Dispute Erupts Over San Diego Trash Fee Controversy

San Diego, California — A fierce debate is underway regarding City Hall’s implementation of new trash collection fees that affect 233,000 households. This comes after many residents argue the costs are significantly higher than the estimates presented before the approval of Measure B in 2022.

Mayor Todd Gloria has faced backlash, asserting that the anticipated standard rate of $53 per month for trash collection reflects residents’ preferences for service levels, contradicting prior forecasts of $23 to $29. Gloria dismissed allegations of deception, aiming to clarify that the fees are based on community input.

However, the controversy has escalated, prompting questions about the actual provisions of Measure B. Residents have voiced concerns over whether the city could contract with private companies to lower fees, which City Attorney Heather Ferbert confirmed is not an option. In her correspondence to the San Diego Union-Tribune, she cited Charter section 117(c), stating the voters granted the city a choice between managed competition or using city forces exclusively for trash collection.

Jan Goldsmith, a former city attorney and Superior Court judge, argues that the City Charter supersedes Measure B, which merely amended existing laws but not the charter itself. He points to California Supreme Court rulings indicating that any city law conflicting with the charter is invalid. Goldsmith’s perspective suggests a constitutional precedence that could reshape the legality of the current fee implementation.

The League of California Cities has indicated that clarifying the authority and direction of charter cities is essential. Ferbert has expressed intentions to conduct a deeper analysis into the matter, a step deemed critical by many who are skeptical about the city leadership’s commitment to transparency, especially concerning municipal employee union interests.

As the debate intensifies, residents demand immediate clarification from Ferbert regarding the legal foundations for her stance, emphasizing the urgency for a sound legal review to quell mounting public skepticism.