San Diego City Councilmember Raul Campillo says he has found a pot of money the city can use to re-open more than a dozen Mission Bay restrooms closed in early July as part of budget cutting. He wants the city to use “the $1.8 million in budgeted election costs that were freed up last month when a possible November ballot measure got postponed,” as the U-T reported yesterday.
The freed-up money became available last month when the council’s Rules Committee delayed indefinitely — but at least until 2028 — a ballot measure proposed by Councilmember Kent Lee to shrink the mayor’s power, reports the U-T.
By closing 13 of the 28 restrooms that serve tourists and locals alike at Mission Bay Park, the city is saving a whopping $546,000 in maintenance and cleaning costs.
Campillo says the closures are creating a public health hazard because park visitors have begun relieving themselves in grassy areas and other locations. In a July 15th memo to the mayor, Campillo wrote,
“Redirecting those funds would address an immediate community need and help restore a basic public service that is essential to the safe and enjoyable use of Mission Bay Park. Our constituents have asked for it.”
Yet Mayor Gloria rejects Campillo’s proposal. He claimed he shares the councilmember’s concerns, but says it would be financially risky to reopen the restrooms using the newly available money.
Reporter David Garrick wrote:
In a Friday memo to Campillo, Gloria said the city faces potential new expenses — ones that were not included in the budget — that warrant holding on to the whole $1.8 million. Those include preparations for and fallout from what’s expected to be an unusually rainy winter, thanks to El Niño conditions, as well as the possibility the city will need to fund a special election to replace Councilmember Marni von Wilpert if she wins a seat in Congress.
Gloria also expressed concerns that the volatile geopolitical climate could damage tourism and reduce city revenue from hotel and sales taxes. “Given these unknowns, I believe the prudent course is to preserve these one-time funds until we have greater clarity regarding both our fiscal obligations and our available resources,” the mayor said in his memo.
The mayor also said the city must continue to find ways to reduce its ongoing expenditures, contending that using one-time election money to cover an ongoing expense would contradict that effort.
“The city continues to face the difficult reality that we do not currently have sufficient ongoing resources to sustain all existing service levels while also maintaining the infrastructure our residents rely upon,” Gloria said. “These are challenging but necessary choices.”
Campillo responded Monday and said the Mission Bay restrooms should be an obvious exception to the general idea of not spending one-time money on ongoing expenses. He said:
“Right now, we know people are relieving themselves in public. Basic public services like restroom infrastructure should never have been cut in the first place.”
Campillo cited the needs of seniors and for families with young children for the restrooms. Many park-goers are also complaining about long lines at the restrooms that remain open. He called the mayor’s stance shortsighted, and argued tourism will suffer if the restrooms remain closed and tourists get repelled by the lack of sanitation and cleanliness.
As Garrick reported:
Campillo was part of a unanimous council vote in favor of the new budget on June 9, so he essentially approved the restroom closures. But on Monday, Campillo said he had lobbied for cuts to middle managers instead. During budget deliberations, Campillo singled out the Mission Bay restrooms as a concern.
“When we cut something as basic as restrooms, restroom maintenance and general park upkeep, we send a message to the tourism stakeholders who help sustain our city budget — attracting visitors who also contribute to our budget — that their contributions are not valued,” he said back then.
Gloria said he might make a different decision on the restrooms in the future. “We will continue evaluating service levels citywide based on available revenues, operational capacity, and community need,” the mayor said. “I fully expect Mission Bay Park to be part of those discussions as we develop the fiscal 2028 budget.”
Yet, locals and tourists can’t wait until fiscal year 2028 for relief. The closed restrooms remain another example of the shortsightedness of City Hall, much like the parking meters in Balboa Park. One step forward, two steps back. A reader with memory might ask, ‘Didn’t Gloria learn any lessons about the health crisis in the early days of his administration with closing downtown restrooms?’
The answer has to be ‘no’ if you look at his current actions.
Is there a place called Toadville ?
Financially risky to reopen the restrooms using the newly available money. Let that sink in for tourists or locals.
That’s
Not
Prioritizing
People
So Campillo runs hot and cold on this issue, and I’m pretty sure he’s voted for other Council Agenda items, that are against what the public wants.
“As Garrick reported:
Campillo was part of a unanimous council vote in favor of the new budget on June 9, so he essentially approved the restroom closures”.
Linda Vista Town Hall Mtg. on Mar. 2, 2026:Campillo began the evening by reflecting on the failed one-cent sales tax ballot measure, which he had supported.
“As many of you know, in 2024, “I was pushing hard for the one-cent sales tax on the ballot,” started Campillo. That measure failed.”
I suggest voters go online and look at times where he voted “for”, on a City Council Agenda issue, and against You the People. It could be he’s doing this “change of mind stuff and running hot and cold”, as a part of his political campaigning to win the seat he wants to keep.
This is what happens when ego gets in the way of common sense. It’s obvious Todd is inflicted with an extreme case of Napoleon complex which has fogged his brain. I wonder if this incompetence could lead to recall.
Lisa, it takes hundreds of signatures, and thousands of dollars to do a recall. Gloria knows that and I’m sure he feels very secure with knowing no one will recall him, especially since he’s on the down hill slide now and will be “termed out”. What seems to be retalitory, is destroying SD.
Per Google, “Because a portion of signatures submitted are routinely disqualified for issues like invalid addresses or incorrect voter registration, recall organizers generally aim to collect a cushion of roughly (140,000) total signatures. A mayoral recall in San Diego costs taxpayers an estimated $3.7 million to $4 million to fund and operate the necessary special election”.
After Gloria moved to state level politics, and came back to SD, he has done much like what Newsome did to destroy San Fran when he was mayor there. And SF still not recovered from what he did. THEN people elected him as Gov. and look where CA is now.
Voters had a chance to get rid of Gloria last election by a totally over qualified candidate with Larry Turner. But they still elected the candidate who was not qualified again. So, all things considered I think the time to get rid of Gloria, was before he was elected that last time and the voters who elected him, got what they wanted.
As a mayor, Gloria certainly has a warped sense of fiscal responsibility. . . .
from the article –
“Gloria says he shares Campillo’s concerns about the impact of eliminating a basic public service at one of the city’s most popular tourist destinations — but the mayor also says it would be financially risky to reopen the restrooms using the newly available money.”
The irony is that Gloria has a history making terrible choices in the careless expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars, consistently selecting choices that benefit very few San Diegans. As such he had no hesitation in spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave when he hedged his bets on the taxpayer approving a 1 cent sales tax increase. Now he says we need to be financially responsible?
It is ironic that the found money comes from delaying the potential change to a city manager with the knowledge to run a city the size of San Diego. But even with a city manager the residents need to wake up to what it costs to deliver all of the services and update infrastructure here.
Whomever is elected as mayor and city councilreps need to be well versed in financial swamps and not afraid to do what the city called RIF (Reduction In Force) a few years ago when they were not as financially buried, as they are today. PLease voters, for your own good, stop voting by gender, race, party, hair cut, nice clothes. Those kinds of items are NOT needed but, experience, knowledge, education in budget/money matters, SD desperately needs. And voters don’t know how messed up financially SD really is until gloria and the existing clowncil members up for re-election are gone.
There are a few other ways to reduce expenses. First eliminate all street cleaning and put the onus on home/building owners to clean up the curb. OK, so if that is completely a non-starter, reduce the frequency. Cut it in half. The problem of course is it would piss off the street cleaning unions, and gosh forbid Toady would do anything to upset their cart.
Second, get rid of all trash cans at our parks and beaches. That would save millions per year. The Leave No Trace ethos includes, pick up all garbage. The problem with trash cans are they allow people to take something that is their responsibility, their own waste, and transfer it to the community at large. The city staff is part of out community, We hire them to do work for us. The problem with transferring waste to the community, is that people feel entitled to trash cans everywhere. They blame overflowing trash cans on the city, when the problem is not the city it is people… And what people do when a trash can is full is they just pile it on. Additionally, what we see as trash are the large pieces of garbage that are all over the place. The City gets to most of this garbage, however, there are literally thousands on millions of small pieces of garbage. We need an army of people to pick up all the discard that is all over the place. However we don’t have an army of community members, we have a tiny fraction of what is needed of people that do care. The “Community at large” just assumes that the City gets everything and then walks right by all the garbage. Japan does not have public trash cans. It is far cleaner then the outcome of our system.
Street cleaning is almost pointless with cars being condensed from no parking construction and bike lanes. At least with a trash can, overflowing or not, it’s an attempt at responsibility. Parks and beaches would look more like the trashed freeways without cans and then what? Park cleaning becomes ticketing for leaving trash?
I suspect that the street sweeping actually generates revenue for the city, in the form of citations for those who do not move their cars on street sweeping days. I myself got one over on Niagara when I didn’t see the sign (it was way down the block, although that is no excuse).
One of the striking things about visiting Japan is the relative absence of public trash cans. It is expected that you will act responsibly for the greater good and take your refuse home with you rather than leave it in a public space. Can’t imagine that happening here.
While I generally agree that you shouldn’t use an unexpected windfall to cover an on-going expense, I can’t imaging the downside of using the one-time money to keep the restrooms open. The only downside is that if the money can’t be found, the restrooms will be closed next fiscal year, which they would likely be anyway. Extremely shortsighted! I think the mayor is just getting a little payback on the citizens – don’t like my taxes and fees, I’ll show you!
Toad Glorius strikes again! One would think he would jump to get rid of $$$ that might be used to reduce his political power, but no he would rather see pile of human defecation piling up on the lawns in front of the public restrooms and brand spanking new children’s play area on Crown Point!