Trash Fee Vote: Our City Council Is Running on Empty
This week’s San Diego City Council 6-3 vote approving trash fees capped another hours-long session before another furious overflow crowd. It’s no wonder the Councilmembers seemed exhausted. They are caught between their irate constituents and an autocratic mayor who scorns their constituents.
The six “Yes” voters looked like patients in a dentist’s waiting room. They have no viable solution to the budget crisis and no prospects for future elected office. They must serve out the rest of their Council terms in a kind of political purgatory.
Here are random observations of a weary Council that must now prepare for another contentious hearing when they consider Bonus ADU reform on Monday, June 16:
Going Through The Motions: The trash fees were rammed through for one reason only: The City is so financially destitute that it will dig money out of any crevice. No Council member could make that case with real enthusiasm. So they put in a token effort. Stephen Whitburn thanked some people and quickly voted “Yes.” Vivian Moreno had nothing to say. Even Henry Foster III, who ultimately voted “No,” seemed disoriented.
Elo-Rivera Fulminates: One of the “Yes” voters brought firepower, but not about the city’s plight. Instead, Sean Elo-Rivera unleashed a diatribe about the presence of the National Guard in Los Angeles. When an audience member yelled, “That’s not city business,” Elo-Rivera pitched a fit: “I don’t care if you don’t like what I have to say, put your thumbs down, shake your heads, do what you like.” Such a class act.
We’ll Always Have Mike: Who else but Mike Aguirre would begin his comments by citing Aristotle? Aguirre, the lead attorney on a lawsuit against the trash fees, warned the Council, “I did not sue you for violating the open meeting law, but if there is not a collective concurrence that we all can see, that will be added to our lawsuit.” He predicted the Council would dig itself in deeper because “you’re not going to deliver in the year charged for all the things you’re promising.” And he advised them, “Get an audit of SDG&E [franchise fees] and see if you can make up some of the shortfall of the $33 million they didn’t pay you.”
The Lawsuit: Mia Severson, Aguirre’s co-counsel, listed the many ways the trash fees violate California’s Proposition 218. She said the notice mailed to households was “defective [because] it did not clearly state that a failure to timely submit a protest is equal to a ‘Yes’ vote.” Prop 218 also requires that “fees cannot exceed the City’s actual costs for providing services” – and those costs are yet to be determined. If the City’s in a mess now, imagine if it starts collecting trash fees, and then it loses in court.
Campillo Puts the Cards on the Table: Raul Campillo was the only member who came prepared. His testimony was surgically precise. He said Measure B ballot materials were a “bait-and-switch”: “The ballot argument even said, ‘Guarantee.’” He warned the City’s breach of trust would mean “any ideas we ask the public to approve will undoubtedly be rejected.” He argued that fees should not be put before voters before a cost study is completed. And he challenged the “renter vs. owner dichotomy,” saying, “We have to acknowledge how many people own their homes right now but are barely surviving.”
The Protest Vote: There are two ways to view the protest vote result. The 46,000 “No” cards received were far short of the 113,000 needed to void the fees. But that meant that 46,000 San Diegans went to the trouble of finding the ballot hidden in the mailer, signing it, getting an envelope and a stamp, and sending it to City Hall. Those 46,000 voters are now spring-loaded for upcoming elections.
After the meeting, Campillo pointed out that “the 46,000 protest slips are the most ever in San Diego history. … Two of the most important responsibilities of any elected official are to tell the truth and listen to your constituents. Our constituents were loud and clear about how they felt. I could not in good conscience vote ‘Yes.’”