Judge Larry Stirling (ret) reviews efforts to change San Diego’s long-standing trash collection system. He served the 7th City Council district from 1977 to 1980.
He responds to a recent news item about trash the City allegedly is “not required by law to pick up” and to stop
“picking up trash for free.”
Later a State Assemblyman, State Senator and Superior Court judge, Mr. Stirling sees this as Revisionist History.
____________________________________________
On the “free” trash collection issue, all property owners are
paying their property taxes and a portion of those taxes were
specifically designated for trash pickup via the “people’s
ordinance” adopted by initiative in 1919, a direct order from
the public.
The voters did not command the birth of the dysfunctional Historic Site Board, or the PlanningDepartment, the Development Department, subsidies to the San Diego Unified School Districts babysitting program, or even the Library Department.
They did command the creation and operation of the trash pickup and for perfectly good public health and safety reasons. The voters of San Diego wisely wanted all trash picked up and disposed in a uniform and timely manner. Charging double for trash pickup guarantees that those who operate on the financial margins will dump their trash in nearby canyons, on vacant lots, and along our roadsides. There they will become unsightly fire and public health hazards. And much more expensive to pick up. Not only that but the people the mayor is proposing the double charge are already paying for their own streets. Does the mayor want all those streets deeded to the city?
Thus, those residents are about to be charged triple for services that most of the rest of the city has covered by their property tax alone. It is completely inaccurate to say that trash is picked up “for free.” The voters specifically directed the city to pick up trash and to pay for it out of the general fund.
The citizens pay into the general fund therefore there is no such thing as “free trash pickup.”
It is true that the lazy, sorry city amended its own ordinance some time back to prohibit additional “hold harmless” agreements to go off the public right of way to pick up trash. Who knew that? Probably passed on the consent calendar and done without fanfare or wide notice.
It is also not correct to say that the city is not required to pick up that trash. The city is not REQUIRED TO GO ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY to pick up trash absent a hold harmless agreement. The city is still required to pick up the trash if the resident takes it to a public street.
So what is being proposed is that the handicapped, and elderly, and pregnant mom’s and thousands of others WILL IN THE FUTURE HAVE TO ROLL their heavy trash cans as far as several blocks to the closest public street WHERE THE CITY IS STILL REQUIRED TO PICK IT UP.
Where are the savings exactly?
And nearby homes will suddenly find the streets in front of their houses crowded with dozens of trashcans from nearby “private” streets from which the trash has been collected by the city for over 70 years.
It is a sad thing to travel through San Diego and see the streets unrepaired, the traffic islands filthy, dilapidated and abandoned news racks trashing our sidewalks, unpainted city light poles, traffic signals that are not operating, and the city parks and other buildings ill maintained. There are fifty major reforms that I can think of myself that would save the city money or increase its income rather than abandon its basic health and safety duties like picking up the trash.
Given correct management and mayoral leadership, city staff could be driven to do more for less, not less for more. That is exactly what every other enterprise has to do to survive. Why are the city managers exempt from such exertions?
Other nations, states, and cities are adopting technologies that will turn trash into cash which would motivate the city to seek out trash to pick up, not evade its basic responsibility.
Comments 6
This is my first post on this website. I appreciate the blogs and content and is why I subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks to everyone who contributes.
This issue was a thorn in my side during the five years my wife and I owned a condo in Sabre Springs. It never made sense to me why we had to pay property taxes AND pay for trash collection from Waste Management. I appreciate the attempt at an explanation from Judge Sterling:
“It is true that the lazy, sorry city amended its own ordinance some time back to prohibit additional “hold harmless” agreements to go off the public right of way to pick up trash. Who knew that? Probably passed on the consent calendar and done without fanfare or wide notice.
It is also not correct to say that the city is not required to pick up that trash. The city is not REQUIRED TO GO ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY to pick up trash absent a hold harmless agreement. The city is still required to pick up the trash if the resident takes it to a public street.
So what is being proposed is that the handicapped, and elderly, and pregnant mom’s and thousands of others WILL IN THE FUTURE HAVE TO ROLL their heavy trash cans as far as several blocks to the closest public street WHERE THE CITY IS STILL REQUIRED TO PICK IT UP.”
I never knew that the city was required to pick up trash if I left the container on a city street, whcih was a couple hundred feet for us. I never had the chance to call the city to ask for a city container to put my trash in. My understanding is that each HOA has agreements and contracts for private trash collection on its property(ies). I’m not aware of a single condo HOA that has city containers and brings them out to city-owned streets for trash pickup. My understanding is that the agreements hold for each condo owner too. So if your HOA has a contract with Waste Management (mine did), then WM is the service provider. I think that if you called the city for refuse containers for condos with an HOA, they would say they could not provide you containers. They would probably tell you to contact WM, AW, or EDCO for refuse collection. Is there someone that can clear up what the city’s Environmental Services Dept. position is on this?
Judge Sterling goes on: “And nearby homes will suddenly find the streets in front of their houses crowded with dozens of trashcans from nearby “private” streets from which the trash has been collected by the city for over 70 years.”
I would never propose that the city not pick up trash. What I expected was fairness from the city. As it exists, city policy is unfair in regards to trash pickup. Currently, the elderly, pregnant women, and others who own condos who do not care to wheel their trash a couple hundred feet or more have to pay extra for trash pickup from a private company IN ADDITION to what they pay in property taxes. I have not heard a single elected official or city staff explain how this is just.
So, to be clear, it was never because I think people should be “charged triple” that I think the current policy should be repealed or amended. It is to the fairness issue that I invite consideration of either repealing the people’s ordinance or amending city policy to allow city trash collection to go onto private property to pick up residential refuse.
Of course, this would add extra burden to the city’s refuse collection service so I believe the more fair and just thing to do is to repeal the people’s ordinance and replace it with a new people’s ordinance that would charge a fee per residence that allows the city to only recoup what it costs for the service while eliminating that portion of the property tax that goes toward refuse collection.
More likely, I think most people that espouse the benefits of private industry over public industry (such as myself) are against this idea because it would cut into the profits of the private refuse collection service providers in our region. However convenient, politically, it may be to fight against the repeal of the people’s ordinance, I don’t think anyone can argue against the fairness and justice issue I’ve advanced. If the Judge can, I’m all ears.
When I recently owned a condo in Sabre Springs, this became a thorn in my side. I could not understand, and still don’t, why those who owned condos in the city, such as myself, were being penalized by having to pay extra for refuse collection. We paid property taxes like everyone else that supposedly went to pay for our refuse collection. In another forum, Ms. Lutar informed me that if we left our refuse containers on a CITY street, they would be required to collect them. I never did look into because it seemed too outrageous but I trust and believe she may be on to something. More importantly, is this commonly known? No. So, is the city required to collect refuse in private refuse collection bins? If I had called the city to get their refuse bins, would they have delivered them to me so I could have walked them out several hundred feet to the closest city street? Can we get confirmation on this?
My understanding is that HOA agreements come into play. Our HOA had an agreement with Waste Management to pick up the HOA’s bins and so it was told to all us homeowners that we HAD to use WM for refuse collection from each of our condos because the city will not pick up our trash. I trust the HOAs know state law and city policies; they have lawyers for each and every little issue that may arise within the HOA.
I have advocated for a fair and just policy with regards to refuse collection in the city. Whether that means repealing the people’s ordinance or having the city pick up condo refuse, it shouldn’t matter. However, I would prefer to see the people’s ordinance repealed and replaced with the following:
“The city (through competitive bidding/outsourcing or by its own means) shall collect refuse from every residential unit, whether single-family home, apartment, or condo, for a set fee, depending on dwelling unit type. Cost per dwelling unit shall be only that which is needed to recoup exactly the cost of providing the service, inclusive of administering the contract for a private refuse collection service provider. The city shall eliminate that portion of each property tax bill that had previously been collected from all property owners within the city to collect refuse.”
Mr. Balben:
Thank you for taking the time to describe how you and
your wife were affected by this policy in Sabre Springs.
It sounds like Lani Lutar also gave you the straight
facts.
An additional issue is a legal one. What exactly was the scope of the mandate of the 1919 initiative? How can any CEO, mayor, or indeed city council reduce the scope of
that intitiative without a further vote of the people?
Thus council action prohibiting further hold-harmless agreements would seem null.
Denying anyone trash service as long as they put their trash in an approved container and place it on the city street at the designated time would seem to be remain a basic obligation of the city no matter how many times they seek to “short” the public by progressively reducing services and diverting general taxes to non mandated city efforts such as the dramatic growth in historic site staff reviews of housing permit requests.
The argument that it is only fair for others to be denied trash pick up because apartment houses and businesses are already discriminated against is wrong on at least two counts.
Apartment owners face a particular problem. Where would they find enough on-property space to store two large trashcans for every apartment? How could they be assured that residents would take them out timely? And if they didnt, wouldnt the property stink from unemptied trash cans? And where on the street would they find enough room for all the trash cans on trash day?
So, apartment owners and occupiers find themselves
needing a higher level of service than anticipated in
the 1919 initiative thus the logical use of a commer-
cial hauler and one big container.
Many thanks for the response, Judge Stirling. My apologies on the double post. It was my first here and I wasn’t sure if the initial one was being submitted for consideration or had not been sent at all.
I hope I was clear that my concern is mostly with regards to paying essentially double (through property taxes and private refuse collection) for refuse collection. I’m curious what might be done to make that more fair (i.e. distribute notices to HOAs and condo owners to terminate their private refuse collection service so the city can come pick up their waste as long as they leave it in the city-provided container on a public street closest to the development)?
If what you and Ms. Lutar say is fact, then certainly the city should ensure condo owners are made aware that they do not need to pay for private refuse collection since the city is required to collect their refuse if left in said city container on a public street. In fact, the policy concerning refuse collection is a bit vague with regards to multi-family residential facilities. The city may refuse to collect your refuse, even if you have an approved container, in certain circumstances.
So then, the question is why is the city allowing development on properties in such a way that said development may result in violating the intent of the people’s ordinance?
Mr. Balben:
In this case you are imputing an undeserved level
of good will among the city staff!
They are trying little more than to “cut and run.”
Perhaps. But if the law is clear, why apparent discrepencies in how it can be administered by the mayor?
I just wrote a blog post on this topic here: http://divingintohome.tumblr.com/post/3334710374/on-trash-collection-in-san-diego. I hope nobody thinks I’m trying to move the conversation to my blog; I’d be happy to continue it here.
BTW, I love how we can have civil dialogue here about this and not get all riled up! Wouldn’t happen in many other blogs or media websites. Thanks again, Rostra, for a great environment to foster these kinds of discussions.