By Jan Goldsmith / OpEd San Diego U-T / December 12, 2025
It was advertised as bargain day at the local supermarket, 25% off all cans of tuna. You visit the store, select cans of tuna and go to the register, but the store refuses to honor its advertisement. “The advertisement contained an inadvertent error,” the store manager explains. “The price applies only if you buy over $50 in groceries.”
The San Diego City Attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit might investigate such bait and switch practices in the retail world, but is unlikely to investigate its own client, the city of San Diego, which engaged in bait and switch arising from the 2022 elections.
In November 2022, San Diego voters approved Measure B by less than 1%, permitting the city of San Diego to charge a fee for trash-hauling services.
Voters were told in the fiscal analysis supporting the ballot measure that the city’s “best estimate” was the fee would range from $23 to $29 per month. “This range,” the fiscal analysis explained, “is similar to the fees charged by other peer cities that offer similar services.”
After the election, the City Council voted to impose a $43.60 per month fee, significantly higher than fees charged by surrounding cities.
The explanation? An inadvertent error.
Had voters known the true fee, how many would have voted for Measure B? Since it was adopted with only 50.48% voter approval, would it have passed?
San Diegans deserve better treatment than this. The most equitable remedy would have been a re-vote with knowledge of the true fee. But the city will not voluntarily do that and pending litigation will likely not achieve that result.
If nothing else, city leaders have lost significant credibility with the people they represent.
Enter Councilman Raul Campillo, who voted against the trash fee amount because it exceeded the range represented to voters. He has proposed reforms to earn back some of that credibility.
One of his proposals is intended to prevent another city-generated bait and switch. Before asking voters to authorize the City Council to impose a new fee for a service, the City Council would conduct a comprehensive cost-of-service study to determine what it would actually cost the city to provide the service. Since state law bars cities from charging fees higher than their actual costs, this cost-of-service study would tell voters the upper limit of the new fee.
Absent a re-vote, Campillo’s proposal is the next best step, with one caveat. His proposal gives the city a choice of whether to conduct a cost-of-service study. That creates a huge loophole that needs to be closed.
To close that loophole, the proposal should provide that, where there is no cost-of-service study, any new fee proposal presented to voters must contain a maximum amount that cannot be exceeded without additional voter approval. That would give voters confidence in what they are voting on.
As Campillo said, “San Diego residents should never feel baited and switched by their own city government.”
In addition to preventing a future bait and switch, Campillo has gone further in his plan to help the city regain credibility. He wants more clarity in city notices of proposed increases in existing fees and residents’ right to protest. Instead of burying information in complicated legalese, he wants the notice forms to be clear and concise. That is a much-needed reform.
There is an additional reform that should be made. City law imposes a preference that initiatives by way of citizen petitions be placed on November ballots which typically have higher turnouts than June ballots. This preference should be extended to propositions placed on the ballot by the City Council, particularly where the council seeks a fee or tax increase.
The issue will be raised in connection with Councilman Sean Elo-Rivera’s proposal for a controversial “vacation home tax,” which he wants presented to voters in June 2026. That would be an obvious attempt to have his proposal considered in a lower-turnout election with presumably a better chance of success.
The mayor and City Council should join with Campillo in a sincere effort to regain credibility lost following the trash-fee fiasco by adopting these three reforms.
Goldsmith is a Union-Tribune contributing columnist and former Superior Court judge, San Diego city attorney and California state legislator.
Most Popular
Recommended For You $31.5M settlement reached in child’s starvation death suit against city and county of San Diego, others
Tri-City board approves historic Sharp HealthCare affiliation
New Mexican-Latin American restaurant SobreMesa opens Friday in Lake Murray area
Trail Report: Our new newsletter about San Diego County’s outdoors, from hiking reporter Maura Fox
Chula Vista psychiatrist accused of sex with patient, harassing employees
San Diego judge sentences GirlsDoPorn bookkeeper who offered ‘false assurances’ to victims
More than 60 gambling machines seized during searches in San Diego, Chula Vista
FIFA accused of ‘monumental betrayal’ over latest World Cup ticket prices
John Maffei’s picks: Four San Diego teams play for state titles; who will win?
Delayed report shows San Diego’s jobless rate dropping
Campillo’s proposals are sensible, and Goldsmith’s suggested strengthening essential. Which makes it unlikely to see light with the rest of the council.
As for the trash debacle, the voters unwittingly, and the proponents maliciously, have unleashed an unconstrained municipal juggernaut on the city-eligible, and an inefficient criss-cross of servicing entities on us all. Both lead to unnecessarily excessive costs.
For the city-eligible, the next 3 years of cost escalation is baked in, with the 95-gal fee rising from $523 to $690 by fall 2028 tax bills.
There are already hints in the news that Environmental Services doesn’t think that is enough, in part because lots more customers are choosing smaller cheaper cans than the city expected. (Which should indicate to you how loosely size is connected to actual cost.)
With the city’s clear track record of not controlling departmental budgets even when faced with deficits, the city-eligible may well be in for a fee shock come 2029 when the council next reviews trash “costs” and sets the fees accordingly.
Sean Elo-Rivera mis-allocated his own campaign funds to hoodwink voters, please see La Prensa https://laprensa.org/sdtrashtax. The entire proposal, presentation, and subsequent proposition was a LIE! End of story.
No real decent law respecting Judge should side with the City in any capacity.
Our corrupted council put us here due to gross negligence, willful fiscal irresponsibility and compensated incompetence.
There exists no justification for this idiotic environmental disaster waiting to happen. The fee hasn’t even gone into effect and there has already been a significant increase in illegal dumping in our canyons, polluting our watersheds and ending up all over our bays and our beaches.
If the Judge supports this there will be a 30 fold increase in pollution, litter, and microplastics.
To clarify, the fee *has* gone into effect and was included in 2025-26 property tax bills.
This is why we must go on the Realthefees.com website. Let the organizers know that you will sign the petition to put repealing the trash tax and paid parking fees initiatives on the ballot.
In addition, the Save Prop 13 initiative will increase the threshold for passage of any property tax measures from 51% to 67%. If voters knew that the trash fee would really become a trash tax on property tax bills, would it still have passed?
Wake up San Diego, the city and county will continue to seek taxes and fees unless we vote on protections with these ballot measures.
In addition, we must not reelect incumbents to city hall nor any candidates running for vacant city council seats who are currently working at the city. Let’s get fresh blood from outside the most corrupt city hall of our lifetimes. 2026 is our opportunity to elect councilmembers to fill the even-numbered districts. Whether you live in the even-numbered districts, we have realized that how the councilmembers vote effects all of us in all districts. We must get a majority of ‘community advocates’ on the council in January 2027.
The ballot is not a memory test where you check the box by the names that are familiar to you. And especially, can we please vote ‘non-partisan’? If we are going to take back our city before it collapses into bankruptcy, we must support People over Party.
To my former party Democrats: Please realize that not all Republicans are MAGA. In fact, our Democrat mayor has many of the same personality behaviors of our current president. So, with an open mind, take your blinders off and attend meet and greets to familiarize yourselves with all the candidates. If they have cogent policies and engage in q & a without PR crafted talking points, maybe it’s time to try the unthinkable and put the party politics away in next year’s election. Because our city’s lifeblood is at stake.
We have the power to take back our city as informed voters. Let’s use this power wisely.
Sorry for the typo. The website is: Repealthefees.com