If they have to scrape it off just some of the citizens, fine. They need the money.
Anybody who isn’t locked into costly city services and insists this is fair should send the city $300 a year, like the excess being scraped off people who live in houses.
That would be fair.
They take my money, they get sabotage with it. Contaminate the green and blue cans. Break them. Steal from the city any way you can – they are stealing from you, in an expensive sham meant to look democratic and lawful. Take my money, get my fury.
There should have been an Ex Parte hearing at 8:30 am today (6/25), but it was cancelled (“vacated”), Apparently, the original judicial officer, Loren Freestone, felt he could not be impartial.
The case info is currently as follows:
Civil Case 25CU025589C
Brown vs Lacava
For judicial review under Judge GREGORY W. POLLACK
The original hearing schedule was posted as follows:
Hearing Date: 6/25/2025 08:30 AM
Judges: Central, C-64; FREESTONE, LOREN;
Department: C-64
Cancellation Reason: Vacated
Judge Loren, under Cal Code of Civil Procedure CCP 170.1(a)(6)(A) feels he cannot be impartial, so Judge Pollack will preside when hearings are rescheduled.
For the record, 170.1 (a) states ” A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true: 6)(A) For any reason:
(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.
(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.
(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
https://odyroa.sdcourt.ca.gov/previewdocument/CfDJ8A0HVAQHjNVKlBuYwQCOiU8oWoKMNSaxJPXYoNzyrvzwAAc02ZeEV7_kWbrvylLh4eIknw31tCBiKetQHacD0raqz5cVnRTrsjy6U2Yqq1uc06j3hoLKhXYSOT-dfni4NZ7C3zuSop1Nj-dQmrwRZ4s
This case will go on for years, while the City takes our money for trash. Like previous cases the City ultimately lost (assessment districts), we’ll get some kind of payback on the money we pay for years, but we won’t get interest, or even all of what we paid. Buckle up.
We will prevail, What the city is not legal.
I question how is this legal to add this fee on top of the yearly 2% property tax limits when the city was recouping the money to begin with through property taxes. Seems like a prop 13 violation.
The County could care less about how we are treated by the city, each is out for their own selves and damned be us (the taxpayers, their employers). The county cries about their finances and they mention a A TRIP TO VIENNA AT OUR EXPENSE? I wonder what world elected officials live in?
Trash pick-up service revenue, has come from the property owners of single family homes and has gone into the City’s General Fund for years. This new bright idea will have them paying for the same service twice. If there are multiple units on the lot, they have to contract with an outside company.
As for City employee pensions… the City does not pay into Social Security retirement Account. By law a company either has to pay into Social Security, or finance their own private retirement employe funds. Several years ago, the voters took the City employees out of Federal Social Security Retirement account, and the City established the private retirement account. City Employees have the same percentage deducted on their payroll checks that go into the City’s Retirement Account, as the current Federal Social Security deduction. I have no clue why the voters yanked the City employees out of the Federal Social Security Retirement Plan, and the City had no alternative but to establish their own Retirement Plan. My guess is a smooth talking politician, smiled and told them it was a great idea and they fell for it. Voters pay attention and think outside the box when the smooth operator snake oil talker is trying to get you to vote on anything and everything they want. Think it thru and vote for the most qualified candidate running.
Where has the property taxes of multifamily homes/condos/apartments gone? These people have been paying private haulers. Why is it fair for them to pay twice?
I’m against replacing all bins. This property tax increase is too high. Replacing all the bins is unnecessary, and the cost of recycling 1,000’s of bins will be high. How many homes are affected by this? We’re retired, on a fixed income, we don’t want or need this.
Fully support the legal battle against the trash fee. I also feel my property taxes are very high and they easily cover my trash pick-up cost and everything else it covers (I am a single family homeowner). I also feel “we” were subjected to a misleading ad campaign trying to justify all the great things we would receive if we pass this repeal in 2022.
Might I also suggest we work to put on the ballot a repeal of the 2022 single family exemption repeal. Now that we know the ads were false and that the city council just wanted a new revenue stream we should be able to repeal the bad ballot initiative that saddled us with this new trash fee. Like someone else indicated we were not given a proper chance to “oppose” the fee as provided in the letter – it is all fraud.
Aside from the deceit, lies and the bait-and-switch this process has shown us, I am still trying to understand how is it that votes that are NOT cast, automatically COUNT AS YES VOTES? Yes, that was the case. I have taken part in many, many elections, from class president to union reps to LL board president among others but NEVER before was i told ‘those that don’t vote will automatically count as a yes vote” Is there any grounds to contest the process based on the above?
The city claimed that it was a “protest” not a real vote. A real vote had already been taken. What homeowner in his right mind would vote to increase fees? You can safely & probably legally assume that number would be zero.
Have you noticed how the council has been trying to pit renters against homeowners. If a landlord has to suffer increased taxes/fees, you can bet he will pass them along to his renters.
Looks like I missed the boat as I so wished to join the list of plaintiff on this fight for justice! I live in district 4, back in Feb. when I wrote a long letter to our Councilman Henry Foster, I wish I knew you guys already existed so I didn’t have to fight along. This city government has a long history of deep corruption and strong reluctance to any kind of reform – we the like-minded citizens should join forces and unite all the wisdom we can get to win this long fight against them.
My letter to our councilmember on this matter fell on deaf ears. I would like to share my perspective from some part of that letter below, as my personal two cents to the cause:
“… Remember, the 2022 measure B barely passed by less than a percentage point. If all those city officials did in 2022 was try everything to mislead and sway the vote, I demand that we REPEAL Measure B first and then re-vote on the same measure with a couple of addenda below. Let’s see if voters are still in favor now that we have seen what these city officials are trying to pull. And this time, we should add two additional requirements on the new ballot, to prevent the same trick they have been trying to pull again: (a) A SUNSET CLAUSE – the council must review and re-approve the continuity of this levy or any rate change after a certain amount of time, such as once every 5 years. And (b) Provide an ACCURATE & TRANSPARENT FEE study BEFORE each vote on continuity or renewal by city council. The measure shall automatically RESCIND ITSELF should any dishonest move by the city officials such as BAIT AND SWITCH be found after each vote on continuity or renewal.
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ON A MEASURE WITHOUT A SUNSET CLAUSE
I have owned my single-family home since 2013 as a legal immigrant (green card holder) and paid my property tax every year as a law-abiding resident. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to vote on the 2022 Ballot because back then I was still in a long waiting line for citizenship. The UNJUST & UNFAIR part is that, there’s NO Sunset Clause on such a measure which means once the measure passes, it would levy ALL the single-family homeowners IN PERPETUITY. For any measure that will have a MAJOR FINANCIAL IMPACT on Non-Citizen residents FOREVER, wouldn’t you think that these legal non-citizens should also have a voice on the measure? Here in San Diego, there were hundreds of thousands of homeowners who were in the same status as I was who didn’t have a say about Measure B! It has pained me a great deal to see OTHER people decide on something that would severely affect MY finances forever. And please let me remind you once again that Measure B barely passed with less than 4,000 votes against the no votes. I can confidently say, if ALL the non-citizen homeowners also had a say on the ballot, this poorly written measure might very well FAIL! Once again, I strongly suggest that we repeal this poorly written measure first and this time allow ALL stakeholders (BOTH Citizens and Non-Citizens who own a home regardless of single-family homes or multi-family units) to vote on a Revised Measure (see my aforementioned proposal) again, to poll the true opinion of the complete representation of all stakeholders. ”
Your feedback are welcome.
All because of them not being able to budget and spend properly on necessary needs they rip off their citizens for all kinds of taxes and fees our citizens are broke because of this now they will steal the homes if you can’t pay this is wrong
If our greedy city government is somewhat patient & refrains from getting into further debt, their problem with getting 275 million relief will be solved. When homeowners sell their homes for currently spectacularly high prices, these sold homes will be assessed much higher & the new tax rates will be spectacularly high as well. This is happening around us now. I have witnessed several instances such as this.
Kudos to the residents who decided to fight this tax.
I’m ashamed of our city trying to cheat residents because they are unable to manage a budget effectively. Let’s cut their hopes for a future political career short, very short.
How do I join the class action suit ?