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.