Parking Meter Plan Would Punish the Poor, Neighbors Argue
Transit agency has put changes on hold after a public outcry
The city is in the midst of an effort to manage public parking better. Spaces on Galindo’s block are currently free and mostly unrestricted, but a proposal by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency could install meters where many of her 15 employees park.
If the plan ultimately prevails, Lovell said her company might leave. Her workers commute from outer neighborhoods and the East Bay, carrying 90 pounds of tools, a journey not feasible on public transportation, foot or bicycle. The expense of meters would be too much.
“We are that token business, minority-owned, giving good union jobs to people,” she said. “The city says it wants people like us, but then they do this.”
The transit agency has put the changes on hold following a public outcry, which culminated in a heated public meeting last week where 200 upset neighbors, sometimes shouting and stomping their feet, confronted city leaders and transit agency officials.
“I was nervous,” said Lovell, who spoke that night. “But these are real people and real concerns that impact people’s lives.”
The dispute is far from over. The transit agency’s plans are in limbo but not abandoned — and some believe a larger, more troubling question has emerged from the fight: are the city’s parking and transit policies disproportionally hurting the poor and working class?
Many who spoke at the meeting raised this concern.
“You’re making parking easier for the wealthy,” Charlie O’Hanlon, owner of Charlie’s Place, a motorcycle service shop, said at the meeting, adding that well-heeled drivers have little issue feeding meters, while it is a financial burden for others.
“If you’re going to put meters here, put meters in Pac Heights,” said John Lum, a local architect who moderated the meeting. The crowd roared.
City and transit leaders said they were not engaged in de facto class warfare but were simply trying “to address current severe parking issues” that they say had worsened as some neighborhoods grew in popularity, said Jay Primus, program manager of SFpark, the transit agency’s parking management division.
“It’s very hard to find a parking space during the day,” Primus said of the areas under consideration for additional meters and new parking restrictions, which include portions of the Mission, Potrero Hill and Dogpatch.
Responding to criticism that the city’s parking programs — which almost inevitably result in drivers paying more — have focused too much on working-class districts, Primus pointed to a different program involving computerized “smart” meters that adjust rates to encourage turnover. Out of the project’s eight neighborhoods, two are more upscale: the Fillmore and Marina.
However, he admitted that the agency had a public relations problem, which he conceded to the crowd last week, calling their outrage “a clear sign that we did something wrong.” Despite this upfront mea culpa, Primus, 36, a bookish University of Chicago graduate, was still treated to a relentless two-hour verbal bruising, through which he remained preternaturally unflappable.
But some believe Primus’ response was just theater, rather than sincerity, and they point to a pattern.
In addition to the current controversy, transit officials have also had to halt or adjust plans affecting parking on Cesar Chavez, 17th, Fell and Oak streets — all because of public backlash over concerns that inadequate research and outreach had been done.
Indeed, when transit and city officials were repeatedly pressed at the meeting to explain how adding meters would improve parking — or whether the impact on neighbors had been studied — they had few answers, suggesting that they had not done their homework before creating the initial plan.
“We’re going to take more time to make sure we engage with the communities,” Primus said later in an interview.
Some critics are unconvinced that the neighborhood needs any parking changes.
“I think there’s a misunderstanding of transit first,” said Lum, referring to the city policy to get more people using public transit, bicycles or their feet instead of personal vehicles, to reduce congestion and pollution. While a laudable goal, he said, such alternatives do not work for everyone.
And there’s the question of fairness. After all, the city isn’t pushing parking changes to discourage cars in Pacific Heights. “Heads would roll if that were the case,” he said.
This article also appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
M L
This is possibly the kindest journalistic narrative of a case of zealotry and madness one could ever imagine.
But if you read between the lines, it does very subtly state a simple fact:
That the parking meter crazies are more than happy to fleece the working people to line their pockets.
San Francisco is becoming so expensive that someday anyone but the rich will be on display only at the Zoo.
Next to the Siberian Tigers.
William Shallcross
Twenty years ago I lived on Alamo Square. SF still hasn't figured out parking.
I had a fantasy back then of shooting one "meter maid" per week until none showed up for "work" any longer. I never met one who was not mean and surly.
Highlights of my residence - including driving around at length near my apartment to find a "legal" parking space on Sunday nights, the car break-ins, and the endless commercial filming in the Square, further limiting parking.
Getting a $70 federal parking ticket in the GGNRA. Talk about a federal case. A great story there.
Getting two parking tickets on the day my daughter was born - not curbing my wheel (BS) and garbage collection day.
A letter of mine published in the Chronicle about reserved parking for public administrators downtown - for those that commuted by car to the City. So much for mass transit.
Northwest Mission
Right, so let's sum up:
--20 years ago you were considering committing homicide because someone who works for a living made you mad and didn't deliver service with a smile.
--You drove around expecting to find a free parking spot at a time of the day and day of the week when pretty much all parking is free, as if no one else had that idea too. You proceeded to believe the laws of economics don't apply to you.
--You broke the law and are mad because the law was enforced by a federal agency.
--You broke the law when you were distracted and endangered others by not curbing your wheels (why you connected these unrelated events in your 'narrative'--well, that's for you to explain), and you got caught.
--And finally, you close with some incoherent, vague anecdote about reserved parking and how mass transit should invalidate the need for anyone who works for the city to have a parking space. You may not even know if that reserved parking still exists, but by golly, you're gonna trot out some anecdote of unknown vintage to prove that point!
Man, it must be great to have brilliant minds like this supporting your cause, anti-meter zealots!
Rob Anderson
MTA is both leading City Hall's anti-car movement on behalf of the Bicycle Coalition, but parking meters are a major source of revenue for the city: $40,520,486 according to the latest city report:
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rfact/documents/SFFactSheet201111-29-2011.pdf
Why is our transit system chronically in the red, and why does the city have a predator/prey relationship with drivers? In large part because it's throwing money into the Central Subway pit: MTA and the SFCTA is spending $287,690,000 on that boondoggle. See page 4 of this document:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/110_CA_San_Francisco_Central_Subway_final.pdf
U Ragazzu
Give it a rest, Mr. Anderson. Your ridiculous crusade, based on misplaced aggression with a touch of sociopathy, grows more ridiculous each year. The SF bicycle-riding population only increases by the month--it's a much better way to get around town. Weren't you taught to share when you were young?
Rob Anderson
"Give it a rest"? You mean "shut up"? Who's on a "crusade"? The Bicycle Coalition's and City Hall's PC anti-car crusade---and a desperate quest for more revenue---is getting some push-back from the neighborhoods. I'm not the one who's trying to radically redesign city streets on behalf of a small minority of residents. I think our streets function pretty well now, thank you very much. It's a meddlesome City Hall and the bike lobby that's on a foolish crusade.
The problem the city's anti-car crusade has is that the movement has only the sketchiest political legitimacy, since it's never been validated in a citywide election. The 500-page Bicycle Plan, which the Bicycle Coalition and its enablers in City Hall tried to illegally sneak through the process, has never been on the ballot for city voters to consider, even though it will redesign their streets significantly.
And then there's Critical Mass, the monthly orgy of self-indulgence by the bike people---deliberately making it harder for working people to get home from work---which would surely be rejected if people had a chance to vote on it.
City Hall rashly assumed it could get away with imposing parking meters on Dogpatch and Portrero Hill. As one of the protesters asked, Why not do that in Pacific Heights, too? To ask the question is to answer it: neighborhoods south of Market were mistakenly considered easy pickings by City Hall.
As the story above suggests, the anti-car movement is not only angering the neighborhoods but if continued it threatens the city's economy, where people rely on the mobility of motor vehicles to get to work, to shop, for recreation, to get their kids to school. City Hall laments the flight of the middle class to the suburbs, but making it hard for those people to function in the city tells them that they aren't really wanted in San Francisco.
The latest city count of bicycle commuters tells us that they now constitute 3.5% of all city commuters, a not-so-impressive 1.4% gain in ten years. Nevertheless, the bike lobby insists that busy city streets be redesigned on their behalf. Yes, let's talk about "sharing"!
b s
Parking should not be free...this is public space and the government has the right to charge market rate for parking. The fact is that too many people have been given free parking for too long and it's very difficult to take away something once people are use to it. Having said that, I totally agree that our public transit system is not adequate enough to replace driving for a lot people. It needs to be supported more and spending money on Central Subway is not the best use of funds.
R T
Ok, as soon as we start charging for bikes that are locked on public property. Maybe we should charge pedestrians for the wear and tear on sidewalks?
U Ragazzu
What wear and tear? If you want to punish people who walk or ride a bike, why don't you just man up and admit that?
R T
Sarcasm went right over your head. I was just trying to point out the silliness of the OP. the car takes up public space, therefore you need to pay. Well bikes take up public space an no one pays. So do babies in strollers. Why don't they pay, because it is silly. Of course there needs to be some metered parking to help create turn over of spaces. But that should've the point of it, not to create revenue. I already pay plenty in taxes to live in SF. I am tired of paying more than what I already pay.
b s
Cars and driving are associated with significant costs that babies in stroller and bicycles are not. Aside from the wear and tear, car accidents result in death, injury, property damage, legal costs etc...these costs are not paid fully by the driver or even his/her insurance company but generally by the city (i.e., taxpayers, many of whom do not drive or have cars). Likewise, most of the highway costs are not paid by the car drivers but come of the general fund; fund into which bike riders and pedestrians contribute to even if they do not have a car. To answer your point, I'm happy to support the cost of wear and tear caused by bikes and pedestrians as soon as car drivers are willing to pay the FULL cost of highways and the damage the cars cause.
R T
Ok- You do realize that the highways etc. support not just cars, but trucks etc. without which a city of 750,000 people would quickly starve to death. Goods which I have no doubt you use. That computer you are typing on did not magically appear at the Apple store- no matter how magical Steve Jobs says it was.
We as taxpayers pay for lots of services and things that we never utilize. Education for example- no kid in public school- but my taxes support them and I am glad they do. I have never been a patient at Napa State Hospital- but I am glad it is there for those that need it.
b s
My problem is not with supporting highways per se, but with the mindset that cars have to be prioritized over bikes and pedestrians. Sure, we need highways but why is that car parking is preferred over wide sidewalks and bike lanes?? When we build streets (esp in a dense city like SF), we need to make them in a thoughtful manner and include bike lanes and areas for pedestrians to walk safely. Going back to my original point, it's very fair for the city to charge people to store their cars on public space (I say this as a car owner). It's one thing to make a case for public funding of highways; it's another to extrapolate from this that city owes car owners free parking.
R T
My belief is simple- metering should be used to free up parking spaces, not as a revenue enhancement. Dogpatch is not an area in need of parking space turnover.
b s
I respectfully disagree. Metering can and should be used to generate revenue. It costs money to buy a car, pay for its upkeep, buy insurance, fill it with gasoline, etc...parking should be no different. Arguably the revenue generated needs to be spent better but that's a different argument.
R T
Ok- I see your viewpoint. Nice discussion.
Tizzielish
R T, you have criticized some comments, above, with tight, petty constructions of those comments. . . so I can't resist pointing out to you that in your last sentence you write that you are tired of paying more taxes than you do. That is nonsensical. How can you be tired of paying things you have not yet been paid? And how will someone plugging a parking meter in Portrero Hill affect the amount of taxes you pay, except, maybe, to reduce the public need for the taxes you pay. More money for parking meteres would mean less taxes for you. Do you, um, GET that? It sounds like you are a little thick headed and rigid in your thinking.
R T
My point is simple. As a property owner and citizen of Sf, I pay a large amount of taxes, real estate taxes, vehicle license fees, sales taxes, etc. in my opinion, parking meters, placed, not to create space turnover but to generate revenue, are simply another tax. The city does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.
Morgan Fitzgibbons
Scott James, once again, fills his piece with inaccuracies. Fell and Oak are not being delayed because a lack of outreach from the MTA. They are being delayed because people have come to think of the ability to park their private automobile on public property for free as their right and they have complained outside of the lengthy public process that already took place. It is not their right. It's about time we start making people pay a fair market rate for the public storage of their two-ton piles of steel.
LawSci
Since when must one pay the market rate to use public property? You make it sound like some kind of natural law.
WE ARE THE PUBLIC.
b s
Public also includes pedestrians and bike riders. When sidewalks and bike lanes are given as much importance as roads for cars, then it'll be fair.
Rob Anderson
Those of us who have been following the city's anti-car movement have been subjected to Fitzgibbons's rants before. He thinks we should just get out of the way of the great, planet-saving bike movement. His comment only verifies what the article said about the "lengthy public process" about screwing up traffic on the Panhandle to make bike lanes.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2011/08/bike-guy-on-fell-and-oak-wake-up-and.html
Northwest Mission
Sure, Rob. When someone comments directly on an article to clarify a point--but you don't agree with what's being said--it's a rant. But when you post the same old tired grumbling comments that may or may not be on topic but always contain epithets of one type or another and usually spam us with links to your own District 5 monument to your ego...well, that's noteworthy commentary.
Got it.
Rob Anderson
I linked two city documents in my first comment---which you ignore, though they have crucial information on city transportation spending---and then my blog for a verbatim version of Fitzgibbons's rant about the city's Panhandle bike lane proposal that is referred to in the story. I understand it's painful for you guys to read my blog. On the other hand, I read all your stuff, which is pretty heavy slogging with all the "smart growth," anti-car verbiage.
No epithets by me, unless "rant" qualifies, but even that is an accurate description of Fitzgibbons's riff on the Panhandle.
Jennifer Johnson
This was a very well-informed and balanced article. It's not as if Mr. James didn't allowed the MTA to comment; Jay Primus was quoted more than once. Unfortunately, it's just an issue where no matter what he or the MTA says, they wind up looking callous because so many residents and small business are adversely affected by their current plan and agenda.
I personally work in the area, and I have no choice but to drive 2-3 times per week since I need my car for work. So, while I agree that parking is currently difficult to find, and would benefit from some alteration or limits, I do not believe that the meters are the correct solution. One of the main problems in the area, which this article overlooked mentioning, are the transient residents whose campers, trailers and modified buses take up anywhere from 2 to 4 spaces at a time for days on end. However, the meters at $0.25/hour (or $2.25/day) are not even going to discourage those people from parking, because that is still cheaper than finding a park or lot to permanently house their mobile homes.
Surely there must be a better way to fix the system. And I'm glad someone in the media is finally bringing this issue to people's attention.
Becky Young
I don't go into the city anymore and one of the main reasons is parking. The last time I went with a friend who drove us, we wanted to go to MOMA but we went around the block 6 times and gave up. A bus was parked in front of the parking entrance and since we weren't familiar with any of it, we had to keep going around and around and around....hardly worth the effort when there are other museums and art exhibits elsewhere.
Mister Big
The real outrage from the community (when 300+ busy San Franciscans show up at a public hearing and organize a community meeting there is real outrage) comes from the utter lack of outreach done by the SFMTA in the impacted communities.
In the end, this issue is not about cars or parking, it's about a community having a say in what happens on its own streets, instead of just being steamrollered by the SFMTA.
Rob Anderson
It is about cars and parking. Parking meters are a major source of revenue for an improvident City Hall, which wants to install meters in city neighborhoods to raise more money it can waste on projects like the Central Freeway.
Add up what City Hall rakes in from parking meters, parking lots, and parking tickets: more than $170 million a year.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rfact/documents/SFFactSheet201111-29-2011.pdf
William Shallcross
I apologize to Mr. Mission for distressing him so. Sounds like I pushed him pretty close to the edge.
I left SFBA + CA in 94 - along with a lot of other folks at the time - and speaking for myself, never looked back. For that he should be thankful.
Jim Corrigan
My advice to all is to obtain a Local #798 sticker or other indication
that you are a S.F. City employee and chances of ever getting a ticket will be
greatly reduced.
The SFMTA Policy is "We never ticket our own."
Dale Fletter
I like SJ's reporting. He leaves it to the reader to connect the dots. At the root of this problem is the high cost of land in the city of San Francisco and that makes it hard on poor the poor in this city. Let me connect those dots.
People in Pac Heights have a lot of money and live in big homes with garages. Big homes have big curb space. Big curb space, makes for lots of parking. People who are poor cannot afford big homes, in fact they live in high-density housing with few garages. High density housing gives little curb space per resident hence parking hell. The competition for the little on-the-street parking there is calls out for some form of metering and the current administration is using a market based approach to discourage people from owning cars in the city in those neighborhoods increasing the cost of transportation on the ones who can least afford it and the fewest choices. Fair? Depends who you ask. But the fact that it sucks to be poor in San Francisco is not news.
Ken Willets
Welfare reform is never easy.
soma soma
The new metering system will bilk motorists, expand city government, and treat the streets and the sidewalks as a *new* source of government revenue. This de facto tax threatens to price residents out of their neighborhoods and decimate small businesses. More than 1 in 3 of San Francisco's nearly 27,000 city workers earned $100,000 or more last year. The revenue from these new meters will only benefit the pockets, and pension plans of city employees who are already receiving generous city benefits.
The variable rate meters are a huge inconvenience to residents, and has made San Francisco a less desirable place to rent, own real estate, or operate a business. Smaller businesses, the bulk of who employ middle-class residents, will bear the brunt of the pain, along with local residents who can no longer afford to park in their own neighborhoods. The "variable pricing" can go up to $6.00/hr. or $18.00/hr. for "special events." Charging residents $10-$50 per day to park in front of their homes is unsustainable.
It is class warfare that favors the wealthiest residents of the city and penalizes poorer, working class citizens who have less money and education. Residents and business owners should not have to own a smart phone, or be digitally literate to park their cars, or do business in San Francisco.
San Francisco shares the top spot for the steepest parking meter fines in the U.S. and has the third highest hourly parking rates for metered spaces. Our city businesses and residents don't deserve this job-killing excuse to make our lives all the more stressful.
CJ Flowers
Yes, correct.
Jeff Adachi adequately warned citizens about the rising bloat of the extraordinary benefits paid to City employees. Citizens chose to do nothing. New parking meters is the tip of the iceberg. City employees will stop at nothing to tax and fee residents to death.
Anyone who thinks this is about parking management is naive.