Council Flip-Flop on Trash Fee Vote Has Heads Shaking : City Hall: Some say politics, public pressure drove just-approved measure off the ballot. Others say backlash had nothing to do with their vote.

The calls flooded Valerie Stallings’ City Council office last week in a tidal wave of unexpected vitriol.

Recall elections were threatened. Obscenities were uttered and phones slammed down. Callers who struggled for reason ended up ranting. Few left their names.

Stallings’ office took more than 50 calls in the days following her Feb. 3 vote to place a measure on the June ballot asking voters to pay a fee for trash pickup.

With voter approval, more than 300,000 homeowners would have to pay an average of $9 a month in new trash fees. Garbage collection is now included in the price of property taxes collected by the city. By charging the fee, the city would free some $27 million a year it now spends picking up trash.

Along with Stallings, council members Ron Roberts, John Hartley, Tom Behr and Bob Filner agreed to put the question to the voters. Mayor Maureen O’Connor and council members Abbe Wolfsheimer, George Stevens and Judy McCarty voted just the opposite.

But when the subject was brought up again Tuesday and recycling provisions were added to it, votes shifted and the measure was suddenly off the ballot, by a 5-4 vote.

Stallings and Hartley stood their ground and voted yes again. O’Connor and Stevens voted no again. But Roberts, Behr and Filner switched from yes to no and Wolfsheimer and McCarty shifted from no to yes.

“The switches were very peculiar,” Wolfsheimer said. “The real reason for the changes were just plain politics. Some of the council members said they got phone calls where people were calling them names. That’s why they rescinded their votes.”

But those who switched denied the suggestion that public pressure had anything to do with it.

“It’s nonsense that this was somehow the will of the people,” Roberts said. “You want to know how many calls we got? Five. When people are concerned about an issue, they let us know. This was not a big thing.”

Roberts voted against placing the measure on the ballot, he said, because the proposed sample-ballot language did not permit money that would be freed up by the new garbage fee to be used for increased police protection, as he wanted.

“I do not feel comfortable approving something where we’ll have a new fee and nobody will know where the money went,” Roberts said.

He, Behr and Filner support putting an initiative on the June ballot that would substantially increase the hiring of city police officers, by finding the money in the city budget rather than increasing taxes. The council has yet to decide whether to do so.

If the police ballot measure is approved, Roberts said, he will support bringing the trash fee back for a November vote.

Behr said he changed his vote because other council members tried to guarantee curbside recycling, as well as a discount for people on fixed incomes, a citizens oversight committee to monitor the fee and other provisions, all tied to the $27 million.

“I would have just preferred to keep it simple for the voters,” Behr said. “It was too overburdened.”

Only three calls opposing the measure came into his office, Behr said.

Wolfsheimer and McCarty said they changed their minds and decided to put the question before voters because the new version included the recycling features that Behr said made the measure more unpalatable.

“If people are going to vote themselves a new fee, they expect something more from their trash service,” McCarty said. “Otherwise, why would they vote for it at all?”

Some council members, after reading the advice of the city attorney, said it would have been illegal to dedicate any of the money to a specific cause, such as police protection, without running into the tax-limiting requirements of Proposition 13.

Wolfsheimer said she might have been willing to support a plan by Roberts, Behr and Filner to require that the money be spent for more police officers, but they never introduced the idea. Such a measure would require two-thirds voter approval, since it would constitute a special tax.

Roberts, who is running for mayor, and Filner, who is exploring a congressional bid, “just didn’t want it to look like they were raising taxes for anything,” Wolfsheimer said. “It’s not a good political stance to take during an election.”

Filner could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Roberts said he supports a ballot measure allocating funds for more police.

In voting against authorizing the ballot measure both times, O’Connor and Stevens said new fees on some 300,000 homeowners, or about half the residences in the city, would unduly affect the poor, who cannot bear any more rate hikes.

TRASH VOTE

On Feb. 3, the San Diego City Council voted 5 to 4 to place a measure on the June ballot that would ask voters whether or not they wanted all homeowners to pay a fee for trash service.

Voting yes: Ron Roberts, John Hartley, Tom Behr, Valerie Stallings and Bob Filner.

Voting no: Abbe Wolfsheimer, George Stevens, Judy McCarty and Mayor Maureen O’Connor.

On Feb. 11, the council reversed itself after several members added provisions for recycling and other measures to be placed on the trash ballot. The council voted 5 to 4 not to place the revised measure on the ballot.

Voting yes: Abbe Wolfsheimer, John Hartley, Valerie Stallings and Judy McCarty.

Voting no: Ron Roberts, George Stevens, Tom Behr, Bob Filner and Mayor Maureen O’Connor.