Good news, it seems, sometimes lasts only…well, one short paragraph.

Last Monday, the SDUT reported the following:

Consumer advocate Michael Shames is close to a legal settlement with the city of San Diego that would give small refunds to about 225,000 single-family sewer customers for subsidizing the bills of business customers for a decade.

It was the next paragraph that was the "bad news," in this version of which-do-you-want-to-hear-first:

The credit likely would be consumed by a larger rate increase.

The next day, Tuesday, as if on cue, Mayor Jerry Sanders proposed huge increases in water and sewer rates, 29% and 35% respectively, while vowing certain safeguards.

On Wednesday, the SDUT editorialized on the subject, saying "Before Sanders and the City Council impose such sharp hikes, they should make it clear to beleaguered ratepayers – who have shouldered a 50 percent increase in recent years and already pay among the highest rates in the nation – that two much-discussed boondoggles are removed from the table entirely," including the "toilet-to-tap" proposal and the "proposed conversion of the Point Loma sewage treatment plant to secondary standards, a colossal $1 billion waste that would do nothing to reduce sewage spills or improve the ocean environment." 

If anyone thought Carl DeMaio of the Performance Institute was going to be some kind of stooge for Mayor Sanders — and yes, there are a few who likely believed it — he is proving them wrong on this subject.  

Sanders’ City of San Diego Reform Initiative was one thing, no question that a free market guy like Carl would be instrumental in supporting such an endeavor.  But, huge increases in water and sewer rates?  That’s a goose of a different color.  By Tuesday evening, DeMaio was vowing a referendum, unless needed safeguards are added to the proposal.  From VoiceofSanDiego.org:

DeMaio said he wants to overhaul the city’s Public Utilities Advisory Commission and replace it with a panel of sewer and water ratepayers that is appointed by a retired judge, similar to the county grand jury. He said allowing an outside consultant or a board of political appointees — like Sanders is proposing — to oversee the water and sewer expenditures does not allow the independence that is needed for objective scrutiny.

He also said Sanders’ plan should come after the water and wastewater agencies shed payroll costs to make themselves more efficient and after the city trades in some other non-essential capital assets to pay for the slated system repairs.

Read all of the VoSD blurb here.

In the meantime, Libertarian Richard Rider isn’t standing for the rate hikes, added safeguards or not.  Richard says the voters should decide on increases of this significance, hinting at his own effort.  Rider’s comments:

It looks like Carl DeMaio is going to put Mayor Sanders’ onerous San Diego city sewer fee increase on the ballot.  DeMaio’s beef is the lack of reforms from Mayor Sanders to accompany such a huge tax increase.  If the mayor "tweaks" his proposal enough, Carl might drop the referendum effort.  

It is not that hard to put such tax and "fee" increases on the ballot for voter approve.  One needs the petition signatures of 5% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election.  This is doable, with some funding for professional signature gatherers.

Speaking of free market ideas.

For my counterparts in local government in other San Diego County cities, they better not think for a second this is just the "Big City’s" problem.  Either their cities are already paying into the City of SD’s sewer system, or their system managers will be quickly looking to follow the lead.

Local electeds need to be willing to listen to alternatives, question findings, and just-say-no until the best proposals are on the table.

Meanwhile, water and sewer wars in San Diego County are about to get very ugly.

"Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown."

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 26th, 2006 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.