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 here: 

"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



Inside sources say that San Francisco is on a collision course to repeat Chicago's parking meter catastrophe in which thousands of publicly owned parking meters were leased to private investors.

 

SFpark, along with the rest of the SFMTA are doing a great job of CA$HING in on Taxpayers. According to the latest SF Transportation Fact Sheet, City Hall's take from preying on motorists: $47,138,412 from parking meters; $39 million from city-owned garages; $9,490,947 from residential parking permits; and $83,290,024 from parking tickets, a total of $178,919,383 for "managing" the city's parking supply.

Note, that the city makes twice as much from parking tickets as it does on parking meters. But if there are no parking meters, the city can't issue parking tickets, which is why City Hall is putting more parking meters in city neighborhoods.

In 2011 San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee told the SFBay Citizen:

"The financial plight of the city of San Francisco is so dire,  that if around $300 million to $400 million in cuts to employee pension and health care costs are not achieved, the city could face bankruptcy as soon as five years from now."

Creating the SFMTA seems to have only accomplished creating one very large dysfunctional organization. If anyone doubts why San Francisco is broke, look no further than the fact that 1 out of 3 public employees make over $100,000 a year, 20% more than the private sector pay, with vastly better benefits and health care.                                                                          

                                                                                     From San Francisco Citizen

City Planners want higher density and smarter growth but at this point to further tax people who are already highly taxed just to raise revenue for a city that grossly overspends money on projects, salaries, pensions, and benefits, is plain wrong. Where would this new revenue go to? Would 100% of it be used for transit projects to make San Francisco better connected?  If it is simply going to be used to fill a budget gap, then isn't this just wrong? Mobility is valuable, and any limits placed upon it harm people and the economy.

Money spend on fines and in meters won’t be spent in the community or on businesses. The more prohibitive it becomes  to park in or visit San Francisco, the more the suburbs will benefit from their thriving and growing business/dining/shopping/cultural complexes. Many of the larger suburbs in the Bay Area continue to build upon these amenities -- while offering abundant parking at free or reasonable rates. Towns like Burlingame, Palo Alto, San Rafael, Walnut Creek, San Jose, and others make it convenient and relatively affordable to see movies or shows, dine out in good restaurants, and enjoy local nightlife.

Taxing them more than what they already pay is not "progress" at all, but simply another reason for people to move their homes and businesses out of the city. So, what is the endgame? Is City Hall trying to make public transit faster for its residents, or slower for the special interests who have their own agenda.  When politicians ignore their constituents to pay back political favors to special interest groups then you have to question if these politicians are fit to lead our beloved city. 

Please Sign the Petition to

Stop the SFMTA

Guess which side of this street has brand new parking meters and which side doesn’t? (Yeah, I know it looks like street cleaning day, but it’s not.)  Its another one of those artificially induced parking "blackouts" that are happening across the city.   And hey UCLA professor Donald Shoup! Is this kind of thing what you call “responsible parking management?”

Lets hear it for Price Gouging,  Market Manipulation, and Artificially Inflating Consumer Prices.  Brought to you by The San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency and San Francisco City Hall. Don't forgot to thank the Mayor and your city Supervisor on Election day! 

Photo from the SanFrancisco Citizen





Is this a neighborhood with "significant parking demand"  or a clumsy government attempt to raid a captive parking market?   Its another one of those artificially induced parking "blackouts" that are happening across the city.  One of the many SFpark areas with no storefronts, no cars, and "artificially inflated" prices at the meters. 

San Francisco city Zoo. There's no circling, or cruising for parking here but the City Hall wants to install parking meters anyway. 

5th and Townsend Street another neighborhood with "significant parking demand?". There's no circling, or cruising for parking here. Its another one of those artificially induced parking "blackouts" that are happening across the city.  

And Hey, UCLA professor Donald Shoup! Is this kind of thing what you call “responsible parking management?” Lets hear it for Price Gouging,  Market Manipulation, and Artificially Inflating Consumer Prices.  Brought to you by The San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency and San Francisco City Hall. Don't forgot to thank the Mayor and your city Supervisor on Election day! 

If anyone doubts why San Francisco is broke, look no further than the fact that 1 out of 3 public employees make over $100,000 a year, 20% more than the private sector pay, with vastly better benefits and health care. On average, public retirees who have retired and are earning pensions are receiving higher pay than non-government residents who are currently in the workforce.