Definition: SFpark

SFpark (sf-park) n.

1. A FAILED project of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA), SFpark was designed to bilk taxpayers, expand government, and generate unlimited revenue under the guise of "Going Green".  
2. A price fixing agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand. Click here to learn how SFpark works.
   

• Supervisors Malia Cohen and Mark Farrell suggest a change of priorities at the SFMTA  The Crowd Cheered! 

• SFpark SCANDAL Rocks City Hall!   MTA undermines the public trust. Were officials awarded for lying to the public?
  

• The latest SFpark News

• SFMTA blasted for Lack of Fair outreach to Aging and Disabled

• Save Polk Street Website

• Save Masonic Street Website

• ENUF Website - Eastern Neighborhoods United Front

• Meter Madness

• Save Muni Website 

• SF Citizens Petition to STOP SFMTA



Residents across San Francisco are saying that the SFpark Pilot is an EPIC FAILURE, run by a $20M grant from the Federal Highway Administration , SFpark has no Federal oversight, and has done little outreach to find out what businesses and residents need for parking in their community. 

It's clear that SFpark doesn't have a clue about the community which it is serving, planting meters all over the city in an attempt to "regulate parking" that in many areas doesn't need regulating. Residents across the city are  revolting against the draconian steps the SFMTA has taken to control city streets through programs that eliminate parking spaces, rearrange traffic flows and  demand more money for parking fines and fees. 

City Halls War on Cars is hurting, small businesses, working families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. Residents have had enough of SFparks price-gouging, and market manipulation.  To artificially inflate consumer prices is not innovative, groundbreaking, or revolutionary.  Its just plain wrong.


History

After noticing flyers early 2012 posted on street corners announcing SFMTA's intention to install meters in front of their homes, residents from Potrero Hill, Dogpatch and North East Mission, packed City Hall mid-January to protest. Neighbors quickly met and exchanged notes, vowing to fight MTA's plans to blanket the city with a new brand of parking meters:  technology ‘smart’ meters. The  “variable pricing” on the smart parking meters allows the city to charge motorists up to $6.00/hr. or up to $18.00/hr.  for “special events”.

A review of how the smart meters were working in SOMA and along Townsend was part of what people riled up:  plenty of empty spaces by parking meters left by Caltrans commuters.  Also, residents of Potrero Hill and Dogpatch knew some streets previously slated for 2-hour parking signs and parking permits, were changed to be zoned for smart meters only. An injunction was filed.

Neighborhoods Unite 2012

Neighborhood groups then joined together  with media coverage and a number of MTA and city officials, including three District Supervisors.  The Director of MTA apologized for the lack of community outreach stating ‘we want to get it right,’ and offered to work with residents on a more palatable parking plan. 

The Conflict

On the one hand, the city wants to claim their "Transit First" policy is a success and hold it up as a national standard. On the other, a quick review of MTA finances proves otherwise. 

The conflict centers on some assumptions the MTA makes that residents question:

1. MTA is authorized to control the streets;

2. No one has the right to free street parking

3. San Francisco has a traffic and parking crisis;

4. MTA parking management goal is to increase parking availability;

5. MTA needs to calm traffic and parking by eliminating parking spaces;

6. MTA will only use the most current technology to solve all parking problems;

7. Revenues gained from parking meters will go directly to MUNI; and

8. Drivers and taxpayers should pay whatever debts City Hall and SFMTA incurs.

9. Lack of Fair Notice and Outreach- Aging and disabled citizens report that they never received any  notice from MTA (nor from the Planning Department or any other City department or agency) about how the SFpark Project would affect their ability to access city streets and other public spaces. 

10. People with mobility disabilities and seniors rely heavily on automobiles, so we would be even more impacted by the parking loss than the general public.

Many people with mobility disabilities and seniors are limited in how far they can walk or roll, so the parking loss caused by MTA's Parking Projects not only will make it harder for us to find parking, but will require us to expend more energy getting from a parking space to our home, workplace and business, and to the stores and restaurants we patronize.

Aging and Disability Rights Advocates to SFMTA: Equal Rights are not special rightsThe campaign against cars is harming many San Franciscans, visitors and businesses, but is having a disparate impact on aging and disabled residents.  Moreover, we are one of the most vulnerable groups of pedestrians, and the lack of serious enforcement against aggressive, dangerous and illegal behavior by bicyclists is deeply problematic and troubling.

By willfully ignoring most of San Francisco’s residents, the Board of Supervisors and the MTA have created a master plan that makes no sense at all. It demands that people ride bicycles or use a transit system that doesn’t work. All the changes required will be paid for by extending parking meter hours, raising parking rates, raising parking fines, installing tolls into San Francisco, plus an assortment of added fees for everything from paying on line to doing what the MTA wants you to do, ride the bus.

Why do Transportation officials have such contempt for the citizens of San Francisco and why are they trying to impose their car-free agenda as expressed below: 

"Oh poor drivers!  Having to push their widdle foots on the gas pedal for a few more seconds to get to the other legal freeway on-ramps. Let's charge them ten bucks to get on and off and see how they like that. They'll be wishing for the days of a few extra blocks to drive."

                                                  City Transportation official

Like so many other plans hatched by our insulated administrators, this one is based on a demonstrably false set of beliefs about who we are and how we live.

The enduring fiction is that cars and their drivers are evil, but bicyclists are holy. The city of  San Francisco imposes fees on auto ownership, order police to prioritize bike theft and design streets to serve bicyclists needs, but do not enact fees for bike registration or instigate safe riding exams for bicyclists. Bicycles, the myth goes, are good for the environment.

The idea that bike riding is an environmentally sound transit solution, one that we should repave our streets to accommodate, is ridiculous. Only 3% of all trips in SF are made on bicycles. One only needs to check page 3 of the city's latest Transportation Fact Sheet to verify that reality.

The number and type of bicyclists remains constant because people do not convert to bike riding, but move into, then away from it. As people move into their professional lives, age and have children, bike riding becomes a recreational activity, not a commuting choice. Yet, San Francisco has developed an urban plan around the loud but short-sighted desires of 15,000 people in our population of 800,000.

Buses, streetcars and BART trains are dirty, dangerous and don’t run to places or at times that people need to use them. If you live anywhere except along a BART or Metro corridor, it is safer and more expedient to drive than to take public transportation, especially on weekends and at night.

Older adults, and people with children who have long term investments in public schools and the community, must compete for attention and funding with people demanding we save the planet by riding bicycles while real estate developers get tax breaks to build huge “luxury” condo complexes without parking spaces in our densest areas.

It’s become "fashionable" to proclaim grand concepts – Transit First! - without asking what the slogan really means or how it’s supposed to work. One thing is for certain. Equal rights are not special rights. The campaign against cars is harming many San Franciscans, visitors and businesses, but is having a disparate impact on aging and disabled residents.  Moreover, we are one of the most vulnerable groups of pedestrians, and the lack of serious enforcement against aggressive, dangerous and illegal behavior by bicyclists is deeply problematic and troubling. 

Small Businesses, working families, and Senior Citizens make up the highest percentage of registered voters in San Francisco and we are not happy with the car-free agenda has been forced on to our community.

Click here to learn more about SFParks Problems