BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
SFist Tonight
Week Around the Ists
SFist Tonight
The Week Ahead: Bay Area Concerts 11/23 - 11/29
False controversy of the day: Gavin Newsom's car parked in front of The Gold Club. (credit: Jim Herd/SFCitizen)
The sweet scriubes over at Streetsblog posted a might fine article on how San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, allegedly, "has been quietly pressuring MTA Chief Nat Ford to delay or prevent proposals to extend parking meter hours on weeknights and Sundays, despite a looming mid-year MTA budget deficit and studies that show it's good policy."
Not so, according to SF Examiner, who said that Newsom denied pressuring Ford to stop extending meter hours.
"We balanced a budget with Muni without extending the parking meters from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,” he declared, adding that Streetsblog was simply creating a "false controversy."
Newsom then accused Streesblog of being wrong, dead wrong. Making himself perfectly clear, Newsom said, "That’s just factually incorrect," he said Friday following a press conference, going on to say, "Though blogs often are."
Oh snap. Which: true. Blogs often are wrong; we can attest to that, for sure. But that's why God invented strikethru HTML code. Keeping that in mind, can you guess who else if often wrong? We'll give you you a hint: he has a freshly-sprung daughter named after a U.S. state.
Newsom goes on to point out that he is "against extending meters due to the economy and added burden on merchants." So, what does all of this mean in the end? It means cuts and fare increases will, most likely, fall on the already burdened shoulders of Muni riders. Quality of life, indeed.
Streetsblog, for the record, stands by their article.
Update: Streetsblog just posted an update on the brouhaha. Matier & Ross have also written about Newsom's pressuring of MTA officials. We have to wonder, will he call M&R liars, too?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
*gasp* The wealthy car driving elite gets priority over the rest of us poor saps who take public transit? *SHOCK*
"Car-driving elite" you say. What with the fact that parking at meters is already more expensive than taking the bus, and metered and unmetered street parking alike are hard to find in the city?
How about Nat Ford balance the Muni budget on his own damn back instead of anyone else's? He certainly isn't earning the several-hundred-thou he's earning every year (plus bonuses he always seems to "earn"), and not sure all the bus/train operators deserve the hugely generous pay they get for not having to show up at work.
Frankly, if Newsom had owned up to pressuring Ford about this, I would actually applaud the mayor for once.
@mamcart: "...fact that parking at meters is already more expensive than taking the bus..." Yes- and it should be. If I brought an elephant into San Francisco, would I expect you to pay for me to store it on the street? Give me one good reason why you shouldn't be expected to pay to store your own private auto?
But I'm already paying to store my own car. I have to pay for a street parking pass, I have to pay a lot at meters and at parking garages. I have to pay (albeit intangibly) when my car gets stolen and the police can barely keep themselves from yawning in my face when I report it. And then I have to pay (quite tangibly!) to get it back from City Tow 2.0 (whatever they're called) for towing and storage, even though it was towed from where the car was found after it was stolen.
So I pay an awful damn lot to have my car in the city. I'd just like to not have to pay even more.
So here's what I don't get. On street parking is generally more convenient than the off-street lots. Yet, the street parking is significantly cheaper than parking in a lot. Why?
To a large extent, I find it hard to justify the idea that people using cars should be singled out for subsidizing public transit (especially considering how much of MUNI's service problems are their own damn fault)... but more than enough people are willing to pay the current parking rates (think about how hard it is to find a spot in the Mission). Raising parking rates and increasing turnover means that it'll be easier to find a spot.
'Course it's a bit appalling to me that none of these efforts seem to include any discussion about increasing enforcement, or maybe charging people with handicapped placards to park. Going after those two pieces of low hanging fruit would indeed dramatically increase the city's revenues without having to raise rates.
Congratulations Gavin for "balancing the budget" on the backs of transit riders and city residents. It's really great that you're showing more concern for wealthy out of town tourists than you are the city residents who rely on MUNI for their basic needs (as-if 'rely' was ever a word that could be used with MUNI).
Streetsblog and the Livable Cities folk have done a hell of a lot more for San Francisco than Gavin ever has. . .
Streetsblog is a perfectly fine, sugar daddy funded, soapbox for one point of view, but they should not pretend to be objective.
In fact, they are often right, and on the merits they are on this item. But they would do a whole lot better to lose the smarmy attitude and let their position speak for itself.
Are long meter hours better for the city or not? How much service would be preserved by extending them? That's a lot more interesting that whether or not they got yelled at by a candidate for governor.
yeah....all those questions you ask?
that's kind of what the original post was about...
so i guess, everyone's cool?
Yes. But my point is, stay on message. Is it $1m of service that will be added or preserved with longer meter hours? If so, what does this mean in terms of hours of service or lines being cut or not vs. risk of pissing off too many merchants / auto drivers?
That's the tradeoff MTA (and by extension Gavin) needs to think about.
Actually, longer meter hours are indeed better for the city. The most authoritative source of information is from the book "The high cost of free parking" by Donald Shoup, a professor at UCLA. Give it a read.
But does anyone else appreciate the irony of Bill Clinton calling Newsom a leader on green and energy issues when Newsom constantly sells out transit users (and peds and bicyclists as well) to continue to pander to drivers???
Agreed.
While Streetsblog can be an informative read, it's difficult to wade through the "us vs. them" world view that tends to crop up and could discourage new readers. This problem is exacerbated by messages in the comments sections that come across like fundamentalist worshippers striking out at the unwashed. Like the one above that has brought an elephant (which is, admittedly, just like an automobile) to this party.
Reading about a city with an eye on infrastructure and planning is interesting and some of the ideas advocated are good ones, but it's disappointing to see good ideas repurposed as a mechanism for a new morality and for favorably comparing oneself to others.
in other words the truth hurts so please stop telling me it.
Ironic that Newsom would be saying blogs aren't telling the truth. He is well known for NEVER KEEPING HIS WORD when he makes a deal, and always going back on it. He lies in the moment to make people feel good, then stabs them in the back.
He is willing to continue to kill Muni as much as he can, looting the department for millions to pay for his well funded PR operation in his office, and for big pay for executives. He doesn't care about the City and he can't be trusted.
BTW, I think we should just have market rate parking. When I drove and parked, I was amazed at how in most parts of the city, I would pay little for parking. Compared to private lots with market rate pricing, the city's parking is a bargain. Sure the parking tickets suck (and I'm against them as a permanent funding mechanism for operations) but please - car drivers are heavily subsidized in Liberal Greenie SF, and the Mayor knows it. Heck he benefits when he parks that behemoth and doesn't pay the meter!