By Kate Callen
Sometimes you can fight City Hall.
A citizens’ lawsuit that once seemed quixotic has compelled the city to scale back the money it collects for its hated trash fees.
The fees will now begin at $38.75 starting July 1, 2027 and will not be raised for two years. Unfortunately, fees will still be collected as an add-on to county property tax bills, so the risk of house foreclosure will remain in place.
For good measure, the city is also giving up its hated parking fees for Balboa Park. Starting January 1, 2027, parking will again be free for all Balboa Park visitors.
The tentative settlement was approved by the City Council in a 7-0 closed session on May 20. The decision was announced hours later in a news conference featuring the strangest political tableau in recent memory.
A radiant Councilmember Stephen Whitburn presided over the news conference. Whitburn said he and Michael Zucchet of the San Diego Municipal Employees Association hammered out the trash fee agreement. They tossed in the parking fees, he said, because “knowing that the same folks calling for repeal of the trash fees were calling for repeal of the Balboa Park parking fees, we saw synergy there.”
“We represent a lot of different people and interests,” said Zucchet, who is arguably now the second most powerful person in San Diego. “But on these issues, we’ve agreed that our city and our community deserve a fair resolution and some certainty moving forward.”
They were joined by former Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who has led the Lincoln Club’s campaign to rescind the trash fees via ballot measure, Council President Joe LaCava, and others in a veritable love fest celebrating their abilities to serve the public.
The real stars of the news conference were the two attorneys who waged the legal fight as a public interest case, which meant they would only be paid if they won – which they did, and they will.
Former City Attorney Mike Aguirre and former Chief Deputy City Attorney Maria Severson, Partner and Managing Partner of Aguirre & Severson LLP, have put their case on hold until June 8, when the Council will meet in open session to formally approve the settlement and to consider revoking the Balboa Park parking fees.
“This is what can be done,” Severson said, “when people care about their community, fight for their community, and do so in a way that reaches compromise.”
A somber Aguirre cautioned that City Hall’s financial management will continue to need watching. “We need to keep a close diligent eye on how [the city] spends money that doesn’t belong to us, that belongs to the public.”
That may now be easier because as part of the settlement, a truly independent audit of city trash collection will determine actual costs, not estimates, and the city will be legally barred from charging more for services that the costs.
Aguirre and Severson spent nearly a year on the lawsuit working closely with a group of plaintiffs who were residents and community advocates. The amount of fees they will collect from the city will likely be determined June 8.
Full disclosure: I am a member of plaintiffs group, and I testified in the case as a plaintiff’s witness. I never expected this outcome. I knew our case had merit – on the facts and the law, it was open-and-shut – but I thought the San Diego city government was beyond all redemption.
How did this improbable result come about? It happened because the relentlessness of public fury has pushed Mayor Todd Gloria to the sidelines of city government. He wasn’t part of the deal, and he was barely mentioned at the press conference.
Gloria will be mayor for 19 more months. But his reign as an autocrat appears to be over.
I guess this is good and I did not expect it but it seems to me we’re still being double taxed for the trash service. And what’s next, do we have to start paying extra for police service, road service, safe water, etc.? Not time to forgive and forget and don’t forget that “rust never sleeps.
The people who are double taxed are the people who live in the City, but do not get their trash picked by the City. They pay in their rent or HOA fees, and then pay property taxes, directly or indirectly. that pays for the “free” trash pickup for (most) single family homes.
Love it: “rust never sleeps.” I’ve never heard that one before. But it’s true! Thanks.
Time to educate Frances: Neil Young & Crazy Horse – 1979 Out of the blue and into the black
They give you this, but you pay for that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDaYsFzMP4
“We represent a lot of different people and interests,” said Zucchet, who is arguably now the second most powerful person in San Diego. “ Well that’s a City of San Diego summary of our reality if there ever was one. Without Zucchet being on board, any legislation is DOA.
Zucchet, who is arguably now the second most powerful person in San Diego. “ … So I ask: is the tail wagging the dog?
Can someone explain to me why this settlement is such a win? I was led to believe that the citizen’s lawsuit was about holding the City to account for the bait-and-switch tactics exemplified in Measure B. Also, the miscalculations of the number of homes that would be charged these fees, which led to more expensive fees for fewer homes.
I thought this lawsuit was slam-dunk to overturn these illegal fees, then if the City decided to pursue the matter, could offer another ballot measure which didn’t mislead voters.
I don’t agree with this ‘compromise,’ when clearly, the weight of the law was on the side of the plaintiffs to void this matter. And now, I guess we’re supposed to celebrate a marginal victory in getting the trash fee lowered a little bit? I’m calling this one a false victory and will not celebrate it.
Bitersweet ending. Temper tantrum Todd’s reign as an autocrat appears to be over? This all started when he didn’t get his sales tax increase. I don’t believe it’s over. Can’t trust this group at all. Probably going to try to sweep middle managers under the rug. The whole group outside of Raul needs to go. The city keeps this years fees, then it scales back for 2 years, gets the rest of the year to repeal Balboa Park fees (should be immediate), and plaintiff lawyers get paid. Even a marginal win feels questionable.
Two things to remember: If plaintiffs had won, the City could have dragged out the appeals process, and the verdict could have been overturned at any time. The restoration of free parking in Balboa Park is a huge victory, both for Park institutions that are now struggling and for San Diegans who stayed away because they couldn’t afford to park.
The councilmembers who supported inflated trash fees and parking fees — “We have to do this!” — have been humbled. The people who would not stop fighting have been empowered. And we’re just getting started.
So let’s take the win. As for Aguirre and Severson, they took a huge financial risk here, and their legal strategies were brilliant. They deserve every dollar they get.
Kate, I agree with your every word. The full agreement will answer more questions and provide further specifics. The main point is if we had demanded clawbacks and immediate roll back of the fees, the city would have said ‘no deal’. I too believe that the judge would decide in our favor. However, the city would appeal for years, leaving us with this punitive program that could have made it more difficult ultimately to undo.
Um, it was a 5-3 no vote a week ago and now unanimous at $10 a month higher. You flipped 4-5 votes when you needed 2. Even Elo’s vote. No warm and fuzzy there. Now in the end taxpayers foot the legal fees. Meh. One unknown still is whether this violated 218 where the city would have less legal leg to stand on.
Kate, thank you for the summary. What I don’t see defined is 2 to 4 unit condominiums that are individually owned & served by the City for trash collection. Technically not a SFR, but sure isn’t a duplex, triplex, or fourplex either. Devil in the details, but a condo owner in a small row house or condo flat project might have been thrown under the bus… or trash truck.
Yay! Aguirre one of the few people work on behalf of the taxpayers of San Diego certainly the council and the mayor do not imo. What’s his next lawsuit? Go get um Mike!
I’m not buying the heroic bit. Aguirre had a stint as City Attorney that was, to put it mildly, tumultuous. Trial balloons that were explosive, but primarily floated to get everyone’s attention… it was exhausting. In this case, he obviously got the City Council and their boss Zucchet, to retreat from their usual mantra of endless taxes and fees, and that’s a first.
Important to keep in mind that nearly 2/3 of the worst budget deficit in the City’s history, over $65 million, has been misallocated, completely wasted, in order to pay to replace perfectly good trash receptacles with overly expensive ones with RIFD tags; only for residents to pay flat monthly fees for trash collection whether they receive trash collection each week or not. For myself, that is about once every 6 weeks, and primarily is done so out of a sense of personal responsibility, responsible consuming by avoiding single use plastics, composting and recycling.
According to Council President Joe Lacava’s spokesperson, these RIFD tags are only intended to collect data on pick up time and usage, and not to incentivize decreasing household waste headed to the landfill.
In other words the City is shaking us down. We are being charged up front for a weekly service many of us do not receive on weekly basis and this is not a legal business practice, especially when dictated to us by those we supposedly elect to represent us.
Residents do not pay an upfront blanket fee for water, we are charged based on our metered usage.
Residents do not pay an upfront blanket fee for electricity, we are charged on our metered usage.
Residents do not pay for an upfront fee for natural gas, we pay based on metered usage.
In much the same monopolistic way the City is imposing a self created trash monopoly upon us without having to play by the same rules, and it is not only wrong, it is an abuse of power.
The City originally sold the public on this ridiculous backdoor payout for RIFD chipped receptacles in order to, in a sense, meter our usage; thus the justification for the $65 million expenditure seemingly intended disincentivize, discourage and curb wastefulness.
However, once the $65 million RIFD trash receptacle payout was complete and everyone at City hall got their cut, the City opted for imposing a flat monthly fee, and then kept increasing the proposed fee thinking they could get away with it. In doing so they have all but eliminated any incentives for households to curb the amount of waste headed to Garbage Mountain.
The expensive RIFD’s are the meters that the City Environmental Services can and should be legally forced to use in order to fairly “meter” or determine usage for billing. (or the originally intended use of the RIFD data they planned to collect at pick up that they used to justify allocating $65 million amidst the worst display of reckless fiscal irresponsibility in our city’s history) .
If residents like myself are only using the services 8 times a year I shall not be charged the same fee for residents receiving the services 56 times a year, and irresponsibly contributing to an overflowing landfill that is Mt. Garbage. Pure plain and simple this is a grift, this is wrong, and it is an blatant abuse of power.
Location & Inventory Management: The RFID chips allow automated trucks to scan the bins, confirming that the container is assigned to that specific address and belongs to a qualified household.
Safety & Hazard Tracking: The chips help the city track the source of bins that contain hazardous or prohibited materials, such as lithium-ion batteries that cause fires.
Privacy Controls: City officials have confirmed that the RFID chips are not GPS trackers and cannot record or transmit live location data. They only register which bins are emptied when a truck’s reader scans them during the collection route.
Replacing the cans and recycling the old ones was likely way more than the useless RFID chip. At a buck a can, you’re maybe a half mil. Who gives a crap where the can belongs, it’s been billed. The truck reads the chip, it doesn’t assimilate the correct address. Even the hazardous waste claim is absurd. A truck can service 900-1500 cans on a route and then go to Miramar to dump. How would you even find, in the truck, let alone track down who tossed a lithium battery? I’d rather not get into a charge per can dump with this bunch of city fools. Budget and middle managers are next on the list.
Thank you Chris, your stats reiterate and reconfirm the exact point we need to take home about responsible billing.
As you stated: “The RFID chips allow automated trucks to scan the bins, confirming that the container is assigned to that specific address and belongs to a qualified household.” & “register which bins are emptied when a truck’s reader scans them during the collection route.”
So, the RIFD system functions like any other scanner, like those in almost every retail establishment in the world.
Environmental Services are scanning the day and time of EACH pick up from EACH properly designated address. The RIFD bins are already providing all the information necessary to bill households based on “metered” usage. It is reprehensibly irresponsible, if not illegal, for the City to gouge residents, and WHOLLY disincentivize wastefulness in the process.
This Gloria Hole grift has already cost the taxpayers $65 million, so we need to demand that the City put it to good use!
Mateo, I completely agree that charging a fee based on weekly use (gray cans only) could drive people to avoid trash and would be great for the environment.
But instead of writing an essay here, I would encourage you to engage our current city council candidates and get them to buy into it. Now is the time to make the trash fee work for the environment and our kid’s future.
Since Jen Campbell was allowed to have her own consultant split up the beach communities with her Party approved divide and conquer gerrymandering, my City Council member has been the useless lumpy lobbyist that is Joe Lacava. Believe me Mel, as it is, I give his office an earful whenever I can.
Mel I wish, every goddamn day, that we had a small shred of responsible leadership in this City that is not solely out to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.
I pray that we will someday once again have representatives that will listen and might take any meaningful action. However “the Party” does not allow candidates with listening skills, and problem solving skills that can provide collaborative solutions for the public good to ever get past the primaries. Leaving us stuck in this never ending cycle of soulless self serving, sycophantic politicos that are incapable of productively preserving the public good.
Our “representatives” cannot and do not, EVER take advice, listen to, nor act upon any solutions provided by the public! Because there’s no money in it for them to hoard.
I have hope that Mandy could make a difference, would actually represent us and would not be in it for the money.
I am confident Bailey would be the worst option since he actually said protecting the environment is not a priority for him.
And what happens to the low-income financial assistance once the new ‘lower’ fees go into effect?
Ron, thanks for asking. That assistance will continue. Joe LaCava said the City has set aside a $3M relief fund and 4,000 property owners have already sought that support. He said, “We look to continue that kind of relief going forward … We want anybody who desperately needs that kind of relief to take advantage of those funds.”
If anyone knows, how much did the parking infrastructure cost us ? Kiosks, signage, documentary entries, extra police, etc.
Once again the taxpayers were snookered.
Was extra staff hired ? If so, how many & their salaries.
Will parking fees apply to December Nights ?
Pride events ?
Thank you.
I believe paid parking has been part of December Nights for a few years. Not to raise revenue but as a crowd and parking management issue.
Notice to conservatives: we’re not taking any more comments that bash unions across the board or the Democratic Socialist mayors of NYC or Seattle. Take your reactionary thoughts elsewhere. Take your dribble to either Carl DeMaio or Amy Reichart, the two top MAGA neo-fascists in the area.
I hope you aren’t lumping those of us somewhere between DINO and RINO into this. There are plenty of us in the middle that find MAGA just as abhorrent as YIMBY Democrats. Do the Unions deserve a seat at the table? Of course they do. Should they own everybody else seated at that table? Absolutely not. Delete the texts, throw away the campaign flyers, and read about or attend the Candidate forums. Take back control of our City. Vote Mandy Havlik for City Council
until we see the details, these are my questions/concerns:
1. why were these 2 issues tied together?
2. why cost renaining on property tax bill and not paid via the city website like our H20 bill? infrastructure already exist.
3. is there one cost for all 3 sizes? if so, then will people who chose the smaller versions for cist reasins, should have the aitomatic option of exchanging back to original larger size.
4. really uncool there is no refund for this past year cost especially for people who have the smaller size but charged the large size rate.
can anyone enlightment me
I just remember when Michael Zucchet served on the City Council during another proposal to shout down all the parks, libraries, and fire rings around Mission Bay, where he declared, “There are no sacred cows!” By declaring Zucchet “the most powerful man in San Diego,” you may just be setting us up for another fall at the next election.