Livable City’s Priority Revenue Sources to Address MTA’s Budget Deficit

livablecity.org – excerpt

Livable City has never seen a development project they don’t like. They are turning your tax dollars against you while claiming to have your interests at heart.  Livable Streets is campaigning against cars and parking in San Francisco, while supporting unbridled development of the city. The green veneer masks a development nightmare. They support the 8 Washington Project, claiming “Livable City: Parking Lot on Ferry Terminal Plaza Would Be Shameful”. Supporters of developing 8 Washington claim they are supporting a public park, but fail to mention that there is a park there now, and a wide plaza with tennis courts, which they plan to build a condo on. They probably support the Warriors stadium proposal to build on the water as well, which most people realize is a bad business deal for the city, and a congestion nightmare waiting to happen.

We have one question for the voters of San Francisco. Since the SFMTA has unleashed their congestion parking plans, including elimination of parking spaces and traffic lanes, and expansion of bicycle lanes, has the traffic become less congested as promised? If you answered NO! Let the city officials no that you do not trust the SFMTA parking methods. Join overt 2300 others and sign our Stop SFMTA petition. Every comment you make goes directly to the Mayor and Supervisors. Tell them what you think of SFMTA traffic congestion results.

Get the facts about Livable City’s plans to take over San Francisco and open it up to developers in the article below that describe their revenue proposals that could be implemented without ballot approval.

Continue reading

SFTRU Opposes Temporary Service Cuts, ASKS SFMTA To Consider Alternatives To Cuts

By Mario Tanev : SFTRU – excerpt

Statement on Muni’s Temporary Service Cuts

“We propose that until SFMTA’s capital and operational budgets are properly funded,  SFMTA uses its existing powers to raise revenue instead to fund service: increase the price of parking, extend parking meter hours in commercial districts to evenings, and add parking meters where demand is high. We have all witnessed how simple common-sense parking changes result only AFTER years of public process, while transit service cuts are done at the blink of an eye, sometimes without even one public meeting.”

Dear Transit Rider,

SFTRU recognizes that SFMTA should use its resources judiciously and target service to when and where it is needed most. However, SFMTA should provide a baseline level of service that meets the needs of San Franciscans. The fact is that with numerous service cuts during the past decade, peak and off-peak service on almost all lines has been downgraded to unacceptably low levels. When combined with Muni’s historic lack of reliability, the proposed reduction in service will frequently result in even higher waiting times than promised.

San Francisco is the only major city in the US which has lost riders in the last decade, even as it has gained population. That is due to a constant cycle of service cuts and fare increases, that force more to drive, then in turn slowing Muni and making service even worse. Cutting any service will further exacerbate this death spiral.

However, due to San Francisco’s failure at funding transit, history shows that if Muni doesn’t cut service in the way proposed, they will simply find another way to cut service. Neither option is acceptable. We propose that until SFMTA’s capital and operational budgets are properly funded,  SFMTA uses its existing powers to raise revenue instead to fund service: increase the price of parking, extend parking meter hours in commercial districts to evenings, and add parking meters where demand is high. We have all witnessed how simple common-sense parking changes result only AFTER years of public process, while transit service cuts are done at the blink of an eye, sometimes without even one public meeting.

This double standard cannot continue. San Francisco’s transportation system is interconnected: free or cheap parking for one means slow, less frequent, more expensive transit service for another. This incentivizes driving and makes Muni service worse and worse, year by year. This has to stop… (more)

Mario Tanev,
San Francisco Transit Riders Union
mtanev[at]sftru.org

If the Muni needs money why are they transferring millions of dollars Prop A and K sales tax revenues from Muni transit funds to complete streets and bicycle paths? SFMTA does not put Transit First. They put Transit Last. If SFMTA and their consultants know how to fix Muni and solve traffic congestion problems, why is Muni becoming less reliable and the traffic more congested?

Let’s have a poll, shall we. Who thinks Muni is working better under the new SFMTA?And who thinks the traffic is less congested since SFMTA started their parking pilot program?
And, who trusts SFMTA to spend a penny more of any additional revenue to FIX THE MUNI?
Who thinks they will spend the money on planning new bike paths instead?

L.A.’s broken-parking-meter scheme may soon expire

By Patt Morrison : latimes – excerpt
his post has been updated and corrected, as indicated below.

Remember the scene early on in “Cool Hand Luke” when Paul Newman whacks the heads off those parking meters?

I loved it. You did too — admit it.

I don’t know whether that’s one of Mike Gatto’s favorite movies, but I hope so. He’s the Los Angeles Democratic assemblyman who wrote the bill that would smack down cities like L.A. that ticket people for parking at meters that turn out to be broken. L.A. sticks Angelenos with a $73 ticket.

It’s one of the city’s more cynical ways of making money, and Gatto wants it to stop. We already pay, as he points out, “for street maintenance, meter installation and meter upkeep.” Cities should spend their time and treasure keeping the meters working, “not squeez[ing] a double penalty out of cash-strapped citizens.”

(The bill has been passed by the Assembly and state Senate and sent to the governor.) … (more)