‘My San Diego Council Member’s Shameful Assault on Democracy’

By Paul Krueger

I can remember when Sean Elo-Rivera, my city council representative, didn’t turn his back on me when I greeted him, when he didn’t talk over me and joke with his colleagues while I testified at council meetings, and when he didn’t leave the council chambers during my public comments.

Shortly after taking office in 2021, Elo-Rivera met with a group of Talmadge/ Kensington residents concerned about the emergence of multi-story apartment buildings in residential areas (branded as “Bonus ADUs”).

To his credit, Elo-Rivera was honest and unapologetic about his intentions. He told us he had no interest in helping us secure even modest reforms to the controversial ADU program. He saw no reason to include minimal requirements for landscaping, off-street parking, setbacks from adjoining homes, and basic design standards.

He did pledge to help make sure the developers complied with building codes and other requirements. But, as we warned him, they didn’t — and he did nothing to stop them.

In the five years since that initial meeting, Elo-Rivera has abandoned any pretense of representation for constituents who disagree with his views, criticize his policy choices, or complain about his behavior.

He’s made it clear that those of us who, in his words, “live north of El Cajon Boulevard” do not deserve his respect or even the basic constituent services of his non-partisan council office.

Elo-Rivera shows a special disdain for those of us who are — in his words — old, white, and “implicitly racist” homeowners. (No matter that Elo-Rivera himself now owns property north of his chosen El Cajon Boulevard battleline.)

A recent Facebook post by my friend and colleague Marty Graham plumbs the depth of Elo-Rivera’s animosity towards those who fail his political litmus test. Marty transcribed a portion of Elo-Rivera’s June 11th comments to a friendly group of supporters and journalists who gathered for a Voice of San Diego podcast recording.

“You want to put repealing a trash tax that would tank the city’s finances on the table?” Elo-Rivera asked rhetorically. “Get out of my office. And you are no longer welcome at City Hall, because you are demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the people of San Diego. And if you continue [with this effort], your meetings at City Hall will be over forever.”

Podcast host and Voice editor Scott Lewis pushed back ever-so-gently against Elo-Rivera’s politics of exclusion. He asked the Council Member if he had a “list of people not allowed in your office.”

“It’s in here,” Elo-Rivera responded, tapping his head with his forefinger.

So the extent of Elo-Rivera’s enemies list remains, at least for now, unclear.

Does it include anyone who collected signatures for a ballot measure to repeal the trash fees? What about people who only signed the petitions? Or those who spoke out publicly in support of the repeal? Or anyone, like myself, who had any connection with the lawsuit that sought to invalidate the fee?

In fact, the outcome of the trash fee dispute is a model of how we use debate, dissent, legal action, and compromise to settle legitimate policy differences.

Voters approved, by less than one-percent, the 2022 ballot measure that imposed the new monthly trash fee on single-family homeowners. But a City Council majority led by Elo-Rivera and Council President Joe LaCava added additional services and more city employees to the proposed collection program. Those unnecessary extras almost doubled the estimated fee specified in the ballot measure summary.

The public revolted. The conservative/ pro-business Lincoln Club funded a signature drive for a ballot measure to overturn the inflated fee. Attorneys Mike Aguirre and Mia Severson filed a lawsuit challenging its legality.

Faced with overwhelming opposition to the trash fee and the possibility of a courtroom defeat, Elo-Rivera and his colleagues approved a compromise.

The trash fee remains, but the scope and cost of the program has been reduced. The lawsuit will be dismissed, and the ballot measure is off the table. (And in a big win for all residents, the council also agreed to end Balboa Park parking fees in January.)

No one got everything they wanted, but everyone got something. It was a contentious and imperfect process. But we’ve been using it since the dawn of democracy, and I’m not aware of a better way to avoid political and civil chaos.

Though he took part in those negotiations and approved the compromise, Elo-Rivera continues to stoke public fury against enemies that live rent-free in his head, including constituents like me. And his anti-democratic actions — which run totally counter to his duties as an elected official and public servant — are harsh:

• We are not allowed in his office.
• We are not welcome inside the City Hall that our tax dollars maintain.
• We are not worthy of his respect — or even basic civility — when we speak at public meetings.
• We will not receive information, guidance, and assistance from his staff, whose salaries, benefits, and pensions we pay for.

That’s totally unacceptable in any form of representative — and especially non-partisan –government.

My Council Member owes me — and everyone whose views he disagrees with — an apology, and a promise to open his doors to all San Diego residents, and especially his District 9 constituents.

In his resignation speech to the nation, the humiliated ex-president Richard Nixon acknowledged that when you hate your perceived enemies, “then you destroy yourself.”

Please give that some thought, Mr. Elo-Rivera.

Krueger is a freelance journalist, Rag writer, community activist, and Talmadge resident. He was one of 15 plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the trash fee. He had no role in legal strategy in that case and received no payment or benefit for his participation.