Bailey is a former mayor of the city of Coronado.
San Diego’s latest efforts to balance the budget expose a City Council out of touch with residents and disconnected from everyday realities. That reality, one of increasing taxes and fees with decreasing results, demands an honest conversation about what’s broken at City Hall followed by accountability residents have yet to see.
Let’s start with the fundamentals. The city claims it needs more revenue, but last year, San Diego collected a record $2.1 billion in general fund tax revenue. Since 2015, the city’s population grew by about 1 percent, while over that same period, city staffing increased by roughly 27 percent.
Even more striking is where the growth in city staffing occurred. Non-public safety staffing grew five times faster than the city’s population growth. The number of middle managers exploded, up more than 460 percent since 2015. In fact, middle-management positions grew 23 times faster than frontline workers. Today, San Diego has double the number of middle managers per employee than the city of Los Angeles. The increased staffing levels are responsible for the city’s annual pension payments, now consuming 20 cents of every dollar it takes in.
Despite record staffing, record spending and record revenues, according to the city’s own data, performance has declined across nearly every core city function. Police response times for Priority 1 calls were approximately 13 minutes in 2015, but today average between 30 to 45 minutes. Street conditions continue to deteriorate with fewer miles of streets being maintained and 30 percent of roads rated as poor or worse. It now takes more than 500 days for a streetlight to be repaired. Permit processing is slower than ever. Homelessness is near record highs. All the while deferred maintenance for virtually all city infrastructure stacks up.
These facts point to an unavoidable conclusion: San Diego does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending and management problem.
The city is running a structural deficit, meaning it has approved budgets that spend more than they collect year after year. The operating gap alone approaches $100 million annually, even when using the city’s rosy projections. If accurate, the city will deplete general fund reserves in FY 2028.
But even more alarming, when you add the cost of rebuilding depleted reserves, addressing years of deferred maintenance to streets and facilities and making modest investments to stop falling further behind, the honest funding gap approaches $600 million per year.
That’s why nickel-and-diming residents for parking, recreational leagues, trash collection and one-time budget patches won’t solve a structural problem. It’s just math.
Fixing San Diego’s budget requires a fundamental reset at City Hall. Right-sizing the workforce to 2015 levels and reducing excess management could save approximately $315 million annually while lowering pension obligations by $130 million, without reducing service quality. Zero-based budgeting would improve fiscal discipline, while expanded managed competition could generate $50 to $100 million in savings. A more effective homelessness strategy must combine one-time outreach with meaningful enforcement that prioritizes clean and safe public spaces. Finally, a refocus on core city services and transferring responsibilities to the appropriate agency, such as allowing the District Attorney to handle misdemeanor prosecution, like every other city in the county, would save San Diego taxpayers and produce better results.
These reforms won’t be popular inside City Hall. But City Hall’s results haven’t been popular with the public either.
The good news is that a failing San Diego is not inevitable. The city is not broke, it’s mismanaged. It’s not ungovernable, it’s rudderless. And it’s not incapable, it’s unaccountable.
With strong existing revenue, a realigned workforce and a new leadership focused on core city responsibilities, San Diego can once again become a functioning city that delivers results and reconnects with the residents it serves.

Since the US is probably heading into a recession (less business and taxes) it would be a good idea to reduce City staff now rather than wait. Among other things would allow financing city pensions for long term employees rather than wait until the task becomes unmanageable (see San Bernadino bankruptcy).
More likely the city will go bankrupt before this city council or mayorake meaningful changes.
And a federal court found that pension systems are fair game in bankruptcy court when Orange County went bankrupt many years ago.
If I was a city worker or retiree I’d be very concerned about he path the city of SD is on for my own financial future. The unions are not paying attention to the cold reality of insolvency. Same goes for school district employees in San Diego. They are digging their own grave.
Mayor Richard Bailey nailed the issue on the head (San Diego Doesn’t Have a Revenue Problem. It Has a Management Problem). He referenced how things have gone downhill since 2015. Interesting! The city’s strong mayor system of govt was fully implemented with the addition of a 9th city council member in 2012. I wonder, could the lack of a dedicated city manager have anything to do with this?
A politician with lust for higher office will not worry if every box on the org chart is pulling weight. A dedicated city manager will.
San Diego was better run with a city manager. Time to go back to a better system.
Bailey is exactly right. Who are we kidding. The City of San Diego is a dysfunctional public body, completely out of control. Riegn in the spending. You’ve continued to tax everyone too much. The entire regional is suffering, and will continue to suffer, due to the City’s complete incompetence. Does anyone in the City have the ability to right the ship? I’m not sure.
Voters rejected a 2024 tax increase saying enough. Cut your workforce. And yet after all the nickel and dimes being squeezed out of taxpayers, the special interests are going to try it again this fall. Do not bail Todd and Co out. Do not bail out the county sups 3 amigos either.
Mayor Bailey articulates these points correctly. Regrettably I do not see any effort to change until bankruptcy. There is an entrenched culture that will not stop feeding at the public trough until forced out. There also needs to be a break with the “Homeless Industrial Complex” where vast amounts of money are pushed through shadowy organizations with no requirement to show any result.
The math in this piece is a stretch. Even if you eliminated every “Program Manager” added since 2015, you’d only save roughly $80 million…nowhere near the $315 million claimed. To reach that figure, you’d have to gut frontline supervisors, likely doubling those 500-day streetlight delays.
The 2015 staffing he romanticizes? That’s when the city was in crisis, no? Precisely why hiring happened. And his “middle management” growth likely means the diverse workforce of planners and social workers hired to address homelessness and equity.
More suspiciously, the argument ignores the $500M+ spent on Public Safety. While middle management “exploded,” police overtime pay simultaneously skyrocketed, with some officers abusing the system to take home $250k–$430k annually. You cannot claim to solve a structural deficit while leaving the biggest “spending problem”—police and fire—completely off the hook.
For this to be a credible plan rather than a political talking point, it must address the entire budget, including the “sacred cows” of public safety and pension debt.
If this guy was truly about fixing a spending problem, those costs would be front and center.
Instead, the blame falls on civilian workers (many of them women and people of color) who don’t set policy but are now being asked to pay for it. That’s not reform. That’s punching down.
Hi Chris – thank you for your thoughtful response. As you might imagine, not every detail for reforms/reductions can be included in a digestible editorial but your point re public safety is taken. The driver behind the compensation you mentioned is not base pay, but overtime. Meanwhile, police response times continue to get worse. So the question should be, what is driving the overtime while performance suffers? A big driver is staffing – fewer officers today than 1990. So you would actually save money by hiring more officers since overtime rates are higher than base rates. Additionally, the city’s four contact policy before consequences for homeless individuals means repeated calls for the same individuals. About half of all police response times deal with homeless which make up a fraction 0.005 of the population. This policy needs to be reformed. These two changes alone would drive down public safety expenses while increasing public safety. I welcome your feedback.
Why can’t we go back to fixing the streets like we used to where the county workers did the job instead of hiring private contractors to do the work which is halfway done anyway. I’m pretty sure that you would find more money saved. Instead of taking more taxpayer dollars from private citizens who work hard in San Diego everything is already too expensive