Compiled by Lisa Mortensen
Serving OB, the Peninsula and San Diego Beaches
Say Keep it goin' to the OB Rag
with your donation today!
on Who Does and Who Doesn’t Support Midway Rising’s Exemption to CEQA: “City of San Diego City Council District 2 Candidate Mandy Havlik speaking with Dan Plante of KUSI and Fox 5…” Mar 31, 04:52
on Follow the Money: District 6 San Diego City Council: “Mark Powell (Republican) has no money. His campaign so far consists of videos on Nextdoor complaining about bike lanes and…” Mar 30, 21:47
on San Diego Residents Demand Changes to Balboa Park Governance: “PS – The idea of the county having a financial stake in the park is a great idea. Get the…” Mar 30, 20:52
on An Investigation by County Grand Jury Into San Diego’s Planning Process Picks Up Support: “I am very interested in San Diego County /City Planning and Development Services. Is this the agency that the Grand…” Mar 30, 16:44
on 4 Weeks of Trump’s War: Trump Lies to Get More Time for Ground Operation; San Diego Enters the War; Who Wants to Keep the War Going?: “The constant grind from my conservative friends during the Biden Administration was their fear more United States Armed Forces members…” Mar 30, 14:19
on Follow the Money: District 6 San Diego City Council: “For your next article, please include PARTY contributions and independent expenditure committees or PACs The big players do not contribute…” Mar 30, 14:08
on A Look at the Four Leading Candidates for San Diego City Council District 2: “No on Bailey Fifth Column (R)” Mar 30, 13:55
on Who Does and Who Doesn’t Support Midway Rising’s Exemption to CEQA: “More importantly, we must send Weber Pierson a message to withdraw SB 958. Please write Weber Pierson at: senator.weber@senate.gov and…” Mar 30, 13:23
on A Look at the Four Leading Candidates for San Diego City Council District 2: “Richard Bailey recently moved to Point Loma. He did that to Coronado also before immediately running for office. He did…” Mar 30, 11:09
Sorry, are we to believe a practicing lawyer wrote those? And presented them to a judge? With language like “On its face, that is illegal” and “it logically follows,” but with no justifications? Are questions like “What happened to the rest of the money?” and “Why is our city wasting money on things like that?” actually grounds to hear a suit?
No. This is Michael Aguirre’s and Maria Severson’s handout at last Saturday’s public meeting at the Hillcrest Library.
The Motion for Summary Judgement is on Friday 03/27/2026 and Mike asked the public to support their efforts by coming down to court. There may be a tentative decision posted online the day before. If nothing is settled there will be a trial in May 2026.
They left out some stuff:
The voters, and specifically targeted parcel owners, were not told they would be liable for:
The City doubling its staff in order to provide weekly recycling (instead of bi-weekly);
Will be paying for old Bond debt – Cal. Const. XIIID, 6 Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed Cal. Const. XIIID, sec. 6 (b) (2);
Paying for a Reserve Fund (not a parcel service); excess “fees” are considered special taxes, and require a vote of the people;
Paying for a pilot program for EV Haulers (not a parcel service);
Paying to re-locate the bin operation offsite;
Paying to replace all bins with RFID bins, when a label on existing might suffice;
Paying for five new haulers every year so there is a stand-by fleet.
Paying for the cost of service study and the “run-up” of “outreach” expenditures (are not per-parcel services)
Paying for bulky-item pick-up and “free” bin replacement is considered in the fee but many have stated they don’t want it. In fact, Cal. Const. states no stand-by services can be charged (need an election for that – since the city can’t know how much to charge everyone because it is an elective service), plus can’t pay a fee for services that aren’t immediately available to use.
And of course, Measure B was a fraud with its ballot title and language which was not relevant to what Measure B effectuated, but rather, misleading statements intended to influence a vote.
If the City does not dispute the facts presented in this case, they should retract the trash fee and start again with a fair and honest trash collection proposal. I will be out of town or I would be at the Hall of Justice on Friday.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL COURTHOUSE
TENTATIVE RULINGS – March 26, 2026
HEARING DATE: 3/27/2026
JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hon. E. Oliver
CASE NO.:25CU025589C
CASE TITLE: Brown vs Lacava
CASE TYPE: (U)Judicial Review: Judicial Review – Other
On the court’s own motion, Defendant City of San Diego’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication is continued to Thursday, April 9, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in this
Department
https://odyroa.sdcourt.ca.gov/TentativeRulingDocuments?documentIds=70616571&caseId=CfDJ8N9wLEf2H41NvAAQfdykNksVbOu1ybtTrdU1fETufq4pJUxNPLif__UeZojrn0N3_DWnyxeBuztYdoFq34byBHeFBIruGYXu0nOgR4H_wm5pylcQ7h-O6ZPHc6OTs_Ey5Q