San Francisco , CA 94117, 94110, 94107, 94103, 94133
SCANDAL ROCKS City Hall!
Were SFMTA Officials Awarded for Lying to the public?
"My God we have been co-existing and living in peace. You have ruined North Beach, You have ruined it for the people who go to Church because now you are extending parking meters on Sundays. You are making a mess out of something that doesn't need to be messed with. "You are messing with us not only economically, but socially. How many Latinos are in this room? What type of outreach did you do? We come from the Latino Democratic Club to make sure that we are represented. I dont see it! "
- Mission Citizen on the
Time after time citizens across San Francisco express public outrage over the SFMTA's lack of transparency in communicating their parking management plans to the public. Who at SFMTA can we trust? A series of scandals have now enveloped the agency and the MTA's credibility has been shredded by missteps, misrepresentations, and outright deceptions. Were private contractors passing themselves off as SFMTA employees in an attempt to fleece the citizens of San Francisco for their own private gain? Where is the accountability to the people?
Residents say that the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, a government-sanctioned monopoly, was involved in aiding and abetting the disguised outsourcing of public functions to private companies. Nob Hill / Polk Street, Mission Bay, Potrero Hill, USF/Lone Mountain, Masonic, and the NE Mission have all complained that the SFMTA did not provide residents and businesses with any notice of their plans to add thousands of new parking meters to their neighborhoods. Shocking new evidence obtained through San Franciscos Sunshine act exposes a deliberate decision of MTA officials to not do extensive outreach or seek citizen feedback on the proposed metering plan.
See attached SFMTA email from SFpark Manager Jay Primus to other SFMTA decision makers regarding the SFMTA's parking management policy document that provides the SFMTA rationale as to how it supposedly makes decisions on where to put meters.
Note the following:
Jay Primus says "Because this is simply documenting existing policy/practice, early on there was a deliberate decision to not do extensive outreach or seek feedback as we are not attempting to revise or update policy." (emphasis added)
He goes on to say "However . . . we've long planned to very publicly release the document the day it goes to the SFMTA CAC . . . Actively communicating will help to shape the message and be in front of any coverage."
The deceptions and misrepresentations mount! Although San Francisco promoted the SFpark demonstration pilot as a trial that would run for two years and then be evaluated, that doesn’t seem to be the whole story. After the trial period, transportation officials attempted to roll out the project citywide, rather suggesting that the outcome had already been decided and the trial and evaluation were nothing much more than formalities. The SFMTA has bled hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy and increased the cost of doing business in every part of the city.
Was there a Disguised Outsourcing of Public Functions to private companies?
Information has surfaced that would indicate that certain Serco employees should have filed certain disclosure statements with the city and certain ethical rules may have been violated.
A number of Serco job descriptions include in the list of responsibilites:
“Help to shape legislation for changes in laws affecting
parking policy and management”
Is it in the best interest of San Francisco citizens that private consultants have been contracted to:
1. Shape legislation for changes in laws affecting parking policy and management
2. Enforce that legislation (with the full force of government power)
3. Profit from the legislation that they helped to create.
The larger ethical issue is that private consultants may have been passing themselves off as SFMTA employees while promoting parking meter placements that will ultimately make more money for their private employer (along with the City) but also the privatization of a public resource aided and abetted by the disguised outsourcing of public functions to a private company that not only makes money off its consulting function but which influences decisions to put in place new policies, legislation, and parking meters that will continue to make them more money in the future.
The installation of parking meters, as well as the entire SFMTA / SFpark program may be muddied with uninvestigated conflicts of interest.
(screenshots - from documents obtained under San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance)
(Information - from documents obtained under San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance).
Their phone is1-800-424-9071.
Were SFMTA Officials Awarded
for Lying to the public?
City and County
of San Francisco
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
I'm happy to start out my report with special recognition awards for a small number of those staff that we want to honor today.
So, first I'd like to ask our cfo Ms. Bose to come forward with lauren [Speaker not understood].
Lauren is a principal administrative analyst on the sf park team.
She's been a member of that team since November 2009. She has led the planning implementation of difficult and complex parking policy efforts including policies related to city and sfmta employee parking as well as various neighborhood parking management proposals, all of which have been very popular. Her general responsibilities include acting as project manager for on street parking pricing policy and implementation which is really at the core of sf park.
She is the coordinator for the neighborhood parking management proposals, including all the technical work and outreach. and let me just say I've been able to witness firsthand in both small community meetings and large that she really has I think an exceptional ability to deal with what can be a very difficult and contentious issue and a very professional and responsive and open way.
But I think even those who may not be convinced of the merits of what we're talking about, I appreciate the professionalism and the openness with which she approaches all this. So, because of that she has helped advance the parking management policies that we see as essential to implementation of the strategic plan and she's done so and helped make those policies more coherent, transparent, and helped establish that clear linkage to the strategic plan.
She works across the agency, very much with the sustainable streets division with the enforcement folks and does that well. and I guess basically is I think a model of the professional thoughtful next persistence required to get even difficult to get projects done.
Happy to honor you and would invite [Speaker not understood] To say a few words. >>
good afternoon. I'd really love to say a few words. First I want to have everybody
stand up who is here to appreciate lauren. We love her so much. [Laughter] >> you see lauren has a big cheering section because she
provides that much value. Unlike me, I'm forbidden to go to community meetings. [Laughter]
>> I don't have the sense of professionalism and style that lauren does. Lauren really has been key to advancing all of the parking projects. And as Mr. Reiskin mentioned, it would be pretty controversial out there and very personal and negative towards the mta, both individually.
Lauren has been able to, in her way, diffuse that and calm people down. So, she has a skill set that I think will make her an incredible leader no matter what she does going forward. I'm extremely proud of her and she really believes in the mission of the mta which is even more better. So, with that, lauren, a few words of thanks for everything you do. >> thank you on behalf of the board of directors and the entire agency for your outstanding work. And thank you for all your friends who came to support you and your colleagues. Great testimony to you. Love to hear a few words from you.
>> I really appreciate the award. It's really such a treat to have a job where you get to do relevant and interesting work every single day. Most of the crew who just stood up back there, the rest of the sf park, they're very talent and had a pleasure to work with. It's also great to have a chain of command that creates an atmosphere where you really can do the best work pottion every day. So, I very much appreciate that. And thank you for the honor. >> thank you.
>> Mr. Reiskin? >> you're all free to leave at any point so we can resume parking management. [Laughter] >>
<END OF TRANSCRIPT>
Their phone is1-800-424-9071.
This is not acceptable. You mean to tell me that you are using a federal grant of over $20 million dollars to implement your metering program and you don't have any records to document who you met with, or who influenced your decision making? I am shocked that you cannot provide a log of the people that you have met.
Do you have any standards that you are held too when you are administrating a grant / tax payer money? The whole point of a community outreach is to try to engage the community in a meaningful dialogue. Your admittance that you have no records of this outreach demonstrates to me that your agency again, has failed to meet any standards when it comes to conducting a meaningful dialogue with the community that you are purportedly trying to help. You cannot prove that you met with anyone without records of these meetings. "
So who's been looking out for the citizens interest? Its certainly not the seven-member SFMTA Board of Directors.
Concerned citizens of San Francisco can register complaints at 1-800-424-9071.
San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (SFMTA)
Undermines the Public's Trust in City Government
The SFMTA and the U.S. Department of Transportation were supposed to have conducted a thorough evaluation of the SFpark Project at the conclusion of the Federally sponsored demonstration Pilot. So, where are the results of the evaluation? You know, the deliverables that were outlined in Subcontract Agreement 08-515-9810:
1. Develop a detailed pilot projects implementation plan
2. Review SFMTA's pilot project data collection and evaluation plan
3. Assist with development of a survey plan
4. Residential parking pilot concepts development and implementation plan
5. Management of Disabled parking
6. Contingency and Support, etc.
In September 2011 The San Francisco Chronicle reported "The feds have hired an independent evaluation team to track the program's successes and failures. Team leader Carol Zimmerman, who spoke at the National Association of City Transportation Officials two-day conference, said a robust assessment will review everything from the change of air quality, the time it takes to find a space, the speed of traffic, sales tax revenue, the demand on the information technology and public perception to determine the effectiveness of SFpark." The final report was due in January 2013. So where is the report and why is the SFMTA continuing to sign contracts to buy more "demand responsive" smart parking meters in spite of the lack of evidence or data from the initial SFpark pilot? So who's been looking out for the citizens interest? Its certainly not the seven-member SFMTA Board of Directors.
"the facilitator" that the SFMTA hired was released from his employment by the city of Santa Monica. The residents in the City of Santa Monica did not appreciate him proposing ideas that will only benefit real estate developers, such as taking away parking and supporting more and greater density development. Instead of collecting the data that might have helped City Hall make proper decisions it is alleged that this consultant gathered only what was needed for the city to jump to their own preordained conclusions.
"Jeff Tumlin was the City’s principal traffic consultant for seven years, during which he made over $1 million for his firm, though traffic, congestion and gridlock got measurably worse. "
"Tumlin’s most recent planning surprise surfaced a couple of weeks ago when he claimed, after years of fiddling with parking plans, that the best way to reduce traffic was to provide fewer parking spaces. The rationale: if people know they can’t park, they won’t drive. Developers were crazy about the idea, as it would dramatically reduce their costs. Residents weren’t, as it would radically increase congestion."
Residents in Santa Monica say that Tumlins unfounded theories only favor developers who want to abolish minimum parking requirements. This seems to coincide with the report Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements (co-authored by )
See page 5
"Residents have had enough. The City has paid Mr. Tumlin and his firm over $1.6 million to devise circulation and parking policies. Virtually nothing concrete has come out of this lengthy,expensive process."
City listens to residents and fires consultant Jeffrey Tumlin for disparaging remarks about Santa Monicans.
SMCLC's Letter Urging City to Fire Jeffrey Tumlin ... read
Residents' Open Letter to city to fire Mr. Tumlin signed by over 600 residents ... read
Jeffrey Tumlin's resume calling Santa Monica residents NIMBYS ... read
Lookout News on firing in response to residents ... read
SM Daily Press "Tumlin Out" ... read
SM Patch ... read
Key Accomplishments: San Francisco???
From The Santa Monica Daily Press March 4, 2013
I joined what appears to be many other Santa Monicans in examining the resume of parking consultant Jeffrey Tumlin (“Community groups demand consultant’s job over comment,” Feb. 27). Since I spend a lot of time in San Francisco and am familiar with its issues, I focused on the section called “Key Accomplishments: San Francisco.”
Once past the self-important hyperbole, Mr. Tumlin states that two of his plans together “help accommodate over 10,000 residents without an increase in traffic, largely by making walking more delightful, bicycling safer and transit more efficient and reliable.” Sounds pretty good, no? I heard his same rap before the Planning Commission, describing it as the perfect solution for building Santa Monica 2.0.
And exactly where is this new nirvana? Nowhere. It exists on paper only. He is referring to the Bayview-Hunters Point redevelopment, a projected 20-year process of rebuilding 1,300 acres (over 2 square miles) of a former industrial land pocket in the southeastern corner of the city. Partially occupied by mostly lower-end housing, it is well served by freeways, but future funding for the project is sketchy at best. Candlestick Park (home of the 49ers) is also located there.
Only a consultant would consider his fancy (and expensive) how-to plan as an “accomplishment,” when there are zero tangible results, nor any results-based metrics to judge it on. Based on his blue-sky projections, the city of Santa Monica bows at his feet, and is gambling that millions of square feet of new development are just what we need while already overwhelmed with traffic. What the hell kind of planning is that? Is anyone even considering the disastrous downside if Tumlin’s “accomplishments” are simply wishful thinking? It’s no surprise that private developers continue eating the lunch of our naive politicians.
Their phone is 1-800-424-9071.
New information has surfaced that would suggest that paid consultants for the SFMTA may been working with bicycle lobbyists at the state level to enact legislation that would allow them to financially benefit from the placement of parking meters in San Francisco. In addition these private consultants and their employers may have been influencing decisions to put in place new policies, legislation, and parking meters that will continue to make money for their employers and organizations in the future.
Researchers must be able to design and conduct their studies in an unbiased and objective manner that is free from conflicts caused by significant financial involvement with the commercial sponsors of the research. In this case, the only sure safeguard is for the investigator to have absolutely no financial relationships with entities that support his or her research. Some people say the bicycle lobbyist and city consultants have been working together on a plan that will enable them to signifigantly profit from each others actions (see May 8, 2008 - Thursday, 12:30 to 1:30 p.m).
Further examination would indicate that conflicts of interest may exist with respect to the non-profit organizations that, "are working to reduce or eliminate off-street parking requirements in the citys most congested and transit-rich neighborhoods, ensure that parking costs are "unbundled" from the cost of buying or renting housing or commercial space, and restricting excessive parking and driveways where they do harm to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit.
Are there Uninvestigated Conflicts of interest?
A few questions for the Office of the Inspector General from the Citizens of San Francisco
The US Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) maintains a hotline to facilitate the reporting of allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement in U.S. Department of Transportation’s programs and operations including: False Statements and False Claims; Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Violations; Violation(s) of Criminal Law and/or the Civil False Claims Act in Connection with a Federal Contract.
Their phone is 1-800-424-9071.
Their phone is1-800-424-9071.
(Photo above) taken on Bryant Street Sunday Feb 3, 2013. Do these streets look like they have congestion challenges? Someone made some some money from this fiasco. Too bad its not the local merchants, or the city. Have we learned nothing from the City of Chicago? Government policies and processes have a major impact on the City’s economic vitality and the resultant welfare of its residents. The SFMTA's path is unsustainable.
People opened businesses because their employees could park nearby. People rented apartments, and purchased property because they could park on the street. Suddenly coming in and implementing meters everywhere has wreaked havoc with the Mission Bay Business Community. By nickel-and-diming residents and local business and their customers, the City loses out on thousands of dollars of sales tax revenue and does long-term damage for a short-term gain.
After spending $20+ Million dollars of Taxpayer money on SFpark, Muni's on-time performance fell to their lowest numbers in history leaving passengers stranded, or waiting over 40% of the time.
SFpark Results, SFpark, SFpark SCANDAL, Public private Partnerships, SFMTA Board of Directors, SFpark lies, SFMTA
The SFMTA has bled hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy and increased the cost of doing business in every part of the city. What was the MTA's take from preying on citizens last year?
Copyright 2013 SFpark.info All rights reserved.
The website SFpark.info is not affiliated with the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, The Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF), The SF Auto Jobs Alliance, or the Municipal SFpark Project. We are a Grassroots Coalition of Aging and Disabled Motorists who oppose the roll out of the SFPark program in San Francisco. We represent private citizens, business owners, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities. We are residents from every economic status and cultural identity represented in the diverse city of San Francisco.
INFORMATION DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed on SFpark.info are soley those of the original authors and other contributors. This information is provided ‘as is’, and we accept no liability for its accuracy.
San Francisco , CA 94117, 94110, 94107, 94103, 94133