RVs in the News

City bans RVs on small Ingleside street, promises to offer services first

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

Homeless RV dwellers will soon need to vacate an Ingleside Street after a vote by The City’s transportation board Tuesday.

City officials are rushing to research solutions for homeless RV dwellers, who, much like tent encampments, draw complaints from the communities surrounding them.

However, despite the lack of a clear policy on such bans, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors voted to ban oversize vehicles on De Wolf Street in an unusually contentious vote, 4-3…

Supervisor Hillary Ronen said she would introduce legislation Nov. 13 calling for public land to be used for RV dwellers to park and be offered homeless services, and the Department of Homelessness has launched a vehicle encampment resolution team, social workers who target homeless people living in RVs to offer them help and a way out…

SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin told the board if they approved the RV ban on De Wolf Street that enforcement would not occur until Kositsky has time to send homeless social workers to help those living in RVs there.

Ultimately, SFMTA board directors Heinicke, Cheryl Brinkman, Lee Hsu, and Art Torres voted to approve the De Wolf RV ban. Eaken, Cristina Rubke, and Gwyneth Borden voted against it… (more)

For once we are able to thank the SFMTA Board and Director Reiskin for doing the right thing by holding off on enforcement of the RV ban until there is a sanctioned place for them to go. We support Supervisor Ronen and Director Kositsky’s efforts to work on a solution.

Big drop in tent camps in SF, but now RV dwellers are a problem

By : sfchronicle – excerpt

For the first time in years, San Francisco officials are reporting that there are no large tent encampments in the city.

“And I am determined to have San Franciscans see and feel a difference,” Mayor London Breed said.

By “large,” the city means 10 or more tents… (more)

Advertisements

Uber And Lyft Are Making Traffic Worse While Claiming To Fix It

By Michael Hobbes : huffingtonpost – excerpt

The ride-hailing companies want you to think they’re reducing congestion and promoting public transit. Their actions tell a different story.

For years now, Uber and Lyft have argued that their business model provides a way for cities to augment public transport, reduce car ownership and beat traffic congestion.

In 2015, Uber co-founder and then-CEO Travis Kalanick told a room of CEOs that he envisioned “a world where there’s no more traffic in Boston in five years.” The co-founder of Lyft, John Zimmer, predicted in 2016 that private car ownership “will all-but end in major U.S. cities” by 2025. “If Lyft Line were to be applied to all single occupancy taxi trips,” Zimmer and his co-founder, Logan Green, wrote in 2017, “it would reduce the number of vehicles needed by 75 percent.” They called their post “The End of Traffic.”

But these utopian visions have yet to square with reality. Since 2015, studies have consistently found that ride-sharing is associated with more driving, less public transit use and worsening congestion. Car traffic and ownership rates are still rising and, according to a study earlier this year, up to 60 percent of Uber and Lyft rides replace walking, biking, buses and trains — transportation modes that didn’t add cars to the roads. Just this month, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority concluded that ride-sharing accounted for roughly half of the 37 extra minutes San Franciscans spend sitting in traffic every day compared to 2010…

A study by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority concluded that ride-hailing accounted for roughly half the increase in congestion between 2010 and 2016.

(more)

What does it take to change situation that is well-documented by a number of studies? We are told the California PUC is responsible for removing local government control over the TNCs, Google buses and other non-public transportation business models that we are causing the major traffic problems and putting our public transportation systems at a disadvantage? Maybe the solution is to change the CPUC. Ask the governor wannabes how they will do this.

 

Ways San Francisco nickels and dimes its residents

By Amy Graff : sfgate – excerpt (includes a gallery of ripoffs)

Parking meter rates: Up to $7 an hour Depending on demand meter prices vary from 50 cents to a maximum of $7 an hour. Thankfully meters can be paid with credit cards, because that’s  a lot of quarters…

While many of the various taxes, fees, and prices might make sense for the city’s budget, they can also make you sick and tired of San Francisco’s high cost of city living… (more)

Don’t you love living in an exclusive expensive and unhealthy city? Don’t you think adding a few thousand more jobs is the most important thing our government can do to make your life better? Or have you had enough and are ready to go elsewhere?

 

 

SF may no longer require housing developers to build parking

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

If you build it, they will come, the saying goes. But that’s exactly the problem when it comes to cars.

City leaders say requiring developers to build parking spaces in new projects invites too many new cars into The City, congesting streets and harming the environment.

Now Supervisor Jane Kim is seeking to rescind a requirement that developers create minimum amounts of parking when they build new housing or commercial property, as part of a larger effort to reform a city policy called “Better Streets.”… (more)

This kind of logic is what got us on the five worst traffic in the world list.

San Francisco Ordered To Return Car To Homeless Man Unable To Pay Parking Fines

cbslocal – excerpt (includes video)

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) – A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the city of San Francisco to return a towed car to a homeless man who couldn’t afford to pay the parking tickets he received while working as a food delivery driver.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said Sean Kayode had raised “serious questions” about whether the March 5 towing of his car because of unpaid parking tickets violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

White wrote that in a situation in which a car owner can’t afford to pay overdue parking tickets, “it is not clear…that seizure is reasonable in an effort to secure repayment of the debt owed.”… (more)

Judge orders SF to return impounded car to homeless man

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the city of San Francisco to return a towed car to a homeless man who couldn’t afford to pay the parking tickets he received while working as a food delivery driver.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said Sean Kayode had raised “serious questions” about whether the March 5 towing of his car because of unpaid parking tickets violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

White wrote that in a situation in which a car owner can’t afford to pay overdue parking tickets, “it is not clear…that seizure is reasonable in an effort to secure repayment of the debt owed.”…

“We hope this opinion will induce the city to reconsider its towing policy and work with us to develop one that is constitutional and does not punish people for being poor,” said Eliza Della-Piana, legal director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil rights… (more)

Show us the Contract

Show us the Ford/GoBike/Motivate/Lyft Contract

17thArkansas

Corporate takeover of 17th Street at Arkansas by zrants

Show us the contract and explain why it immune to amendments. We have witnessed a lot of amendments to a lot of contracts that were signed by the SFMTA on our behalf. What is sacred about this Ford/GoBike/Motivate/Lyft contact? Where is that contract? Who signed that contract? When and where and under what circumstances?

A number of surveys and recent public polls have shown a preference for station-less bike rentals such as Jump and Scoot. If that is the preference of the renters and that is the preference of the general public, why are we expanding Ford/GoBike/Motivate/Lyft stations in San Francisco? Is this another failed business model being propped up by investors at the public’s expense?

If the state CPUC is involved, it is time to talk to our governor wannabe’s about how they plan to fix that problem when they are elected. This is one of the largest thorns in our sides and it appears to be one of the governors’ responsibilities to release that entity from controlling our “shared” rental corporate entities tight control over our streets. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/

We are happy to report that our Board of Supervisors has taken some steps in the right direction to engage the public by creating a process that the public can use to review and appeal the planed sites. See details here: https://metermadness.wordpress.com/actions/process/

RELATED:

Uh oh! They’re using the ‘share’ word again: Ford GoBike Expansion

Op-Ed By Patrick Maley : sfexainer – excerpt

San Francisco has a resource curse. We are walking, biking, and riding (and also sitting or lying) on the most valuable public right-of-way in the world. Just as oil rich countries suffer waves of invasion and corrupt leadership as others seek control of their wealth, San Francisco has seen waves of extractivist companies bundling cash to elected officials for control of the road, leaving the traffic, the pollution, and the noise for the unlucky residents to deal with. If the companies can take the public commons and reserve it for the use of the wealthy (while paying nothing to the city but “cost recovery” for rubber-stamping this plunder) they’re as good as gold. This is the story of most of what the SFMTA calls “emerging mobility services and technologies.” A good rule of thumb is that if a company is using the word “share,” it probably means they’re robbing you… (more)

 

Corporate Bike Rentals in the Mission

Open letter to the Mayor Breed and District Supervisors Cohen and Ronen:

Re: Corporate Bike Rentals in the Mission

We just got word that Motivate/Lyft is planning to install GoBikes on the southwest corner of Utah and 25th St. where there is a school and a Healthy San Francisco building. The East Mission Improvement Association, residents and nearby neighbors oppose this installation and request that the Board of Supervisors stop further installations of GoBikes in the neighborhood around General Hospital, where both neighbors and hospital employees are struggling with difficult problems on the street and violent behavior has escalated.

We understand that the SFMTA CAC passed two motions last week that will be presented to the SFMTA Board that detail important changes in the “shared bike program” that they would like to see considered. Please review these prior to approving more station installations.

There has been a huge backlash against corporate takeover of public streets in the Mission, there have been at least three public meetings to discuss the loss of public access to curb space, and more are anticipated.

Sincerely,

Mari Eliza

Download document SFMTA CAC motions
or read them online

Send letters and comments to the Mayor and Supervisors. Contacts are here: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/san-francisco-officials/

 

The Next Fight over Scooters Is Just Beginning

by Nuala Sawyer : sfweekly – excerpt

Scootson17th

With the next wave of scooters on the horizon, a new standard for community outreach emerges.

When the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency broke the news Aug. 30 about which two scooter companies — out of more than a dozen who’d applied — had earned pilot program permits, the reaction was like a pro-sports draft. Articles popped up on the Examiner, the Chronicle, Wired, and TechCrunch. Reporters interviewed CEOs and dug into the intricacies of both Scoot and Skip. And scooter fans immediately took to Twitter, berating the city for its limited geographical roll-out“There is an implicit understanding that these new corporate, emerging-mobility systems are themselves vehicles for gentrification and displacement and affect all of our diverse communities, unless they are specifically designed from the ground up not to be,” Bocanegra tells SF Weekly. “Community groups from across San Francisco had begun discussing their shared concerns regarding this trend of the corporatization of the public infrastructure and transit systems, and decided to come together for a citywide discussion.”

“Since no applicant proposed sufficiently detailed or comprehensive community outreach plans, the SFMTA will outline the agency’s expectations for community engagement prior to issuance of the first permit,” it reads. “These expectations will detail potentially appropriate outreach strategies (e.g., use of community meetings, partnerships with local Community-Based Organizations, etc.), based on experience with bikeshare and other shared mobility programs in San Francisco, as well as peer city best practices. Moreover, the SFMTA will require Scoot and Skip to submit revised community-engagement plans reflecting these expectations.”

It’s a vague and wordy statement, but for community groups and nonprofits across the city, it marks a vital shift away from what they see as years of watered-down outreach. With this mention, the SFMTA acknowledged the materialization of a new set of guidelines that may dictate how emerging mobilities roll out…

Carlos Bocanegra, a nonprofit housing and immigration attorney for Mission Neighborhood Centers, says a citywide coalition of community stakeholders launched a few months ago in response to constituents’ concerns over the rise of new transit options and their impact on the city’s streets and sidewalks. Included in the conversation were Senior and Disability Action, South of Market Community Action Network, Dolores Street Community Services, Impact Hub, Excelsior Action Group, MEDA, Mission Housing, and United to Save the Mission…

“There is an implicit understanding that these new corporate, emerging-mobility systems are themselves vehicles for gentrification and displacement and affect all of our diverse communities, unless they are specifically designed from the ground up not to be,” Bocanegra tells SF Weekly. “Community groups from across San Francisco had begun discussing their shared concerns regarding this trend of the corporatization of the public infrastructure and transit systems, and decided to come together for a citywide discussion.”…(more)

 

Lime adds more drama to SF’s e-scooter saga

E-scooters can really rile people up — whether it’s cities trying to contain the onslaught of the mini motorized vehicles, or celebs such as actor-turned-venture-capitalist Ashton Kutcher fighting for their rights at a tech conference, it seems we are a nation divided.

And sometimes, it’s the scooter companies that can get all hot and bothered.

Take Lime, for example. Last week, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency shut down any aspirations the scooter-share company had of operating in the city, instead giving two newer companies, Scoot and Skip, permits to test scooters within the city for the next year…

About five minutes before the panel, titled “Scooting Through Regulation,” which would have featured Emily Warren, head of policy and public affairs at Lime, Sanjay Dastoor, Skip’s CEO, and SFMTA official Tom Maguire, a Lime spokesperson issued a statement explaining that Lime would not attend the panel… (more).