BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Asm. Tom Ammiano On Glass Breaking BART Cop
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
Help Children Have a Merry Xmas While Receiving a Lap Dance
While San Franciscans lose their righteous marbles over whether or not to extend parking meter hours, Oakland has pushed back parking enforcement from 8 p.m. to 6 p.m. Why? Because it's bad for local businesses. See, very much like San Francisco, not everyone rides bikes or takes public transportation. Yes, while it's not very save-the-planet-y, many families, ilk with disposable income, and people who bleed when you cut them drive motorized vehicles. And those people like to go out to buy stuff, eat at restaurants, and attend various entertainment venues after work.
See, after Oakland extended parking meter hours in July of this year, business owners were none too thrilled. Allen Michaan, who owns the Grand Lake Theatre, told KCBS, "I thought things were getting better, but then this came along, and you basically shattered my business, and that of others around town." So, Oakland nixed the extended hour enforcement.
To try to make up for the revenue loss (estimated to be around $900,000), Oakland plans to do... something. Something soon. They're not exactly sure yet. According to SF Chron "the city says it can recoup the [near] $1 million lost by the meter rollback by adding 250 more meters, opening city garages at night, allowing more billboards and other steps."
In the meantime, higher meter rates and higher fines for parking tickets remain in effect.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
1) You say 'it's bad for business' -- prove it or at least say 'some claim it's bad for business'...
2) Studies by SF TA found that less than 14% of customers in NORTH BEACH arrived by car-- and those that did spent 1/5 as much as those who arrived by bus, foot or bike.
3) If a local business owner is pinning their last hopes on someone not willing to spend $2.00 on parking, good luck...
It's sort of like advertising on the internet. People aren't willing to pay for content, so who in their right minds would want to advertise to a bunch of cheap-asses?
The "bad for business" was in reference to Oakland, not SF. And there is reference to quantifiable losses some business owners are claiming, due to the later meter hours.
while it has never been shown that longer meter hours would be bad for business it certainly has been shown that increasing the turnover in spaces is good for business. Some cities, NYC, Bethesda MD, have meeters that run until 9pm or Midnight...
Whatever... business owners here in the City said that Sunday streets was bad b/c it got rid of the parking. and then the people came, and now they are all for it.
The problem with self-interested policies is that it is not always easy to know what one's self-interest actually is.
It's only bad for business if you do it the way that Oakland did -- with no studies, no community input, no data. Haphazard and capricious.
In contrast, San Francisco has tons of data about how to increase parking enforcement properly, in a way that helps businesses.
Taxpayers already shell out SO MUCH to subsidize cheap parking. I'm not really sympathetic to complaints about shifting a slightly larger fraction of the cost onto drivers, since it's already an insane expense for the rest of us.
@mattymatt: Don't you have the ability to correct Brock's posts? I know you can at least point out the inaccuracies in the articles. I thought you were the transportation writer for this site-- why is Brock posting this?
you are one sharp cookie, sir.
i tease. my bratty snottiness aside, baume isn't on the masthead right now. if you have any corrections you're dying to share, please send them my way. thanks!
Employing me as a writer is generally regarded as a poor business decision.
Lack of input isn't what made Oakland's move bad (altho unilateral moves like that aren't a good thing). The lack of alternatives is what makes it bad. Much like congestion charges, you've gotta increase access via public transportation if you want these increased fees to do much good. Otherwise you've got a bunch of drivers who will bellyache (and rightfully so considering the state of public transit in the Bay Area) about not having other options.
I actually hope they try to pull this crap here in SF. We finally might rid the Board of Supervisors of nuts like Campos and Avalos.
Note to governments - you are stewards of your local jurisdiction. So, while it is tempting to fixate on maximizing the budget of the local government, it is actually your job to maximize the health of the local economy. If you work on the second, more than likely you will also accomplish the first.
Awww.. so cute-- you think the government should be stewards of your personal vehicle storage, but not ask you to pay for it. So precious.
That's ridiculous. I will be happy to spend my dollars in jurisdictions and neighborhoods where it is convenient for me to do so, and will be happy for a portion of those dollars that I spend be diverted to the local government via a tax.
If the local government makes it inconvenient for me to go to certain places to spend my money, I will choose to spend that money in jurisdictions where it is more convenient for me to do so.
DO is right. The more money a person has, the more free stuff they should get.
You folks just don't get the concept that the best way to separate an individual from his or her money is to make it desirable and convenient for that individual to part with it. While it might make you feel good to charge someone in a direct manner, you will end up getting more revenue if you do so in an indirect manner.
Ok, once again we get this specious argument that car drivers don't have to pay for anything, and in fact get "subsidized", and yet the rest of you non-car folk somehow have to pay more than we do.
That argument is nuts and won't stand up to the most cursory view of actual figures.
The fact is, car drivers already pay a huge amount into the system through all the city and state fees and taxes on everything car-related. We contribute quite heavily to the budget of SF already, but there's a limit to what everyday people can afford to pay. (Perhaps you've heard there's a recession on?)
Also, I'd just like to point out that those non-car people spending 5x the amount of time in North Beach were probably waiting for a bus.