This is a prime example of privatization of our city streets

What are we going to do about it?

photo of rental parking and vehicle parked in daylight zone by zrants

SFMTA is NOT eliminating cars from our streets. They are replacing our cars with corporate-owned cars by creating unfair parking policies and signing private agreements that give parking preferences to corporate vehicles through a repressive parking program. They are selling public parking right-of-ways to their choice of private enterprises. SFMTA is picking winners and losers without regard for public opinion or engagement. Agreements and contracts are signed years before the pubic is notified.

What is the difference between privately owned Ford Gobikes, and Scoot parking spots for scooters or cars? They all remove public right of ways on public streets. Some corporations don’t even pay for the rights to do so because they created a deal to “share” the profits with the government entities that are removing your parking. (The first agreement was signed by MTC, a regional entity to conduct a pilot project to test the program. A more recent agreement was signed by SFMTA with Motivate that detailed how they would “share” profits. This agreement also gave Motivate much of the “free” curb parking space that belonged to the public. Motivate doesn’t even pay for the permit to install the bike stands. You do.) Who asked your permission to remove your parking rights?

Sharing or taking: The SFMTA is removing space from the public and giving exclusive right to use of that space to on-demand systems, they call “sharing” systems. As some supervisors have famously pointed out, sharing does not involve cash transactions. Free parking on city streets is true sharing and that is what the SFMTA is eliminating.

We have two choices to stop the privatization of our city streets:  One of them is to sue the city. The other is to remove the powers an authorities that the agency has uses to remove our rights. through the ballot intiative system. To do that you need to convince four Supervisors to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot to repeal or amend Prop E to alter the powers of that system. Or you need to collect a lot of signatures to put it on the ballot. Either one takes a lot of time and money and effort.

Talk to the candidates. Start by demanding support for change from the candidates running for mayor and supervisor positions. All the even numbered districts are up for election and candidates are looking for support now, along with those running for mayor. Find your local neighborhood groups and work through them to demand change.

Mission advocates resist bikeshare push, point to existing community programs

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

Fordbikes

A new batch of Ford bikes sprang up on Bryant and 17th Street without warning. It is no secret that the plan is to remove public parking for private vehicles by leasing the streets to corporations. The pubic is not reacting favorably to that plan. photo by zrants

The backlash was fierce and unexpected.

On the surface, Ford GoBike is seemingly everything the staunchly liberal Mission District would value: an affordable bikeshare program targeted at reducing carbon emissions and traffic congestion by offering cheap, rentable bikes.

After the company’s most recent expansion, however, groups representing Latino neighbors in the Mission quickly pushed back, citing gentrification fears.

“The way we shop, the way we travel, it’s a very different culture,” Erick Arguello, co-chair of the Calle 24 Historical District on 24th Street in the Mission, previously told the San Francisco Examiner. “We did say, ‘No, we don’t want bikeshare on 24th Street in the Latino Cultural District.’”… (more)

Public streets are for the public. Taking public property from pubic use may not be tolerated for long. The supervisors should consider who is benefiting from this scheme and who they are pushing to the curb.

Mission District Ford GoBike kiosks vandalized, again

At least two Ford GoBike kiosks at the edge of the Mission District were spotted vandalized Friday morning.

A bikeshare kiosk and bikes at Folsom and 15th streets were splashed with blue paint, and another kiosk at Folsom and 17th streets was splashed with pink paint…(more)

‘Sharing Economy’ Stopped from Privatizing S.F. Public Parking Spaces

By S.F. City Attorney : capitalandmain – excerpt

Following today’s close-of-business deadline that City Attorney Dennis Herrera imposed on mobile app companies seeking to facilitate sales or auctions of the city’s on-street public parking spaces, all three businesses involved in the practice have confirmed in writing that their apps are currently on hiatus in San Francisco.

Herrera issued the first cease-and-desist demand to Monkey Parking on June 23, noting that the service violated state and local law, put drivers on the hook for $300 fines, and risked steep civil penalties of up to $2,500 per transaction for the company. The announcement named two other startups whose businesses similarly violated the law with mobile app-enabled schemes intended to illegally monetize San Francisco’s public parking spaces: ParkModo and Sweetch… (more)

RELATED:
sfcityattorney.org

Map: SFMTA’s 900 On-Street Car-Share Parking Spots Coming Along

by : sfstreetsblog – exerpt

The SFMTA is rolling right along with its plans to reserve 900 on-street parking spots for car-share vehicles, which will bring a convenient alternative to car ownership to more of the city. The agency has published a draft map [PDF] of proposed car-share spaces throughout the city. The map isn’t final, but residents can start to get a sense of where they might see car-share pop up in their neighborhoods starting this year… (more)

Car-sharing firms getting 900 S.F. street parking spaces

Michael Cabanatuan : sfgate – excerpt

As many as 900 street parking spaces – one of San Francisco’s most precious commodities – will be reserved for car-sharing vehicles and leased at discounted rates. The parking program, which will begin in the summer, is a two-year experiment that aims to spread car sharing throughout the city.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency approved the plan to set aside some of the city’s 281,000 street parking spaces last year but still had to solicit interested companies and negotiate which parking spaces would be reserved for car-sharing vehicles. The agency approved the program after a smaller two-year test, involving a dozen street spaces, was deemed a success… (more)

Taking more public parking off the streets is sure to anger more people. Bring it on. Then ask the voters for more  money. See how well that tactic works. When a regulatory agency competes for business with an industry they regulate there is a problem.

It will be interesting to see how they spin the claims that there are less people circling for fewer parking spaces after removing another 900.

See article below. As usual the facts aren’t clear. One story has 900 on street spots. The other has 400 on and off-street spots. Who knows.

 

RELATED:
Hundreds of SF parking spots could be reserved for car-sharing companies – Car-sharing firms getting 900 S.F. street parking spaces – More than 400 parking spots along city streets and in publicly owned parking garages in neighborhoods across The City could be set aside for use by rental cars operated by car-sharing companies, under a city plan to promote alternatives to private automobiles…(more)

State Bill Would Cut Back on Parking Required Near Transit

By James Brasuell : la.curbed – excerpt – to comment hit the quote

The American Planning Association has made surprise objections to AB 904, a state bill that would lower parking minimums for housing and commercial projects adjacent to transit. An updated version of last year’s AB 710, which failed to pass the State Senate, AB 904 appears to be an urban planner’s dream come true: the bill would require cities to reduce parking requirements in transit-rich neighborhoods in the hopes of lowering the cost of construction and making housing and commercial buildings easier to build in areas served by public transit..

Last year’s AB 710 died because of opposition from affordable housing advocates and the League of California Cities; the latter has already expressed opposition to the new version of the bill because it “prohibit(s) communities from determining the level of sufficient parking appropriate for their neighborhoods.”…

B 904 already passed the Assembly in January, with a unanimous vote. The bill is expected to appear before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on June 27. If you want to bone up on the issue ahead of the next round of hearings, the California Infill Builders Association has posted an FAQ sheet about the bill on its website (pdf)..

(more)

It is time for the voters who opposed the anti-car attitude to speak up and stop this madness. The breakdown in BART last week brought most of us to a rude awakening that we cannot rely on pubic transit for all our needs. When one system goes down they are all impacted. We need a balanced transit plan that includes cars and parking spaces.

Americans want the freedom liberty that comes with owning a car. See some of our reasons why and take action to protect your rights.

Related Links:

Last Year’s Parking Bill AB 710 Resurrected in AB 904
Creates Disincentive for Infill Projects and Hurts Affordable Housing

Resrrected Parking Bill Draws Fire from APA