Backlash Against Trash Fee and Paid Parking in Balboa Park “Uniformly and Powerfully Non-Partisan”
Editordude: Below, Rag contributor Paul Krueger responds to a Politics Report from Voice of San Diego (see end) which stated:
“The anti-tax-and-fees crowd is having a moment. Conservative politicians past and present are pushing ballot measures to repeal the city’s trash fee and paid parking in Balboa Park.”
By Paul Krueger
Just a few thoughts on the intro to your Politics Report, from a perspective that you might not hear, day-to-day. (And of course, no response is expected.)
I sense that the backlash against the trash fee and paid parking in Balboa Park is uniformly and powerfully non-partisan, and in no way exclusively supported by the so-called “anti-tax-and-fees-crowd.”
The Lincoln Club and Richard Bailey may have filed the paperwork, but did so only because polling showed huge, bipartisan/non-partisan opposition to both fees: 81 percent of those polled oppose paid parking in the Park, and 60+ percent oppose the trash fees. Those numbers far exceed Democrat Party registration in the city.
Thousands of San Diegans who never have and never will identify as “anti-tax-and-fees” support the rollbacks because they’re angry that the trash fee was a “bait and switch,” and feel the Balboa Park parking fees are unwarranted, unfair, and very poorly planned from the get-go (and opposition solidified and expanded after the botched roll-out of kiosks and the parking permit application process).
Many who oppose Balboa Park parking fees can easily afford the cost, but are motivated by their concern for the impact those fees will have on our lower-income residents, especially in the county (a concern eloquently shared by two of the council’s more “liberal and pro-fee” members, Vivian Moreno and Steve Whitburn).
“City government is solidly Democratic in ways that were previously unthinkable. But these ballot measures — which could cripple the city’s finances — are getting lots of traction.”
What does “solidly Democratic” even mean with this City Council? Two groups of three “solidly Democratic” councilmembers forcefully opposed both the trash and parking fees. Public criticism of our “solidly Democratic” Mayor by almost all councilmembers was barely a whisper four years ago. It’s grown from a murmur to a shout, and every week we see council members criticizing the Mayor forcefully and publicly, and challenging his authority. (Kent Lee’s new ballot proposals are just the more recent example.)
And they’re often doing so from an “anti-tax-and-spend” perspective that mirrors what they can no longer avoid hearing from constituents. For the first time, they are acknowledging the need for significant cuts in mid-level management and publicly stating how they understand that the “public has little stomach for increased fees and taxes” (to paraphrase Henry Foster).
I’m hardly the only observer who feels the public opposition to new fees and taxes is not based on a philosophical/partisan revolt or an embrace of “conservative, anti-tax-and-spend” perspective, but is fueled to a huge extent by a total lack of confidence in the Gloria administration’s ability to competently govern this city and manage its finances, and his (and, to some extent, the council’s) framing of the budget problem as a Hobson’s choice between either increasing revenues or cutting services, absent an even basic discussion of reducing personnel costs.
As for the 82,000 signatures needed to put the Balboa Park parking fee reversal on the ballot, that number is correct, but Richard Bailey claims, “If we collect 24K signatures, we can force the City Council to docket the initiative on a future council agenda and repeal the fees themselves, possibly as soon as July.” If Bailey is correct, the council could very well repeal those fees, given the pressure on Kent Lee and, to a lesser extent, Marni von Wilpert and/or Henry Foster to switch their vote in light of campaign pressures, joining Campillo, Whitburn, and Moreno for a five vote majority to overturn the parking fees.
Here’s the Voice article from March 13 Politics Report (without links):
The anti-tax-and-fees crowd is having a moment. Conservative politicians past and present are pushing ballot measures to repeal the city’s trash fee and paid parking in Balboa Park.
City government is solidly Democratic in ways that were previously unthinkable. But these ballot measures — which could cripple the city’s finances — are getting lots of traction. Do they stand a chance?
Right now, it’s impossible to know, because the way the city attorney describes them on the ballot could play a huge role.
Just ask former San Diego city councilmembers Donna Frye or Carl DeMaio.
In 2018, DeMaio (who is now in the State Assembly) pushed a repeal of the state’s gas tax. Voters liked that idea. When asked about a repeal in a straightforward manner, roughly half the electorate wanted to repeal the gas tax, according to polling by the Public Policy Institute of California.
The final ballot language, however, was not straightforward. Dan Walters, a columnist at CalMatters, wrote that state officials gave the proposition a “hostile official ballot title.”
Instead of a question about repealing the tax, the title read: “Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding.” It lost with about 43 percent of the vote.
For a statewide ballot measure, the attorney general writes the title. For city measures, it’s the city attorney and the city council.
In 2016, Frye sued the Council for the language it tried to place on the ballot regarding Measure D, a hotel tax she was backing.
The 2016 ballot had two competing tax measures. The one backed by Frye would have taxed hotels to pay for a new convention center and put money in the city’s general fund. The other would’ve taxed hotels to build a new Chargers’ stadium.
The City Council put the word “tax” in the title of Frye’s measure, essentially as a poison pill. Councilmembers excluded the word from the stadium measure.
Through her suit, Frye did get a new title, but it still had the word “tax” in it. She lost (and so did the stadium tax.)
When it comes to ballot measures, language doesn’t just matter — it’s the whole thing.
It will be months before we know if the trash and parking fee repeals make it to the ballot. But only then, once the City Attorney and the City Council get their hands on the words, will we have a better idea of their chances.
First the City Attorney will be charged with drafting impartial language to appear on the ballot. Next, the City Council will approve that language and, in the process, possibly tweak it.
If former Mayor Kevin Faulconer and current City Council candidate Richard Bailey, who are backing the measures, don’t like the final products, they’ll have the chance to sue.
Will They Make the Ballot, Though?
The trash repeal has a much better chance of making the ballot than the Balboa parking measure.
That’s because the trash fee repeal backers are utilizing a provision in the state constitution that allows citizens to try to repeal fees they don’t like.
Under that provision, the trash fee repeal needs far fewer signatures.
The trash fee repeal effort just needs to get enough signatures to equal five percent of city voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election in order to get on the ballot.
That’s about 20,000 signatures, as Scott reported back in December.
The Balboa parking measure, meanwhile, is a regular citizen’s initiative that would change city law. It operates under slightly different rules.
Citizen’s initiatives need enough signatures to equal 10 percent of all registered city voters. That’s about 82,000 signatures, according to the City Clerk’s Office.
The City Clerk encourages efforts which need this many signatures to start at least a year in advance.
The parking measure backers don’t have a year and they needs a whole lot of signatures.
The City Clerk must submit ballot measures to the County Registrar of Voters by Aug. 7. But before that, the signatures have to be verified, the city attorney has to write the ballot language and the council has to approve it.
The anti-tax-and-fees crowd will have to get their signatures turned in well before August to stand any chance of making it to the November ballot.
I mean, it is “small-c” conservative to oppose taxes and fees. Like, you all may not *be* conservatives, but this is definitely a conservative reaction to small-l liberal policy.
Voice kept the piece in its pay to view section teasing with the opening line.
Key phrase: “Thousands of San Diegans who never have and never will identify as “anti-tax-and-fees” support the rollbacks because they’re angry that the trash fee was a “bait and switch,” and feel the Balboa Park parking fees are unwarranted, unfair, and very poorly planned ….”
Are you really a democrat if you want a policy back where single family home owners pay less than townhome owners?
By all means argue to reduce trash fees, but lets make it fair this time. Lets have a policy that applies to all home owners, not just those with fewer than 4 residencies on one lot.
We all pay property tax proportionally to the purchase price, we should all receive the same services in exchange.
Interesting points raised.
I voted against the trash fee because I did not — and do not — trust the city to competently administer the program. But I accepted the results of the election and certainly didn’t protest the outcome.
But when it became public knowledge that the city had underestimated the cost of trash pick up by almost 100%, many of those who voted for it regretted their vote, and I predict they will now vote to abolish the fee, assuming the referendum qualifies for the ballot. I understand the financial hardship this will cause for the city, and it’s a very regrettable. But I’m certainly not alone in feeling that we cannot continue approving fee and tax increases that are administered by a mayor and city council whose management skills are at best incompetent, and the worst borderline corrupt. Perhaps the mayor council will have to accept the fee reversal as a lesson learned, and put another, more accurate, credible, and transparent trash fee proposal on the ballot in two years.
If the city didn’t know the actual cost, they are negligent. If the city did know, it is deception. Both are disqualifying for public office. Meanwhile, the full inflated price is being paid without the full service promised until July 2027 (weekly recycling and bulk item pick up added) and there was no need to change the bins. All with no opt out. The absurdity in the system was charging for replacing black bins, when it was city equipment doing the damage, and the can printing stating it is the property of the city. I would tend to believe there would be no push back if the fees were inline with the private carriers.
I pay more for my bins to be picked up by a private company from my townhome.
Wednesday 03/18/2026 City Council Rules Committee 9 am
Item 3 Proposed Ballot Measures for the 11/03/2026 Election has 2 Ballot Measures dealing with Balboa Park Parking Fees. Please call in via Zoom.
https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecomm/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=6912&doctype=1&site=comm
Sub-item C: Consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Shane Harris to terminate and repeal paid parking fees in Balboa Park.
BALLOT QUESTION:
“Shall the City of San Diego repeal and permanently terminate all paid parking fees, permits, meters, and related enforcement in all Balboa Park parking lots and spaces, restoring Balboa Park to free public parking for all visitors, and prohibiting the City from re-imposing parking fees within Balboa Park without voter approval”?
Sub-item D: Consideration of a ballot measure proposed by John Stump to prohibit parking fees for general revenue in Balboa and other dedicated parks.
Shall the parking fees in Balboa Park and regional parks be repealed. That the
City Council budget to carry out its primary charter obligations to provide park and recreation services from the General Fund. Further, that park venues, institutions, and major events contribute to the proportional maintenance of Balboa Park and regional park infrastructure maintenance, repair, and improvements proportional to the visitors they attract to their gates and that such contribution shall be deposited in the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund. Implementation of the parking fee repeal shall be immediate. Implementation of the proportional park venues, institutions, and major events contribution shall be implemented at the time of lease renewals or during any processes to allocate City funding of any type or nature to such venues, institutions, or major events.
I was late to turn in Ballot Measures for Balboa Park and Reduce Trash Fees so they are no on the Agenda. But there were as follows:
No Paid Parking at Balboa Park, except for the Zoo Lot, and the main Parking Lot behind the Speckles Organ Pavillion. Plus create a Balboa Park Parking District so all parking revenue collected stays within Balboa Park for improvement and does not go into the City’s General Fund. All other Balboa Park parking lots would be free to the public.
Reduce the Trash Fees to the amount we were told when we originally voted in 2022 as cost recovery of $23 to $29 per month. Not the excessive extra costs approved by the City Council of $32.82 to $43.60 per month. With all revenue deposited in a dedicated Solid Waste Management Fund.
Well ,I can understand how you all feel about trash and parking fees . As a retired city employee with the Public Works Dept. of Yuma AZ. I drove a trash truck for a number of years picking up both residential and commercial trash. The city owned and operated both services for a lot of years. The city now just picks up residential trash collection having let private business bid and takeover the commercial trash collection. Trash collection is expensive with trash trucks costing $ 150,000 plus each. Then maintenance costs for mechanics, parts, and fuel. Plus additional costs for trash can replacement and parts for said trash cans. Then they have to be delivered. And routes have to be expanded or added due to the expanding population. Also the city has to pay for the disposal of the trash in landfills. The city has done a tremendous job of keeping costs down while being able to add a recycling program to the mix. The city listens to citizens and responds faster than I believe private business can. On parking fees I think they are used too often with no common sense involved. California is getting a deserved reputation as a ” Tax Everything” state. My wife and I just booked a 3.5 star hotel in Hotel Circle. After reading some of the reviews I feel like I’m being overcharged for a old rundown hotel. Most complaints were about the paid parking. $25 a night on average. For what ? Very few hotels have security or cameras. Seaport Village parking was $8 an hour for three hours then it changed to something like $5 per half hour. I’m convinced that California has people working on how to tax air that we breath. I heard that Balboa Park has a parking fee ! Gas is a dollar plus more expensive in the San Diego area than in Yuma. I used to come over about four times a year to OB to walk the pier, swim, lay on the beach and eat at local restaurants. I didn’t mind spending money as long as I was having a good relaxing time doing it. I understand that times have changed but damn ! Let’s not tax the hell out of everything ! That’s my two cents worth. P.S. – I hope the pier comes back soon.
Count me in. I’ve almost never voted against a tax increase until the main tax increase went on the ballot. Like all the previous comments–I didn’t vote against the tax increase per se I voted against the Mayor and City Council because they did not accept any responsibility and they did not explain how they would use the money for the people of the city.
I have no real horse in the race about paid parking in the park because I live within walking distance and don’t need to park there. But like many other I care about the park and the people who use it and to cold bloodily exclude the families who use the park but may not be able to add the paid parking and will always be against paid parking in Balboa Park. I was really against the 800 car parking boondoggle proposed a few years ago too–the park should be free to all.
The trash fee is outrageous and disingenuous. I did vote for it but after the bait and switch and the blatant hostility from the Mayor and City Council I will certainly vote against it.
By the time the repeal petition qualifies for the ballot the city will be long past the point where it could have voluntarily rolled back the fees to the pre-election estimate. Leaving them with nothing, instead of half a loaf. Smart thinking, Sean.
Two ways to deal with trash fees if they are indeed repealed. The proposed ballot measure gives the city two years to end the current fee structure. During this time the choice could be made to either open bidding to outside providers, or go back to the drawing board and create a plan to provide service at $25-$30 per month.
Repealed is one thing. If deemed unconstitutional by lawsuit, reimbursements will be likely required.
It’s easy to see why “conservatives” are being painted as the ones opposing these taxes since they were established by the other party that is 100% controlling San Diego. Some rightly campaign on these issues as these measures are wildly unpopular. However, city politics is mostly non-partisan and many see that enough is enough with this abuse of citizens..
The trash fee should have been seen as bogus considering the services would be kept in house with higher paid union workers and layers of management. The city spent money on “input” at dog and pony shows they ran in Coucil Districts instead of double checking their projections. The city said it made several honest errors on their calculations – all were in favor of lowering the fee on the ballot. Like most errors within the city, has anyone paid a price of these errors? The right way to take care of this is a repeal, a revote or having the city cover the overage, which they can under Porp 218.
Overstating 50-60K homes was an honest error? And then just saying oh, well, oops? I want my money back, and then we can revisit this after Toad and Ego are out.