Revised parking approach to Northeast Mission still draws the ire of residents

By Will Reisman :  SFExaminer – excerpt

A revised plan for the Northeast Mission neighborhood makes acquiring a residential parking permit easier, but business groups and community members say the proposal, which would also add meters, does not address their needs.
In late 2011, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which manages parking in The City, introduced a plan to install hundreds of meters in the neighborhood, which has a high concentration of light-industry businesses. The plan drew heavy criticism, prompting the agency to temporarily shelve the project.
The agency reintroduced the plan this month, adding new elements that would allow all residents in the neighborhood to apply for residential parking permits. Usually, those permits are available only for residents on specifically zoned streets.
The plan does still include the proposal to install parking meters on dozens of blocks in the area.
Since the majority of the businesses in the area are what are called production, distribution and repair stores that do not rely on parking turnover, the meters would be of no use to them, according to Doug MacNeil, president of the Northeast Mission Business Association…
Supervisor David Campos, whose district includes the Northeast Mission, said there are some elements of the parking proposal that he likes, but he disagrees with the agency’s plans to install meters in front of some of the businesses.
“This plan doesn’t properly address the needs of these establishments,” said Campos, who favors the hybrid parking approach championed by Kelly. “At a time when we’re trying to attract more [production, distribution and repair] businesses, this proposal hurts them.”… (more)

Supervisor Campos ended the NE Mission/SFMTA March 21st meeting by stating that the timelines set by the SFMTA to coincide with the Folsom Street park opening are unrealistic given the community lack of support for their plan. He called for a more serious review of the area before moving forward with SFMTA plans,  which they admitted are a draft proposal. Given the inaccurate data the SFMTA is using, it is time to go back to the drawing board.

We are seeing a similar pattern emerging all over the city. The SFMTA was sent back to the drawing board at the end of the “Save Polk Street” meeting on Monday. Citizens all over the city are convinced that SFMTA is the problem, not the cars. They admitted they can’t fix the Muni and now they can’t seem to fix the traffic and parking problems. What do we need them for?

RELATED:
New Northeast Mission Parking plan Draws Heated Response/

San Francisco transit agency vows to revise Polk Street plan following heated community meeting

By: Joshua Sabatini : SFExaminer – excerpt

After hundreds of merchants and residents gathered this week to blast a proposal to remove parking spaces along Polk Street in favor of bike lanes, the head of San Francisco’s transit agency agreed to go back to the drawing board.
Amid the show of solidarity, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency transportation director Ed Reiskin said he would return with proposals “that would have significantly less parking loss.”
Reiskin had a bumpy ride Monday night. When asked for specific removal numbers, he admitted to not having them — which prompted laughter and booing from the crowd. The agency had proposed eliminating parking from one side of Polk Street and partially from the other side to make way for dedicated bike lanes.
Merchants had spent weeks drumming up opposition to the proposal, even posting signs on their shop windows saying “Save Polk Street.” Business owners worry that loss of parking will mean loss of business.
“We really count on parking,” said Dan Kowalski, owner of the furniture store Flipp on Polk and Green streets. Any parking removal “we just think is wrong,” Kowalski said, adding that “Polk Street’s different; it’s different than Valencia Street.”… (more)

RELATED
Cars vs. Bikes: The Battle for Polk Street

Stop AB666 Red light camera abuse

A lot of the people who join ENUF are as concerned about tickets and the lack of appeals as they are about parking issues. Recent decisions by cities to cancel their contracts with the companies supplying these cameras, has resulted in a backlash bill. AB 666 sponsored by Assembly Member Wieckowski would make appealing the red light camera tickets more difficult by appeal red light camera tickets. Details and a petition are here:http://saferstreetsla.org/