OB Rag

Only a fifth of  ineligible customers have secured new service from private haulers, who are ill-equipped for this new volume of customers

By David Garrick / San Diego Union-Tribune / July 27, 2025

San Diego’s transition away from free trash service is creating chaos for property owners, homeowners associations and management companies that handle 21,000 properties recently declared ineligible for city service.

The city’s controversial transition has focused mostly on 225,000 single-family homes and small apartment complexes that will soon be forced to pay $43.60 a month, after decades of not having to pay a fee to get trash service.

But the people in the 21,000 properties declared ineligible for city service are facing more daunting challenges — and many fear they could be left without trash service.

By Kate Callen / July 28, 2025

This Thursday, July 31, YIMBY Democrats of San Diego are holding a “Summer Soiree” fundraiser at 6:30 p.m. at the Town and Country Resort. YIMBY politicians like Congressman Scott Peters and Assemblymember Chris Ward will be there, along with developers, lobbyists, law firms, and … representatives of Airbnb.

The event flyer gives a big shout-out to the vacation rental conglomerate: “We would like to extend a special thank you to Airbnb, our presenting sponsor this year.”

Come again? Why would a local group dedicated to boosting the housing supply embrace a global conglomerate that shrinks that supply by converting residential units into vacation units?

Airbnb may rightly believe that more housing production will deliver more opportunities for future vacation rentals. And YIMBYs are understandably happy to take the corporate money.

The short-term rental behemoth has been courting density advocates since at least January 2024, when it launched the Airbnb Housing Council. Like its new YIMBY allies, Airbnb expressed concern about the shortage of affordable housing.

“An Injury to one community is an injury to all.”

The San Diego Community Coalition– which has been in existence a little over 3 months — will hold its second public meeting on Saturday, July 26. Members will be meeting in the community room at the Pacific Beach Library at 4275 Cass Street, from 10 am to noon.

The network of community activists and leaders include people from 25 neighborhoods across San Diego, from Encanto to University City, from OB and Point Loma to Talmadge and Linda Vista. In addition, some members are from Neighbors for a Better San Diego and SOHO, Save Our Heritage Organization.

Initially spurred to action to fight against the city’s abusive Bonus ADU program, it is now focused on giving support to individual projects that are threatening neighborhoods, like the 23-story Turquoise Tower in PB and the 17-story tower proposed for Columbia Street in Middletown. In fact, the Coalition is helping to sponsor a protest rally against the Columbia Street project on Saturday, August 2. And at least 30 members of the Coalition attended the July 19th rally in Pacific Beach.

On Thursday, July 24, the Rag published Donna Frye’s appeal to San Diegans to contact the City Council and request a continuance to the issue of Mission Bay “Surplus Land” scheduled for the Council on Tuesday, July 29.

Today, the 25th, Frye sent the Rag the following:

In my July 23 email to the Councilmembers asking for a continuance for Item 105, I made note of the fact that the Notice of Availability was not included in the backup documents for the July 29 council meeting.

I just checked and an updated NOA has been posted. It has some changes from the version provided for the July 2 Land Use & Housing Committee meeting that include:

By Lori Weisberg / San Diego Union-Tribune / July 23, 2025

SeaWorld, which has been sued over its nightly summer fireworks shows, filed a formal response this week generally denying allegations that its pyrotechnic displays are polluting Mission Bay.

The park’s legal brief was filed in federal court Monday in response to a March lawsuit in which two environmental groups — San Diego Coastkeeper and the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) — accuse the Mission Bay park of violating the federal Clean Water Act and the park’s own permit that allows it to conduct up to 150 fireworks shows a year.

The park’s court filing, though, doesn’t offer much insight into its legal strategy as it consists mostly of boilerplate language that simply denies the multiple alleged violations or asserts that the environmental groups have failed to “set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” against SeaWorld.

By Lynne Miller

Hey, we locals who are reaching into our 7th and 8th decades may not be happy with the ‘state’ of California. We just may have noticed that our government is not serving local people.

Most of us in this age group have paid a TON of taxes, and know more are to come.  We have been ‘marked’ as NIMBYS who are selfish, heartless, and not concerned about people who are sick, homeless, and/or penniless.

Truth is, we who are approaching the final graduation from life have worked hard, volunteered, raised families, supported less fortunate, and when inspired for our own reasons, protested and fought against unfair and unjust groups, laws, and politicians.  So now, looking over our shoulders at the rubble created by new laws, we not only have the right to speak out, but the right to consider our personal options.

by Ernie McCray

A “big beautiful bill”
it’s been called.
But that’s sure not what I’d call
a piece of legislation
wherein people
with more wealth
than some nations
are given tax breaks
while low-income families,
in need of any kind of break,
are facing changes in Affordable Care Act subsidies

Editordude: Donna Frye contacted the Rag and asked us to post the following and to encourage other San Diegans to contact the City Council to request a continuance of the Mission Bay “Surplus Land” issue, currently scheduled for the City Council on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. Here is her letter to Councilmembers:

July 23, 2025

Dear Councilmembers,

Item 105 is on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 29, 2025, and would “Declare City-Owned Real Property within Mission Bay Park “Surplus Land” Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54220-54234”.

The three properties to be declared “surplus” are:

• 1936 Quivera Way, Marina Village
• 1617 Quivera Road, Sportsmen’s Seafood
• 2590 Ingraham Street, Dana Landing Marina

I am requesting that Item 105 be continued until after legislative recess to allow the public time to review this item and, at a minimum, have it heard at a Mission Bay Park Committee meeting before coming to full council.

The Issue

AT&T is planning to install a 30-foot “faux eucalyptus” cell tower with 12 antennas, 9 radio units, and a large ground equipment box at 2315 Soto Street — right on public park land. This proposal would allow a private corporation to permanently occupy our limited green space, replacing community potential with a commercial eyesore.

The residents of Ocean Beach oppose this project and request that the City of San Diego deny the Conditional Use Permit.  This fenced-off area is still community land and could be transformed into something valuable for all of us.

Why We Oppose This Project

• Loss of Public Space: The proposed tower will be built on rare, valuable public space that could instead serve children, families, and neighbors.
• Health & Safety Concerns: Although research is ongoing, many residents are understandably concerned about the proximity of high-frequency antennas to homes, children, and pets.
• Property Value Risk: Cell towers can negatively impact nearby home values due to aesthetics and perceived health risks.
• Visual Blight: Even as a disguised “faux eucalyptus,” a 30-foot structure with 12 antennas, 9 radio units, and a ground equipment box will mar the natural and open look of our neighborhood.What We’d Rather See:

We believe this land should be used for true community benefit. Ideas include:

July 22, 2025

To: California State Assembly Members, San Diego:
Subject: Opposition to SB 79

Dear Assemblymembers:

The San Diego Community Coalition, which represents 25 San Diego communities and multiple community housing-related organizations, strongly urges you to vote NO on Senate Bill 79 (Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco).

While Senator Wiener’s Fact Sheet (Updated 7-07-25) states the City of San Diego supports Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria never announced any
endorsement, and the City Council never discussed the bill or sought public input. Rather, this misinformation originated from a two-page letter written on City of San
Diego letterhead and sent on June 3rd to State Senator Scott Wiener. The letter was signed by Sacramento lobbyist Moira Topp of Topp Strategies.

In truth, San Diego’s Legislative Platform not only emphasizes support of land use regulations that would be eliminated by SB 79, it supports retaining local control over state and federal regulations, in general. Any statement of support, implied or explicit, for SB 79 contradicts these principles.

The San Diego Community Coalition’s opposition is based on the sweeping nature of SB 79 that fails to acknowledge the diversity of California’s geography, topography, infrastructure, and planning needs. More specifically, it fails to consider San Diego’s abundant canyons, extreme wildfire risk, and the myriad far-reaching housing initiatives the City of San Diego has already set in motion. It would mean the loss of local control.

SB 79 would create unjustified chaos, and create far more problems than it would solve. More specifically, the San Diego Community Coalition’s objections to SB 79 are as follows:

By Neighbors for a Better San Diego / July 22, 2025.

The City Council gave its final approval (second reading) of the revised ADU regulations. While the amendments could have gone further, they do provide meaningful reductions in the scale of Bonus ADU projects, as well as recognize and clarify that ADU developments have other legal constraints, such as limits on building on steep hillsides and in fire hazard zones.

The vote was 5 to 1 in favor**, with three Councilmembers not present.

For more details on the changes, click here.

What’s next?: The ordinance next goes to Mayor Gloria. Given that the Mayor highlighted the adopted regulations in his June 23 newsletter, we expect that he will sign them without undue delay.