By Kate Callen / June 13, 2025
This week’s San Diego City Council 6-3 vote approving trash fees capped another hours-long session before another furious overflow crowd. It’s no wonder the Councilmembers seemed exhausted. They are caught between their irate constituents and an autocratic mayor who scorns their constituents.
The six “Yes” voters looked like patients in a dentist’s waiting room. They have no viable solution to the budget crisis and no prospects for future elected office. They must serve out the rest of their Council terms in a kind of political purgatory.
Here are random observations of a weary Council that must now prepare for another contentious hearing when they consider Bonus ADU reform on Monday, June 16:
Going Through The Motions: The trash fees were rammed through for one reason only: The City is so financially destitute that it will dig money out of any crevice. No Council member could make that case with real enthusiasm. So they put in a token effort. Stephen Whitburn thanked some people and quickly voted “Yes.” Vivian Moreno had nothing to say. Even Henry Foster III, who ultimately voted “No,” seemed disoriented.
Elo-Rivera Fulminates: One of the “Yes” voters brought firepower, but not about the city’s plight. Instead, Sean Elo-Rivera unleashed a diatribe about the presence of the National Guard in Los Angeles. When an audience member yelled, “That’s not city business,” Elo-Rivera pitched a fit: “I don’t care if you don’t like what I have to say, put your thumbs down, shake your heads, do what you like.” Such a class act.
We’ll Always Have Mike: Who else but Mike Aguirre would begin his comments by citing Aristotle? Aguirre, the lead attorney on a lawsuit against the trash fees, warned the Council, “I did not sue you for violating the open meeting law, but if there is not a collective concurrence that we all can see, that will be added to our lawsuit.” He predicted the Council would dig itself in deeper because “you’re not going to deliver in the year charged for all the things you’re promising.” And he advised them, “Get an audit of SDG&E [franchise fees] and see if you can make up some of the shortfall of the $33 million they didn’t pay you.”
The Lawsuit: Mia Severson, Aguirre’s co-counsel, listed the many ways the trash fees violate California’s Proposition 218. She said the notice mailed to households was “defective [because] it did not clearly state that a failure to timely submit a protest is equal to a ‘Yes’ vote.” Prop 218 also requires that “fees cannot exceed the City’s actual costs for providing services” – and those costs are yet to be determined. If the City’s in a mess now, imagine if it starts collecting trash fees, and then it loses in court.
Campillo Puts the Cards on the Table: Raul Campillo was the only member who came prepared. His testimony was surgically precise. He said Measure B ballot materials were a “bait-and-switch”: “The ballot argument even said, ‘Guarantee.’” He warned the City’s breach of trust would mean “any ideas we ask the public to approve will undoubtedly be rejected.” He argued that fees should not be put before voters before a cost study is completed. And he challenged the “renter vs. owner dichotomy,” saying, “We have to acknowledge how many people own their homes right now but are barely surviving.”
The Protest Vote: There are two ways to view the protest vote result. The 46,000 “No” cards received were far short of the 113,000 needed to void the fees. But that meant that 46,000 San Diegans went to the trouble of finding the ballot hidden in the mailer, signing it, getting an envelope and a stamp, and sending it to City Hall. Those 46,000 voters are now spring-loaded for upcoming elections.
After the meeting, Campillo pointed out that “the 46,000 protest slips are the most ever in San Diego history. … Two of the most important responsibilities of any elected official are to tell the truth and listen to your constituents. Our constituents were loud and clear about how they felt. I could not in good conscience vote ‘Yes.’”
The trash fee schedule was emailed
to me yesterday. It provides no guidance for parcels containing more than one unit. I emailed the ESD with the question: how much will my property tax bill increase for a duplex with 6 cans rather than three? To the department’s credit, I received a reply within 24 hours. However, there was no answer: “ Additional bins can be added as needed for additional fees.” The new “fees” go into effect July 1st, even though the tax bills don’t arrive until fall. Landlords need to provide timely rent increase notice to tenants. The city is not helping us do that. Like many property managers, we include water utilities in the rent. But we’re not absorbing the trash fee. Our rental property insurance doubled this year. I believe many older property owners will eventually throw in the towel and sell up. I suspect that’s what the city would like us all to do so the properties can generate more taxes.
Wow. 46,000 far exceeds my expectiations, since most probably ended up discarded without opening. And yet 6 councilmembers chose to look the other way.
If they required yes votes to be mailed in they probably would’ve only received 1,000.
I own a duplex, should I not get two protest forms? This means my family, and my renters family will both see a cost of living increase next year.
That is correct. ESD provided me with the fee calculator:
https://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/trash-service-updates/fee-calculator
We just replaced 8 bins after the holidays. According to ESD, every bin will start being replaced in October.
On April 18, the City Council voted to hold last Monday’s public hearing regarding the trash tax. Three Council members voted against holding the hearing. One of those votes was Vivian Moreno.
At Monday’s Council hearing, Moreno changed her vote without offering any explanation or justification.
This is the same Vivian Moreno who has said San Diego’s high cost of living is crushing the working people in her district.
She owes her district and the City at large an explanation, because a super majority was needed to approve the trash tax.
The yes voters weren’t even contrite enough to take the lowest cost option. They didn’t even discuss it. It wasn’t a consideration. They chose Option 1, the most expensive of the four options. I find that the most infuriating part of all. They could have made it somewhat less expensive, but they didn’t even do that. No one made a motion to go with a less expensive option.
They didn’t eliminate the electric vehicle pilot, which is not mandated. They didn’t eliminate the bulky item pick-up. They went with the most expensive option. They are arrogant and extravagant with the limited funds of residents living on fixed incomes. They obviously don’t give a damn. That is what I took away from those six council members who voted yes. Why wouldn’t they at least make it as affordable as possible when given that option. No other explanation seems viable except that they don’t care!
The issue i have is why do condos/apartments have to pay property taxes and also pay for private trash service while single family dwellings pay property taxes but do not pay for trash service.
While I don’t agree with how this whole issue has been handled, having single-family homes pay for trash service is reasonable. Multi-family units have always been paying for their trash service. The property tax rate for single-family and multi-family homes is the exact same at 1.22804%, so single-family homes haven’t been paying higher taxes to account for trash services, as some claim. It’s apparent the city is trying to make up for revenue they should have been collecting from single-family homes for trash service. I’m not mad at the rates or the increases, it’s time everyone pays their fair share and maybe extra to account for decades of free service.
@John that isn’t entirely true. I live in a 5-unit building, and whereas we used to have free city trash service, Measure B is forcing us to go with private. After shopping the 5 private options they gave us, only one was able to provide a quote – for $100/month per unit. The city’s disorganized rollout of Measure B forced our complex to pay exorbitant fees to a monopoly.