The Transportation Workers Union was the only city union to refuse to contribute a cent toward the aforementioned give-backs — and they did it twice. The drivers handily voted down concession packages in both February and June. Those deals would have saved the city about $19 million over the next two years… (more)
We keep hearing about a serious shortage of drivers. Maybe a higher pay scale will entice more people to sign up to drive. That could solve the overtime pay issues we hear about.
Allred is an outlier among car-dwellers: He’s now running a moderately successful Web company with $50,000 in reserves. Most of the newly, partly, or perennially homeless are far less fortunate; they aren’t ingratiating themselves with venture capitalists; they don’t have the option to abscond to an apartment in Utah. Moreover, they’re contending with a 43-year-old ordinance in San Francisco — and a newly proposed law in Palo Alto — that make it illegal to live in a vehicle…
That might change in light of a recent 9th Circuit decision to strike down a Los Angeles law against vehicle-dwelling. Ruling that the law was “unconstitutionally vague” and likely to promote discrimination, the federal appeals court set a precedent for any city trying to eradicate this swath of the homeless population…
It could be a huge point of contention in San Francisco, where, in 2012, the city also added an additional ban against overnight parking of large vans and trailers, which created transient communities along the Great Highway and the outer lip of Golden Gate Park. Here of course, housing prices and a fecund tech economy have created a perfect storm for the Austen Allreds of the world… (more)
Maybe San Francisco could consider investing a relatively meager amount to establish a car park with facilities for people lucky enough to own a motor vehicle car to live in as a few other cities have done. It is a lot cheaper than building low income housing and would take a lot less time to complete. Of course their would be less money for developers and banks.
Believing that they’re somehow discriminated against on the streets of San Francisco, a new political coalition of motorists, conservatives, and neighborhood NIMBYs yesterday [Mon/7] turned in nearly twice the signatures they need to qualify the “Restore Transportation Balance in San Francisco” initiative for the November ballot.
It’s a direct attack on the city’s voter-approved “transit-first” policies and efforts to reduce automobile-related pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It would prevent expanded parking meter enforcement unless requested by a neighborhood petition, freeze parking and permit rates for five years, require representation of motorists on the SFMTA board and create a Motorists Citizens Advisory Committee within the agency, set aside SFMTA funding for more parking lot construction, and call for stronger enforcement of traffic laws against cyclists….
But with a growing population using a system of roadways that is essentially finite, (that is being reduced by the SFMTA’s million dollar road diets and other disruptive programs, while they cut Muni service and Muni stops, making it harder for people relying on public transit) even such neoliberal groups as SPUR and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce have long promoted the idea that continued overreliance on automobiles would create a dysfunctional transportation system…
The coalition behind this ballot measure includes some of the combatants in those battles, including the new Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF) and old Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods. Other supporters include former westside supervisors Quentin Kopp, Tony Hall, and John Molinari, and the city’s Republican and Libertarian party organizations… (more)