SFist: Surprise: Parking Garage Company Wants to Build LA-Style Garages in SF

dsherlock

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:08:02 -0800

We need to move towards a stackable parking system that will hold the same amount of cars as a concrete structure but only takes up 10% of the space. I work for a company called U-Park It and we are trying to eliminate the waste of bulky parking structures.

aj

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:36:00 -0800

Looks like it has qualified: http://www.examiner.com/a-820923%7ES_F__parking_initiative_headed_for_November_ballot.html

guest

Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:25:16 -0800

it would not be great to turn the pacific ocean into chardonnay.

guest

Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:51:37 -0800

well political consultant jim ross is a wealthy consultant who lives in Marin County...so I guess this is his way to profit off of SF's misery....

NoeValleyJim

Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:01:24 -0800

Poor and working class people in San Francisco mostly don't own cars. The wealthy do. CRS is just waving the Red Flag to disguise the fact that this is a proposal that will overwhelming work to the benefit of the rich and the suburban commuters. I am voting against this as is everyone I know. It will go down to certain defeat.

guest

Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:01:51 -0800

the political consultant who is running the pro parking garage/anti MUNI campaign is Jim Ross. He is also one of the Mayor's people. I guess it's easy to talk big on green issues, but when push comes to shove, it's politics and business as usual.

guest

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:33:05 -0800

The TEP CAC seemed to think that system wide POP was a good idea when we discussed it earlier this year. If I do say so myself, I did drop the idea of front mounted bus cameras for diamond lane enforcement onto MUNI staff after observing them in use during a weekend sojourn in London earlier in the decade. TPS, transit smart traffic signals, will do more to speed things up than eliminating stops. -marc

CRS

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:10:34 -0800

mattymatt [61]: We worked out an agreement with DPW as to mechanized street sweeping. When implemented, it will (hopefully) be more sensible and will keep the streets cleaner for longer than the 5-days-a-week-both-sides-of-the-street mechanized sweeping proposal. We objected to DPW doing what residents should be doing if we all had some sense of pride of place about the Mission. We all (both DPW and residents) had a lot of suggestions, mostly commonsense. We'll see what happens when they are implemented... ########## guest [62]: I was referring to my neighbors and those around here whom I know. They are the residents of the part of the Mission south of 20th Street. Most are working class, having lived here for 20, 30, or 40 years, but could really not be considered poor. ########## guest [70]: Nope. I'm not. ########## mattymatt [72]: Why, thank you.

mattymatt

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:04:16 -0800

Those are both capital ideas. Giving signal priority to buses would also help eliminate long red-light waits. Hopefullky, these things will all be implemented once the TEP recommends them.

guest

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:55:48 -0800

Those SPUR fixes are good enough for the revenue end, but they could be coupled to two very simple changes that would greatly improve the service. 1. Systemwide Proof-of-Payment. Cut boarding times in half and put those new fare inspectors to work. 2. Eliminate, oh, a third of stops? This proposal always makes certain people mad, but stopping at every single block is a huge drag on the system. Cheap, effective changes. Too bad none of this will ever happen.

mattymatt

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:20:45 -0800

So glad you asked, Mariconsoy -- SPUR answered that question over a year ago with their report about Muni's one-billion-dollar shortfall. Among the suggestions: - Hire more fare inspectors. That'll bring in up to $5 million more a year. - Parking Control Officers (PCOs) are deployed along obsolete beats. Update them. That'll bring in an extra $4 million a year. - Collect the taxes that you said you would. There's $1 million a year in uncollected parking taxes. - Enforce the rules that you said you would. It's illegal for downtown garages to offer all-day,weekly, or monthly passes, since that discourages people from taking the bus (sec. 155 (g) of the planning code).Enforcing that rule would bring in $5 million a year. - Put cameras on the street-sweepers to collect license plate numbers, thus freeing up PCOs to enforce parking laws elsewhere. It would bring in $6 million a year.

mariconsoy

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:10:41 -0800

dearest guest 73, It would be great to fix MUNI. It would also be great to turn the pacific ocean into chardonnay. Please let me know how to do either.

guest

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:55:40 -0800

Amen MattyMatt! You are so refreshingly dead on with your analysis of this ill-conceived idea. Let's fix and expand Muni and BART, turn our sidewalks into lively, safe places, put in the kind of bike infrastructure that doesn't pit drivers against bicyclists against pedestrians, build more (affordable) housing so that people can live closer to their jobs and not have to drive, and manage parking demand by charging fair market rate to anyone who insists on keeping a car on our ill-used streets. This would be a recipe for a city in which everyone would finally have a chance to access jobs and live comfortably.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:21:46 -0800

Though we may sometimes disagree, CRS's comments are among the most eloquent SFist gets.

Yogo

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:09:22 -0800

Hi I'm a Mission hipster and I'm gay and I hate kids and I hate workers and even though I moved to San Fran two years ago and I'm 23 years old I know everything. I like scaring bikers on the road (swerve) and now I wanna do it even more!

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:04:15 -0800

Methinks CRS is a paid hack/lobbyist for this ballot measure. Nice try, Mr. Hack.

daithi

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:51:56 -0800

More parking downtown means more cars coming into the city, on the bay, and golden gate bridgem and 101, and 280. All of those roads have horrendous congestion as it is in the morning and evening. Even a 10 to 20% increase in downtown parking would create a nightmare. I understand residential parking needs. Many folks live in the city and need to commute where bart and public transit do not exist. Do we really expect our neighbors to move to Belmont???

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:14 -0800

"To see a downtown built for auto commuters, do a google maps satellite photo search on Des Moines. And how many jobs do you suppose they have compared to us? In how much area?" How about L.A.? ;-)

haighterade

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:08:06 -0800

To anticipate the knee-jerk response to js's comment (which is absolutely correct, btw): downtown is built on a limited parking model not because of some bizarre anti-car ideology, but because it would be absolutely unworkable were it not. Traffic on city streets would be unbearable, Muni would work even worse than it already does, and the freeways and bridges leading to downtown would be at a standstill. So don't think that adding a bunch of parking ramps downtown would make it possible for you to easily commute via car from the Richmond. Because it wouldn't. Each new parking spot means another car on the already-crowded roads. To see a downtown built for auto commuters, do a google maps satellite photo search on Des Moines. And how many jobs do you suppose they have compared to us? In how much area?

js

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:29:18 -0800

CRS is dead wrong about the facts of the initiative. The facts of the initiative are not debatable. The ordinance does NOT leave the recent C-3 (downtown) parking controls as is. In fact, it guts them. And it doesn't gut just the recent changes. It guts the fundamental controls that have existed in downtown for decades, and were the core of the City's renowned 1985 Downtown Plan, on which the Financial District we know today was built. The biggest change is not just the residential controls. The biggest, and most drastic change is the complete elimination of the limitation on commuter parking for commercial (office) buildings. The initiative would more allow (via changes to Section 151.1) more than 650% of the commuter parking currently allowed downtown! Where 100 spaces are now allowed, this initative would allow 667 spaces! This is a fact, and the math is simple: The current controls place an absolute parking maximum equivalent to 7% of the gross floor area of an office building. 500,000 sf office = 35,000 sf parking = 100 parking spaces. Under the initative, a builder could build up to one space for every 750 square feet of office space. 500,000 sf office = 667 spaces. The words drastic and dramatic don't even begin to capture the magnitude of this change for downtown. The entire downtown has been built on a limited parking model, and only because of that reason (and only) the commute to downtown SF has the highest share of commuters taking transit outside of lower manhattan.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:52 -0800

You can read a PDF of the proposal on SPUR's site. We'll upload images of the pages to our Flickr account soon. Sure would be nice if it was available in text format.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:58:37 -0800

I think we can all agree that paid signature gathering hacks are a scourge and anti democratic. Never ever sign that shit

Unanimous

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:38:19 -0800

Wow, this really hits a nerve. . . this post has surely generated the "densest" volume of comments I've seen on SFist.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:26:44 -0800

Regarding the comment that working class people deserve parking spaces like the rich, this is my point: The "anti-parking" sentiment here is not about denying anybody parking. Rather, it's about where do we put our limited public resources. As a city, we don't have enough space to give everyone everything they want. Since this is a capitalist society, space is mostly rationed by the private market, but government steps in with regulation to direct that rationing a little bit. Everybody, even in the Mission, can find safe, secure off-street parking if they're willing to pay for it. But that can be a real burden for the poor: it can cost as much as $200/month to pay for that parking. Most poor in the Mission don't own cars, by the way. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 47% of renter-occupied households in the Mission, rich and poor alike, didn't own cars. (So to the commenter who said most of his working class friends had cars, well, your friends are not like most "working class" people, I guess.) So here's the question: as a society, should we tear down some housing, or limit the construction of new housing, in order to provide a discount on off-street parking, which might reduce the price to just $150/month, say, or should we direct our limited resources to provide more housing so that more poor families can afford to live here, and keep the roads a little less congested so that Muni works a little better. For my money, I'll reluctantly allow parking prices to be set by the market, and direct our public resources to housing, health care, and parks, etc.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:22:08 -0800

CRS: It's an interesting point about street cleaning in the Mission -- it's true, inconvenience doesn't always mean fewer car owners. At least not until a lot of separate inconveniences reach a tipping point. I'm not saying we should make car ownership difficult for difficulty's sake; just that we shouldn't all pay for a few peoples' convenience. Just like this proposal, I think that limiting street cleaning was a bad call. Clean streets benefit everyone; parking benefits only a few. I work in the Mission, and lots of my coworkers opposed street cleaning: "Thanks for letting us park in your neighborhood; but no, you can't live on clean streets."

Ciaran

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:21:36 -0800

I was looking though Transport for a Livable City's parking report, and it says that 38% or renting households in SF don't have a car according to the 2000 census.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:12:42 -0800

Downtown, as it exists, would be impossible without BART AND greatly restricted parking. Just about every neighborhood in SF would be radically different if built with 1:1 parking. Without restricted parking downtown would be more like downtown San Jose This proposal threatens not only downtown but eliminates any choice for people who might want a cheaper unit without parking. Parking demand is elastic and if you make people buy the parking they are more likely to have a car What is the issue with mandating parking on transit corridors which are more than appropriate for some people to live on without cars. There is still a vast majority of SF zoned for 1:1, all of these transit rich areas would allow someone to buy a parking spot. Why should we allow more parking downtown? How can anyone argue that this will not further degraded Muni service? What is the issue? As far as I can tell more residential parking spots will make it harder to park in most commercial areas which seems to be the real issue. If anything these policies make that worse

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:11:57 -0800

To the guest who said "build me parking where I live and where I go" I say, OK, except, that, darn it, it looks like we're going to have to evict you from your house to build the freeway you requested. Sorry. There's affordable housing in Fremont. You can drive to work from there.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:10:48 -0800

Here are census estimates for San Francisco County from the Census Bureau: 1 Jul 2006 1 Jul 2005 1 Jul 2004 1 Jul 2003 1 Jul 2002 1 Jul 2001 1 Jul 2000 Census 744,041 741,025 743,852 752,853 763,400 775,257 776,885 776,733 There are 80,000 or so residents of the Mission. 300 is nothing. 2/3 of Mission residents do not have a car. Same for North Beach. -marc

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:06:51 -0800

I agree ... it is dangerous to walk ... good reason to join a pedestrian advocacy group like Walk San Francisco ... http://www.walksf.org

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:01:26 -0800

[46] guest: I've read variously that the SF population has dropped by 30,000 and that it's dropped by (up to) 75,000. Who knows, really? A lot of areas have quite a bit of transit lines, although "well-served by" is perhaps not a good description of what it does. ###### The Mission is an older area built with considerably less than 1:1 parking in a lot of residential buildings; some have no parking at all. It would then logically follow that the Mission would have a lot of available street parking if the adage of "buildings without parking attract people without cars" were true. But that is not the case: In February when DPW proposed mechanized street-sweeping every day of the week for each and every street in the entire Mission, over 300 angry Mission residents showed up at the Administrative Hearing to protest the proposal. Folks said that if they had to move their cars every day to find parking so the mechanized street sweeper could clean their street, then they would drive to work instead of get to work by transit as they do now. NOT A SINGLE PERSON said he would give up his car.

Ciaran

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:52:02 -0800

To the myriad of people posting as "guest", is it too much trouble to register? Yes. And once I was logged in as guest it took a while to figure out how to get out again to register (it's at the very top left of the page). Where can we read the text of this petition? And what is it a petition for? A ballot measure?

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:50:04 -0800

not socially distributed amongst non-car-owners like some kind of crazy Communist parking lot. This is all about socializing risk and privatizing profit. The lack of parking might make housing less appealing to the rich who demand to have a car and through reducing demand might result in downward pressures on housing. But this is due to demand, not due to the added fixed costs of construction for reasons mentioned above. -marc

mariconsoy

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:45:44 -0800

So how many people who have been posting here have read the actual ordinance? I have. Before responding to hysteria and supposition, perhaps having the facts might be a wee bitty bit helpful? To the myriad of people posting as "guest", is it too much trouble to register?

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:43:48 -0800

[49] jwb: Of course most take transit to their jobs. And they leave their cars on the street or, if they're lucky, in their garages.

murphstahoe

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:40:41 -0800

he confused "working class" with "lazy class"

jwb

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:21:30 -0800

If you think that "working class" people drive to their jobs, you're high.

murphstahoe

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:21:20 -0800

I NEED a car to drive my kids to school. They can't WALK to school - it's far too dangerous to walk, what with all those other parents driving their kids to school!

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:20:43 -0800

It does increase parking. Really, it does. It establishes minimums and relaxes restrictions. It leaves gives no choice for less, only more. Some families have cars, some don't. Some workers have cars, some don't. Removing barriers to transit-use is the way to go; not removing barriers to car-use. We all benefit from reducing car ownership, since cars negatively impact cities. It should be difficult for a person to own a car -- the burden of owning a harmful device should be the owner's, not socially distributed amongst non-car-owners like some kind of crazy Communist parking lot.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:41 -0800

The population of San Francisco has dropped by 30,000 since 2000 yet the price of housing has more than doubled and there are appear to be more autos on the road now than ever before even though all new housing has had to have 1:1 parking. I'd bet that in dense neighborhoods such as the North Beach and The Mission, existing parking ratios are between 1:10 and 1:20. It is very difficult to ascertain exact numbers. Those neighborhoods are very well served by transit so its not a big deal. Many posts here seem ignorant of these two facts. -marc

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:10:02 -0800

Sure one can live here without a car. No one is saying it's not possible. It's just that: Families have cars. Working-class folks have cars. If they do not park them in garages, they park them on the street. The trend in SF has been to reduce parking requirements for new structures. When housing has been built that has reduced parking, it has been found to consequently NOT reduce the numbers of cars, but to squeeze cars into parking garages and onto the already over-burdened streets. What with recent (+/- 8 years) decreases in surface parking due to various reasons such as new construction, the madness of trying to find street parking has increased. This proposed measure does NOT increase parking; it merely MAINTAINS what little parking remains.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:03:41 -0800

People have cars. It's a fact No it isn't. But, if you apply all these pro-car measures at the expense of the alternatives you start to force people to have cars, at the cost of hundreds of dollars a month. Compared to $45/month for transit that's a big bite for working/middle class families. Building more parking encourages more traffic, much the same as building more roads does. And downtown doesn't need more traffic. People looking at this from a "I want to park my car" perspective should think of it this way - if we enact more measures to discourage people from driving, there'll be more space for you to drive and park your car ;)

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:00:01 -0800

More parking garages now! Build them where I live, then build them where I go. And if the streets fill up, add more lanes, and if those lanes get clogged build me a freeway. More garages now! And make sure they're secured, and make sure they're free. And name them after working-class heroes, because it's us working class folks who are gonna park at these free garages. Ten flights of Rosa Parking. That'll solve the city's problems. Because great cities have great parking. Yes.

MarkBallew

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:55:57 -0800

I'll add another point to why this measure is bad and you should NOT sign it and if it goes to the voters you should vote NO. This flawed measure takes away the city's availability to control where and how new parking spots are made. This measure would assign a minimum amount of parking to each new structure. 1:1 parking means that I developer MUST include parking with each new unit built, even if their plans don't require or need any. In short, this measure is bad, and you should NOT sign the petition because it will tie the cities hands when it comes to intelligent urban planning.

Voorhas

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:47:25 -0800

Thanks for tipping me against a measure I didn't know existed before today, CRS!

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:35:23 -0800

[32] guest: Ha ha! Good one in this mass of angry back-and-forth. I was simply referring to how the anti-parking folks are framing their argument: they are writing that it must be "either/or," but that is not the case. > Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's > impossible to have better Muni service. >> "It's not a case of "EITHER parking OR >> better Muni," and is incorrect to frame it as such. >> >> It's co-existence: it's possible to have BOTH."

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:30:22 -0800

All I have to say is that I've lived here 25 years without a car. We don't need more car congestion. Period

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:29:05 -0800

When I see how much vacant land sits empty in the City of San Francisco, how many new units have been built in the last 3 years (including that huge monstrosity on Rincon Hill) and how many neighborhoods are blanketed with one/two story buildings, for some idiot to claim the parking in front of Best Buy and Safeway are to blame for high housing prices really just says it all about the incredible lunacy that passes for reason in this city. High housing prices are a result of an unregulated, speculative investors market driving up costs for substandard homes and property because stupid assholes like Murphstahoe are willing to pay them. I don't have the answers to the high housing cost problem, but there is one clear answer to the parking woes of San Francisco's neglected class: more parking garages NOW!

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:25:11 -0800

The price of housing is divorced from the price of construction and the wage base. Units cost like $300-400K to build and go for $600K and up. At one time when margins were tighter, parking influenced prices, no more. I like the idea of containing the C3. Parking in downtown SF has always been offered at below market rate as measured by Boston and NYC where you can't pull into a space for less than $30, a relic of the west where your car is your horse. Hopefully, if this measure qualifies there will be a poison pill parking ballot measure that will just make people vote NO on them all. -marc

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:21:55 -0800

OK, what is Andy Ball's problem? Why more garages?? Webcor need more projects?? Why not build more freakin' affordable housing!!! I know Webcor is involved with other projects in The City, like Millennium Tower, The Infinity, and California Academy of Sciences. Millennium Tower and The Infinity are out of financial reach of many. Webcor's projects are under $50 million (source); the company can build a lot of housing for that price. I don't want SF to look like Manhattan. It should look more like Vancouver urban sustainability, walkable and bikeable within our 7 by 7 miles city limit. Andy, please take part in building more gleaming affordable residential towers. There is money to be made there! Cheers.

jwb

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:19:17 -0800

Furthermore, according to SPUR, 49% of the 320,000 people arriving downtown on a weekday arrive via Muni or BART. Only 41% arrive in a car. Yet the vast majority of our downtown infrastructure is devoted to private cars and parking. We need more parking downtown in the same way we need a 9.0 earthquake, which is to say not at all.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:17:14 -0800

The complaints about Muni, at least in regards to service downtown, have no merit. Muni works fine .. .maybe not to your instant gratification, but it works fine. Outside of downtown, I have no idea ... I don't travel west of Castro via Muni much.

jwb

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:15:06 -0800

CRS, parking and Muni are actually in tension with one another. More off-street parking means more curb cuts, and more curb cuts makes Muni slower. More parking downtown means more people driving to downtown, which makes downtown-bound Muni vehicles slower. If you need an example of the former phenomenon, watch the 14 bus dodging turning cars all over SoMa. For the former, observe the express routes stuck in traffic every morning coming down Bush.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:11:31 -0800

"It's not a case of "EITHER parking OR better Muni," and is incorrect to frame it as such. It's co-existence: it's possible to have BOTH." Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to have better Muni service.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:08:22 -0800

I would like to know how many "affordable housing" and "rent-controlled" apartments are actually second homes in the City for folks who own homes outside of the City. I heard a guy today talking about how he and his partner bought a place in Pleasanton, but he kept his rent-controlled apartment in the City cuz "its so cheap." No wonder we don't have enough affordable housing if there is no requirement for folks to submit their taxes every couple of years to verify they aren't making $80k/year instead of the $40k/year when they first moved to the City a decade ago and now just use the rent-controlled or affordable housing as the City standby. I digress... Cars are a major cause of global warming. We need to reduce the number of CO2 producing cars on the road. Just because it is an inconvenience to wake up a little bit earlier and wait on BART or a bus or a ferry boat to bring you into the City, don't tell me about being anti-family, anti-worker, blah, blah, blah .... you chose to live outside of the City, suck it up or move back here where you don't need a car except the occasional escape to Tahoe or whatever.

murphstahoe

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:03:20 -0800

You don't get it! The parking is WHY the housing is expensive! Let's say we took the parking lot in front of Best Buy, and replaced it with 12 houses. And the parking lot of the Diamond Heights Safeway. And the parking lot at the Potrero Safeway. And so on, and so on. Add those 1000's of units to the San Francisco Cityscape and prices will come down. YOU have decided that you would rather have a car than an affordable place to live. If YOU want a car AND a 3 bedroom house under $350,000 - move to Kansas. IF you want to stay here - YOU will make the collective choice to decide what is more important to you - a CAR or AFFORDABLE housing. But YOU are too shortsighted. YOU think the only money you spend is what you actually take out of your wallet. But when YOU decide you NEED a car - you are paying a lot more than you think - your choice to have a car means you are paying for every parking spot in this city in the cost of things you pay for that would be cheaper if we didn't NEED those cars. Quit blaming "the rich". Start blaming "The Stupid"

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:00:12 -0800

Yeah, rich neighborhoods don't have as many car break-ins. I don't think parking configuration is the cause of that as much as the relative safety of well-heeled streets, compared to poorer ones. There's no such thing as a free garage. There's always hidden costs like higher rent, slower Muni, dirty air, fewer parks. I'm not sure how to interpret the argument, "we need to force everyone to build extra parking spots in order to have any dignity." And as far as not wanting shoppers and hating the Metreon goes: wait, what?

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:49:54 -0800

I'm working class and I support more parking garages! Almost every working class San Franciscan I know owns a car - even if theirs is a one car family. They are often renters who have to park on the street. If they could have a guarenteed space in a garage and pay little or nothing for it, most would do so in a minute. Instead, our cars are broken into and stolen the most - more than the rich...which in this city it comes down to being either extremely rich or barely just getting by. The wealthy and upper middle class aren't plagued with the street crime and parking issues the rest of us live with, so why should they care if there are more or less parking garages! All of you talking about housing: show me the housing that is AFFORDABLE! Show me who is building 2-3 bedroom units that aren't $350,000 at the very least! Most of us will always be renters because we cannot afford to buy, even with all of the programs in place. Yet many of us who live in the city aren't served well by public transporation and have to drive in order to live with dignity. So who are YOU who want to deny us our needs?! And then you have the fucking GALL to thumb your noses at much needed sales tax dollars by saying you don't want more shoppers to come into the city while the fucking Metreon sits empty and Mom and Pop shops close due to lack of business!??? Seriously: are you spiteful, deluded, insane, or all three?

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:46:03 -0800

I can agree with that. Boston and New York and London, for example, seem to have a fairly livable, sustainable balance. But I don't think this particular measure is moving us in that direction. If anything, it seems to be a concrete-pouring company's attempt to give itself a gift.

MarkBallew

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:31 -0800

Also remember that the amount of parking in downtown has increased dramatically over the past decade and there are still parking problems. When will our hunger for our subsidized, polluting, and space hogging autocars end? (actually had a reference to hard numbers, but the carfreeliving list appears to have a broken archive STILL. plz fix Dave Snyder)

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:39:59 -0800

It's not a case of "EITHER parking OR better Muni," and is incorrect to frame it as such. It's co-existence: it's possible to have BOTH.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:36:25 -0800

San Francisco is already anti-working-class and anti-family. Have you paid any attention at all to the cost of renting even a one-room studio apartment in SF? Have you observed the huge up-hill battle to establish a safe car-free zone for children to play in Golden Gate Park? This parking garages measure will make the city even worse for working-class families by increasing public transit delays experienced by people who do not have the privilege of owning private automobiles due to the increased traffic congestion that the parking garages will likely cause.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:33:01 -0800

I think a good deal of SFist's readers have families and are working-class -- or at least, are of a class that works -- and would rather see faster Muni, faster commutes, cleaner air, and cheaper rent than a brand new parking garage. As far as backing up the comments being made: there's simply no arguing most of the effects of having more parking. How can you possibly build more parking without reducing space for housing? It would be great to get the text of the actual proposition, so we could point to the parts that would decimate bus stops -- does anyone have a copy?

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:27:07 -0800

The part about downtown parking: the text simply repeats what was decided last year when C-3 was before the Planning Commission and the BOS. It does not mess with what was decided then and there. Also, there is absolutely no back up for most of the comments (and the blog itself) that trash the measure being made here. The pat phrases people are using have been used so often that a lot of folks believe their pap, but show me the studies to support what you're saying. People have cars. It's a fact. Squelching parking is anti-working-class and anti-family.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:26:45 -0800

Not sure, but it sounds like this measure would conflict with San Francisco's General Plan. So are its proponents asking for a General Plan amendment or what? Plus, the city's congested enough. The last thing we need is to provide incentives for more cars on all of our roads. I hate the idea of providing all this extra parking to out-of-town shoppers at the expense of residents - in the form of less space for housing, parks, and the expense of maintaining more facilities for parking. Oh yeah, and parking garages are ugly too.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:22:28 -0800

Think of the massive Muni delays if this passes. DO NOT sign this petition!

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:16:34 -0800

Yes, THANK GOD for bike lanes. They do wonders in keeping bikers off the sidewalk.

murphstahoe

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:13:46 -0800

"• Parking for hybrid cars and car share — The initiative encourages the use of hybrid automobiles and car-sharing services, such as City CarShare, Flexcar, and Zipcar, by requiring developers to set aside spaces for alternative fuel and shared vehicles in garages. I find it very annoying that CarShare (shared by 100's of drivers) and a single person's hybrid are lumped together.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:38:17 -0800

There is absolutely no reason to add parking to downtown San Francisco exactly because it IS a public transit hub area. You can get here by plane, train, ferry boat, bus, and taxi cab ... I find these two bullet points counter-intuitive for that reason: Parking for apartments — The initiative allows the building of a minimum of three parking spaces for every four housing units they build in Downtown San Francisco, where most of the City’s transit is concentrated; Parking for workers and shoppers — The initiative allows the building of a minimum number of parking stalls in new retail and commercial projects built in the Downtown area or secure a minimum amount of parking for their customers and tenants at nearby public garages; Downtown needs less parking ... discourage folks from driving here. Start by raising the parking meter rates to a point where folks won't park there for hours upon hours.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:37:21 -0800

Oh! That's right, Jwb, I forgot to write about the worst part of this measure: it would allow developers to add parking EVEN IF THE NEW PARKING WOULD DESTROY A BIKE LANE OR BUS STOP. There would be no means to preserve sidewalks, parks, bike lanes, pedestrians, or buses. All that matters is cars. Welcome to LA.

jwb

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:29:52 -0800

Yes CRS, that's the *description* of the measure, as cast by its supporters, but it's not the text of the measure. The measure actually does the following: Quintiples the amount of parking allowed in the downtown C3 zone (from 1 space per 5000 square feet to 1 per 1000). Prevents the C3 district from expanding. Allows adding parking to existing buildings even if the parking impacts pedestrians, bicycles, transit, or trees.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:28 -0800

Thanks for posting that text, CRS -- where did you find it? I couldn't find any website for the measure. It's obviously not impartial, but then again, neither is SFist. Having now read the sales pitch, I stand by what I've written.

MarkBallew

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:17:43 -0800

Do not sign this measure. Vote NO if it somehow makes to the ballot. What does more parking mean for San Francisco? Less room for housing. And what does less housing mean? More expensive rental properties for everyone. Additional parking only benefits the upper crust, and squashes the middle class even further. We can have parking or we can have parks, open spaces, and housing. This is space crunched SF, not unbound and sprawling LA or Houston. "Any city worth it's salt has a parking problem." -Jane Jacobs.

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:06:50 -0800

Here is the actual description of what the measure will do: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Parking For Neighborhoods Initiative will create: "• Parking for homes — The initiative allows owners of homes and small buildings of up to four units to add at least one parking stall, provided it meets applicable development standards for the neighborhood; "• Parking for neighborhoods — The initiative requires that a minimum of one parking space for each housing unit built in San Francisco neighborhoods outside of Downtown; "• Parking for apartments — The initiative allows the building of a minimum of three parking spaces for every four housing units they build in Downtown San Francisco, where most of the City’s transit is concentrated; "• Parking for workers and shoppers — The initiative allows the building of a minimum number of parking stalls in new retail and commercial projects built in the Downtown area or secure a minimum amount of parking for their customers and tenants at nearby public garages; "• Parking for hybrid cars and car share — The initiative encourages the use of hybrid automobiles and car-sharing services, such as City CarShare, Flexcar, and Zipcar, by requiring developers to set aside spaces for alternative fuel and shared vehicles in garages. "The “Parking For Neighborhoods” Initiative is a straight-forward solution to San Francisco’s parking crunch."

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:05:31 -0800

The measure has lots to do with traffic, even though it doesn't mean to. A better measure would address the traffic problem caused by extra parking and increased car trips.

mattymatt

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:03:00 -0800

It's not the city that needs more parking; it's car-owners. And the best way to provide that is by encouraging people to give up their cars, so only the people who really truly need them have to own them. Fewer car-owners = better quality of life. But adding garages isn't going to reduce car ownership.

CRS

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:00:52 -0800

The blog comments have no back up and are misleading and inflammatory as is the photo. The proposed measure will pretty much just allow things to remain as they are now, instead of changing it so less/no parking is required. It has nothing to do with traffic, except that *fewer* cars would be circling the block looking for a space if off-street parking is available. It has to do with storing your car when you are taking public transportation, walking, biking. The description of the measure is available... I will post it here when I find it.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:56:33 -0800

I'll sign the petition in a HEARTBEAT. This city NEEDS more parking and what better way to do it than to build vertically. Parking garages are safer places to park your car, they keep them clean longer, they provide jobs, and they remove them from the streets - providing for a more pedestrian and biker-friendly, walkable city. Despite the naysayers, more parking garages won't increase traffic into the city since the same parking rules would apply to all street parking spots and ticketing costs would be the same. However, more parking garages would help city workers and residents tremendously and would make everyone's lives much easier and happier. And, this is WHY it won't happen. Not here. Not in NIMBYtown.

Ginger

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:54:19 -0800

What bothers me the most is a sentence in the middle of this post: "It would turn San Francisco into Los Angeles." San Francisco will never turn into Los Angeles. Equating the two cities because someone wants to build parking garages in congested neighborhoods is ridiculous. SF: compact, laid back, COLD. LA: spread out, high strung, new money, smoggy. The attitudes are different, the culture is different...cars play a part, but they do not define the city (nor do the parking garages). I am, however, of the same opinion as most of the commenters (and the author of this post); parking garages will not 100% solve the problem. Go to the community meetings and express your support for the BRT proposals!

KWillets

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:35:57 -0800

This will kill growth, as neighbors fight the traffic. I suspect the number of housing units approved will decline, instead of the number of parking spaces going up.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:17:15 -0800

Well, if this does pass, it should be on the ballot with a congestion charge of $10 to drive your car into downtown San Francisco - proceeds of which going into MUNI and safer sidewalks/bike lanes. One nutty proposition can be met with another one.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:56 -0800

If this thing passes, it's another nail in the coffin for public transit in SF (which will wither away further), as well as SF's days of being the sidewalk- and public-transit-friendly "Manhattan of the West". It would be nice if more voters realized how important it is to preserve that, but too many of them can't see beyond, "cars good. can't live without car. more parking good."

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:08:37 -0800

Thanks for putting up something about this awful measure. My gut hurts knowing that it's gonna pass. -Tad

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:07:59 -0800

This measure would really go against most of the recent planning decisions made about new growth in the city. In the Rincon Hill zoning overlay onsite parking is not allowed unless the developer uses stackers and/or 24/7 on site valet. Even then the maximum ratio is one spot per unit. Contrary to what the previous post stated, most developers want to include parking on site and most buyers want at least one deeded spot for their outrageously overpriced studio. The reason they are not included is that development standards won’t allow them to be built with traditional subterranean in independent structures.

guest

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:46:56 -0800

The sheer amount of stupidity in this measure is amazing. Which is, of course why it will pass. Time for a little Real Estate reality - land in this town is EXPENSIVE. VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. Where, oh where, are these big towers with lots of parking going to go? How many million dollar houses will need to be knocked down to build these LA style garages? And how many owners of million dollar homes and condos in SF will allow said garages to go up, blocking their views? More importantly , when you require extra parking for new development you DRIVE UP THE COST of new development. That is why they build all these condo towers without oodles of parking. This like the retarded arguement the anti BRT people make - demanding instead that "more parking get built near Geary." Yeah right. WHERE would you put it and how many of those pricey homes (lets face it all homes in SF cost a fortune now) would you have to buy to build them? Parking at these big lots would cost $100/day. Great. And yet, SF's retarded voters will vote for it. Good. You deserve your Daly and your Ed Jew.