Rebuttal in Recall Todd Gloria Debate: How Is the Mayor ‘Languishing’?

Where and How, Exactly, Is Todd Gloria “Languishing”?

By Geneviéve Jones-Wright

I read Kate Callen’s op-ed about the recall of Todd Gloria published on the Rag November 4th, in which she argued that San Diegans should simply “let him languish,” and I have one question: Where and how, exactly, is Mayor Gloria languishing?

He has not been removed from power. He has not been stripped of his title. He has not lost his $244,727 annual base salary. He has not been shunned from public life or deprived of the authority of his office. He remains the Mayor of San Diego, the chief executive of the eighth largest city in the country, responsible for overseeing City operations and proposing the City’s budget.

That is not languishing. That is retaining the power, authority, platform, and institutional stature of the Mayor’s office— advantages that plainly matter to any elected official contemplating future public office.

Mayor Gloria also currently serves as President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a national leadership position to which he was recently elected by his peers. Far from being politically exiled or cast aside, he was selected to lead their national organization and represent their collective interests on issues affecting America’s cities. That position has given him an even larger national platform, which he is now using to travel the country talking about affordability and the rising cost of everyday life.

There is something deeply disconnected about that; and the hypocrisy is hard to ignore.

While Mayor Gloria travels nationally discussing affordability, San Diego families are living with higher fees, rising costs, threatened service reductions, infrastructure failures and neglected maintenance, and the consequences of budgets and policies advanced by his administration. In 2026, San Diego remains among the five least affordable major rental markets in the country, even as its mayor travels nationally to speak about affordability.

If affordability is important enough to headline a national tour, then it is important enough for San Diegans to scrutinize his record at home.

The suggestion that we should simply wait because his term will eventually end ignores an important reality: the harm does not stop simply because a mayor is approaching the end of his second term. His administration continues to make decisions that affect San Diegans every day.

That is why the framing of Mayor Gloria as somehow “languishing” is so troubling.

It turns accountability upside down. The person who still holds the power is cast as the one suffering because his public approval has fallen, while everyday San Diegans are expected to tolerate the consequences of that power for just a little while longer.

It is easy to tell people to wait when you are not the one experiencing the harm. Everyday San Diegans are the ones languishing. It is the senior citizen living on a fixed income who now has to find room in that fixed monthly budget for a new trash fee and higher water bills. It is the working family already struggling with San Diego’s cost of living and some of the highest electricity rates in the country that is being asked to absorb yet another expense. It is the more than 1,200 households displaced by the January 2024 floods, after years of documented neglect of stormwater infrastructure and maintenance failures, that were forced from their homes, lost belongings and stability, and, in many cases, still have not fully recovered. It is the unhoused individuals sleeping in the City’s “Safe Sleeping” camps who have reported rats, inadequate food, extreme heat and cold, and other conditions so serious that residents took the City to federal court. They are the ones suffering. They are the ones being told to wait.

And the contention that his “strong mayor power has run out” does not square with how San Diego is actually governed. Mayor Gloria remains the City’s chief executive, with direct oversight of City operations and broad executive authority under the Charter. He is also responsible for preparing the City’s annual budget, meaning he will continue to shape major spending and policy priorities during the remainder of his term.

Those priorities matter because budgets are statements of values. And too often, the choices advanced by his administration have placed the burden on families and other everyday San Diegans, particularly people with lower incomes and those living on fixed incomes.

Nor is his remaining time in office merely ceremonial. He was sworn into his second four-year term in December 2024. Decisions made during the remainder of that term will affect neighborhoods, services, infrastructure, public safety, housing, homelessness, and the cost of living long after the political commentary surrounding his future has faded.

This is also why I reject the notion that keeping him in office somehow constitutes punishment.

Remaining mayor is not punishment. Remaining mayor is power.

The question before San Diegans is not whether Todd Gloria feels politically diminished, whether his future ambitions have been complicated, or whether critics believe his influence is waning. The question is much simpler: Should San Diegans continue to live under his leadership merely because waiting until the end of his term would be “easier” or appear less costly in the short term?

A recall is a democratic tool for voters. It gives San Diegans the opportunity to decide whether they believe this mayor should remain in office. If enough voters demand that question be placed before the electorate, then the electorate gets to answer it. It exists for times like these: when voters believe their elected representative has failed them, and allowing them to simply finish out their term would permit serious and ongoing harm to continue.

The recall process may be costly, but the greater question is whether San Diegans can afford not to act. The price of democratic accountability must be weighed against what San Diegans will continue to pay for the remainder of his term if the status quo remains unchanged.

And that brings us back to the glaring hypocrisy of the national affordability tour he led as President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Being given a national microphone to speak about affordability is not “languishing,” particularly while residents of his own city confront higher costs and added financial burdens tied to policies advanced by his administration.

It bears repeating: If affordability is important enough to headline a national tour, then it is important enough for San Diegans to scrutinize his record at home. That is precisely what this grassroots recall effort gives us the opportunity to do: examine his record in full and decide whether he should remain in office.