Lies SFDPH and Recology Told You

Lies SFDPH Told You and How You are Paying for Them

l. RECOLOGY IS NOT A MONOPOLY

SFDPH Environment branch has been lying to you for decades and what you don't know does hurt you and your wallet. You have been told that every SF resident must subscribe to Recology services. Many NGOs, even some politicians, fought against that monopoly. Did they know the truth?

Trying to impose monopolies on their residents, several cities filed a lawsuit but lost! You can save on extortionist Recology fees and arrange pick-ups only when needed, drop off, donate or sell your recycling to any recycler you wish. The judges also chastised cities for exceeding their policing authority.

II. YOU CAN APPLY FOR A WAIVER FROM RECOLOGY SERVICE

For decades, SF residents and businesses were forced to pay mandatory and ever increasing fees to Recology whether they needed its service or not despite the following requirement " ... agencies must ensure that the person who pays the fee receives a "service or product" . and "Collection" means taking physical possession of and removing discarded material..." . So if you had nothing to collect you should not be charged.

III. LAWS RECOLOGY AND ITS ENFORCER SFDPH ENVIRONMENT BRANCH DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW:

The environment code mandates service only if you "generate refuse" That means if you don't generate refuse you do not have to subscribe. You could be away, sick, occupying your property only part time, ill in a hospital or you could be an environmentally conscientious consumer who recycles everything - any reason you do not produce trash and achieved the 0-waste goal. As noted above, recycling is yours to give away or sell to anyone you choose and only when you need it.

“...the Director will evaluate the need for service." SF department of environment, SFE - not SFDPH - must consider your circumstances and grant a waiver from Recology service if justified. (Not a single waiver had been granted in SF and DPH stated in writing it does not want to set a precedent - contrary to the laws above).

IV. DPH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WAIVERS

The Code allows you to apply for a waiver from Recology service. DPH conducts court-like hearings to consider your waver application while it has no authority to issue them! If you do not need service or choose to use another recycler and are paying Recology for nothing, you can apply for a waiver at SFE. However, in violation of the above laws, its application form does not contain "trash" waiver. Even if you know about the waiver option, your application will not be processed - SFE claims it needs Recology and DPH's permission! As jurisdictions are forbidden to delegate duties to private companies. this illegal collusion is prohibited Moreover, Recology insists - and SFE / DPH approve - a minimum Basic charge even if you never use or want Recology services! Definition of "extortion": Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

V. DPH DOES NOT FOLLOW DUE PROCESS IN ITS LIEN PROCEDURES

Before a lien can be placed on a property for health code violations, DPH - not Recology - must issue a Notice of Violation followed by Opportunity to Correct Violations, Notice of Intent to Lien and Final Notice Before Lien. Agencies must also assist residents to comply before any punitive measures are taken. Contrary to laws prohibiting delegation of duties from government entities to private parties, DPH claims that Recology bills ARE lien notices.

If DPH slapped a lien on your property, check if it followed the due process. The required notices must come from the DPH, not Recology, and served BEFORE the lien placement, not after the fact.

Recology compiled a list of SF residents, churches, non-profits and small businesses with liens on their properties with over 900 names and addresses of owners + lien amounts they owe. Even with the lowest bank interest rates, these liens are generating predatory 1% interest per month (!) in inflated profits to Recology and the DPH.

VII. DPH CHARGES $125 "ADMINISTRATIVE" FEE IT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO COLLECT. (A class action lawsuit to dispute this fee is pending). Government entities are not permitted to charge fees surpassing costs and every lien already has a recording fee added.


Defeating the SF proclaimed goal of 0-waste, charging for non-existent refuse will never encourage the public to RRR. Forcing residents to pay for non-existent pick-ups is legalized extortion!

SB 54: Plastic Producer Responsibility Act was partially adopted by CA legislature. Over 700 US cities use measured cash-for-trash system whereas residents pay only for the trash they produce encouraging recycling with huge reduction in waste. Berkeley with a municipal refuse collection has much lower fees and also uses cash-for-trash service, San Diego had free trash collection for over 100 years, but San Francisco residents have been told for decades that Recology is their only choice.

Due to the resulting corruption that forced SF residents to pay inflated Recology rates, the rate setting process was reassigned to yet another city bureaucracy - the 3-person rate setting board that must include a public representative. Does it matter to Recology? Hardly - just another set of pencil pushers to appease and make sure residents have no say in its business even if the only public rep opposes the rate hike but looses in 2 to 1 vote.

Recology's former CEO is in prison; the company was illegally hiking up its rates and had to pay back ratepayers, but quickly restored profits when the new rate setters approved new hikes just months after that refund.

The small room where the rate hike public meetings are held is always packed with paid Recology staffers leaving little space for the members of the public who can participate in person or over the phone but almost never do. Just in case they do raise their voices, Recology arranged for the following rule adopted by the board: unless more than half of ratepayers protest IN WRITING - no calls or emails count - the hikes will be adopted. That's how the working public without time and energy to protect itself is fleeced year after year.

Year after year, SFDPH generates more complaints than all other city departments combined. Yet, even with FOIA requests, the Controller's investigation results are inaccessible to SF residents who fund city agencies.

Why is DPH so adamant about enforcing a private monopoly's wishes? It gets a cut from its profits despite many other financing options.
https://www.cailg.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/financing_recycling_infrastructure_final_formatted.pdf

SFDPH and SFE are wasting millions of your tax dollars on imposing and enforcing Recology's interests to protect their profits at your cost. The DPH liens are then transferred to tax collection and may lead to foreclosure if taxes are not paid. Even if you pay your property tax minus the disputed lien, it will be rejected by the tax collector hiking up your "debt" and potentially forcing you out of your home.

THIS IS HOW RESIDENTS ARE FORCED INTO VIRTUAL "DEBTORS' PRISON" by artificially hiked-up debt, horrendous penalties and fees with a predatory interest rate of 18%! While many other cities, even in "red" states, cut or wave taxes for low-income groups, "progressive" San Francisco makes no exceptions and is making money on the backs of the poor offering them only tax "postponement" with inflated interest rates that will eventually expropriate their homes. After all, getting rid of the poor will hike up taxes from new rich buyers and help prop up overgrown city bureaucracy. Hence the DPH's unmentionable motto: DELAY, DENY, HOPE YOU DIE. You blamed banks for foreclosure crisis? Ever heard of tax debt foreclosures?

WHY DO WE NEED SFE (Department of Environment) AND THE ENVIRONMENT BRANCH OF SFDPH?!

That branch has over 100 "inspectors" + managers. In its 2025 report the Budget and Legislative Analyst of the SF BoS audit found "The revelation in late 2022 of previously undisclosed secondary employment by approximately 300 Department of Public Health staff"! (p. 38) Here's a list of employees in the environment branch alone Environmental Health Branch Staff Directory | SF.gov

Recology managed to defeat a previous proposition to open up trash collection for bidding. As stated above, you already have choices, but the best solution is MUNICIPAL TRASH COLLECTION without a profit motive as it is done in almost all world cities.

Better still is Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR program well established in Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea and even in many developing countries, but only now getting some traction in some US cities. It makes manufacturers responsible for the entire life cycle of their products and especially for its take back, recycling and final disposal. EPR is based on the “polluter pays” principle by moving the cost of managing waste from local governments and consumers to the producers. Most importantly, it will cut public spending on waste management. Producers will pay collectors who will provide pick-up services free of charge to residents, like in San Diego for over 100 years. It will also force producers to rethink its wasteful products and packaging. But Recology, while publicly supporting the idea, is desperately clinging to the profitable status quo dealing with politicians dispensing taxpayer dollars, rather than more stringent private producers.

A private company that lives off trash while cities are striving to reduce it is a major conflict of interest that must be eliminated once and for all.