Politics Report: They’ll Make a Trash Deal

San Diego City Council President Joe LaCava said his colleagues were not so excited that he brought forward a big settlement to end the fight over the city’s trash fee this week.

“I think I heard the phrase ‘Who the Hell are you to do a settlement?’ I get that,” he said. “But this measure, this threat to repeal it, has been hanging over our heads for a while now and as far as I could tell, nobody was doing anything.”

The deal would have lowered the fee to what the city estimated it would be several years ago when voters were asked to let them charge it. It would have removed the collection of the fee from property tax bills and forced the city to do the billing itself, a hefty cost. And it would have compensated the attorneys suing the city – including former City Attorney Mike Aguirre – and the committee that paid for the signature-gathering campaign that looks likely to qualify a referendum for the ballot to repeal the fee entirely.

LaCava said he and former Mayor Kevin Faulconer began discussing the compromise during a trip to Washington, D.C., hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. Faulconer was helping lead the repeal effort.

“To me, it was a win-win: Either we got a deal and locked the fee into place, or we didn’t get a deal but we force the Council to really start to talk about what we are going to do about this ballot measure and the impact it could have,” LaCava said.

But the Council soundly rejected the deal on a 5-3 vote. That five included Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, who had opposed the fee and seemed in favor of lowering it as proposed. It was yet another failure by Mayor Todd Gloria to whip the votes for something he wanted.

And it set up a massive gamble. The Council was betting that it could win a referendum and keep the fee. While voters are clearly frustrated with the city and its direction and they do not like the fee, that’s not necessarily the same thing as killing the fee and cratering the city’s budget. That was the bet: The deal locked in the fee for good, even with some major deductions. Losing a referendum would be like a meteor hitting the city’s budget, like we called it.

I’m going to make a prediction: I think a deal is still going to happen. Yes, the trial has already begun and is going to end soon on the legality of the rate the Council chose and how they implemented it. However, we have a few days before Faulconer and his allies pushing for a repeal must turn in their signatures and make it a real ballot measure for November.

On the other side: Faulconer is rebuilding his public leadership profile after a couple swings and misses at higher office. The Lincoln Club has never had a paid executive as high-profile as him.

I think he wants a win.

Lowering the fee to what voters were told it might be makes sense as a compromise to them. The under-estimate of the fee has been something of a scandal. Councilmembers Raul Campillo and Henry Foster have both said that it should have been set at that level. Campillo called it a “bait and switch.”

Faulconer, I’m guessing, would love to be able to say he helped get it down to that level. As would Aguirre and Campillo.

At the same time, Campillo has been unwilling to say he supports a full repeal.

In some circles, a full repeal seems like a slam dunk. People are angry at the city and they want to express it.

But a closer examination of the politics is warranted. Even after a successful repeal of the fee, half the city would continue paying private haulers. They may see no benefit from the repeal – only costs in service cuts. Worse for the repeal campaign, perhaps nothing would unite the city’s various labor and progressive interests like fighting it. They’d approach it with a clarity, passion and unity they don’t often display. Even the cops and firefighters would join. The massive deficit it would trigger would not spare them.

So not making a deal is just as much of a bet for the other side. They could lock in a win or they could end up in a bruising political battle against the cops and firefighters.

I expect a compromise to lower the fee, keep it in property tax bills and offer a few other nuggets.  

Maybe I’m wrong and both sides want this fight.

I don’t think I am.  

State Republican Party Reprimands DeMaio

Last week, we wrote about the “Official Republican Voter Guide” Assemblymember Carl DeMaio was distributing. It claimed to be the “official Central Committee Slate” and the “REAL San Diego County Voter Guide for Republicans” which you could find at RepublicanVoterGuideCA.com.

Of course it was not the official Republican voter guide. DeMaio himself had helped ensure that the local Republican Party did not endorse candidates this cycle and did not put out it’s own official voter guide.

The local Republican Party refused to do anything about it.

But not the California Republican Party. In a blistering letter sent Friday, and touted by Rep. Darrell Issa and other foes of DeMaio, Ashlee N. Titus, the general counsel of the California Republican Party demanded he cease and desist from distributing the guide as it was.

“This letter constitutes a demand that you, your slate mailer organization Reform California Voter Guide (ID 1469001), and your website RepublicanVoterGuideCA.com immediately cease and desist from a coordinated, brazen, and unlawful campaign to deceive California voters into believing your privately controlled slate mailer is an official publication of the Republican Party. It is not. Your conduct constitutes a knowing and willful trademark infringement under federal and state law, a direct violation of California’s Truth in Endorsements Law, an unlawful solicitation of contributions in the name of a political party, a violation of the mandatory slate mailer disclosure statute, and an act of voter deception. The CRP demands that it stop immediately.”

It is unsparing and worth a read: “Make no mistake about the gravity of this matter. You are not an unsophisticated political novice. You are a sitting California State Assemblymember, the Chairman of Reform California, a former San Diego City Councilman, and a candidate the CRP itself has endorsed. You know full well that the CRP and its county central committees are the only bodies authorized under California law to issue official Republican Party endorsements, and you know exactly what you are doing when you brand a paid slate mailer with the words ‘OFFICIAL,’ ‘Republican Central Committee Slate,’ and the Republican Party’s elephant emblem. Your conduct is not a mistake. It is a calculated deception of California’s Republican voters, and it will not be tolerated.”

Friday, the top of DeMaio’s website read “Carl DeMaio’s Reform California Voter Guide for Republicans” instead of “Official Republican Voter Guide.”

Titus said litigation was likely to ensue and she demanded DeMaio and treasurer April Boling preserve documents.

If you have any feedback or ideas for the Politics Report, send them to scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org or will.huntsberry@voiceofsandiego.org.

The post Politics Report: They’ll Make a Trash Deal appeared first on Voice of San Diego.