Grover Beach taxpayers deserve to know what years of recalls, ballot initiatives, and litigation have cost them—and what they have gained in return.
David Swift, a mayoral candidate, has supported the broader campaign challenging City Hall, though he did not necessarily sponsor every initiative. As principal officer of Grover H2O, he signed the rebuttal supporting Measure G-24, which repealed the disputed water and wastewater rate structure.
The financial stakes are considerable. The city’s contracted law firm billed $325,704 in 2024 for multiple matters. An appellate court has also revived recall proponents’ request for more than $125,000 in attorney fees, with the final amount still unresolved.
Swift supports Measure A-26, which would make the city clerk an elected position. If it passes, the city estimates a separate special election would cost more than $330,000. At a candidates’ forum, Swift defended the expense as reasonable, arguing it could have been avoided if City Hall hadn’t fought the initiative.
Measure F-26 raises another concern. The city estimates that placing this initiative on the November ballot will cost up to $5,000, in addition to the estimated $47,000 cost of the general election. Yet on July 27, 2026, the California Department of Housing and Community Development warned that state law would deem F-26 void if approved without a concurrent zoning change to replace the housing capacity it could eliminate. Why spend public money on a measure the state has warned may not take effect as written?
Together, these figures illustrate financial exposure exceeding $832,000. This is not a final accounting of campaign costs, nor is it a sum attributable to Swift personally. It combines past legal bills, budgeted election costs, and potential future liabilities.
The city had already halted discussion of the Central Coast Blue water-recycling project under public pressure, yet Swift and Grover H2O continued their recall efforts. Residents can reasonably ask what further public benefit those efforts were expected to achieve.
Recalls and citizen initiatives are important democratic rights. But exercising those rights does not exempt their supporters from answering questions about public expense, legal feasibility, and practical results.
As voters consider Swift’s mayoral candidacy, they should ask him how he would balance political change with fiscal responsibility, avoid unnecessary litigation, and work constructively with officials who disagree with him. Grover Beach needs accountability—but taxpayers also deserve to know what they are paying for and what they will get in return. ∆
Jill Stegman writes to New Times from Grover Beach. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 5, 2026.
A Grover Beach friend of mine told me about this fella. Apparently, he fancies himself the smartest kid in a one-room schoolhouse. Trouble is, I’m not sure he’s passing his own exams.
From what I hear, he votes to approve tall buildings on the Planning Commission, then turns around and tells folks tall buildings are bad. Well, saddle my horse and call me confused! Whatever happened to voting your conscience?
Now he’s calling for detailed line-item budgets. Maybe he’s planning to save taxpayers a fortune by cutting back on pencils and lined paper, freeing up a little extra cash for unnecessary lawsuits and other expensive adventures. Heck, I can practically see him riding off to Sacramento, taxpayer checkbook in hand, ready to pick a fight over those tall buildings he apparently helped approve. Sounds like that story about that guy fighting windmills.
I’m not a Grover Beach voter, but if I were, I’d be scratching my head and checking the ballot for another option.
There’s an old saying about riding two horses at once. Sooner or later, you’re gonna end up flat on your backside.