Damn my fucking laziness. I should have gone to the transpo wg mtg.
My responses/opinion:
>The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must
>limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure
>smooth operation of public transit. Prop X would only allow an
>increase in private parking above current limits with a
>supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the
>other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple
>majority of the Board. This provision of Prop X would supersede
>Prop Z (replace with letter of Gridlock For Neighborhoods
>proposition).
Yes.
>We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our
>elected representatives; Prop X lowers the current threshold of 8
>members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to
>7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple
>majority, and include the power of line item veto.
Line item veto means the Board can determine how to deploy service,
not Muni. That decision, then, will be made based upon the political
power of the Board members. Considering that poor people in general
are more poorly represented than the rich, and that progressive Board
members are in the minority, guess where service will be preserved
and cut: the rich will get good transit service and the poor will get
screwed. A Green Party key value is democracy, so on principle an
elected MTA might solve this problem. Giving the Board line item veto
and more authority over the day-to-day operations of the MTA will
screw the poor.
>Prop X dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would
>allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source
>in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund.
I like this personally, but don't think the Green Party necessarily
should. The Green Party should call for more taxes on the rich to pay
for transit (I like that, too, of course.)
>We have concerns that Prop X will continue the failed policies of a
>board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised
>Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking
>other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil,
>SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public
>transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT â*Transit
>First.â*
I have that concern too, but the Board has the authority to confirm
or reject Mayoral nominees with a simple majority vote, and the
commissioners cannot be removed by the Mayor once approved by the
Board. Fact: the MTA sought additional funding two years ago but the
Board of Supervisors rejected the parking rate increases.
>We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop X, as there is much
>language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no
>proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that
>these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of
>accountability for reaching Muni performance standards.
No argument here. Except that the report, which will surely show
failure to meet the goals, can be used to illustrate the gap between
rhetoric and reality.
>We think the generous pay raises in Prop X for MTA employees should
>be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job
>duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in
>performance increases. Prop X also provides no incentive to improve
>MTA employee attendance.
Not true. It's precisely the pay increase that provides the incentive
to improve MTA staff attendance, because it's the pay increase that
gives management the leverage to change the work rules that hinder
their ability to enforce attendance.
>On balance, we support Prop X, and urge a YES vote. However, we
>hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this
>one will appear on a future ballt.
What the Green Party would want in a future measure, in my opinion,
would be more funding from a new source that taxed the rich and
environmentally or socially undesirable behavior (such as driving),
and a democratically elected and even more independent MTA.
Dave
>
>Sue
>
>marc <marc(a)cybre.net> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:01:10PM -0700, marc wrote:
>> > The MUNI CA is weak and inoffensive enough absent the parking language to
>> > not oppose. Peskin's insertion of the parking language complicates mild
>> > MUNI reform. The outside deal that Peskin cut to allow massive garages in
>> > the Western SOMA SUD is the show stopped.
>>
>> I'm out of the loop, but I thought the latter deal will be on the
>> Feb ballot (which we'll presumably oppose). If we missed something
>> in the Nov MUNI CA, we can oppose or be neutral on it.
>
>I don't want to legitimate the deal that screws our neighborhood.
>
>As denizens of SOMA, we should stand with the community against the deal.
>
>The CA is part of the deal.
>
>-marc
>
>
>
>
>Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48224/*http://sims.yahoo.com/>Play Sims
>Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Hey all,
Any of you with any influence on Peskin should tell him to get the hell
back in the progressive camp, or we will campaign against him if he runs
for higher office.
In the latest of a long string of betrayals, Peskin is preparing to make
a compromise on parking. see below or
http://www.examiner.com/printa-865822~Opponents_ask_for_space_on_S.F._parki…
Opponents ask for space on S.F. parking issue
A possible compromise would bring an end to a controversial parking
initiative slated for the November ballot.
<javascript:popUpWinPP('ShowPhoto.cfm?filename=/images/newsroom/3A608D94-3048-2F0A-AA7CB9F2F7EBEA1A.jpg&caption=A
possible compromise would bring an end to a controversial parking
initiative slated for the November ballot.','pp')>
(Examiner file photo)
A possible compromise would bring an end to a controversial parking
initiative slated for the November ballot.
Alexandria Rocha, The Examiner
2007-08-06 16:10:00.0
Current rank: # *10* of 7,004
SAN FRANCISCO -
A controversial parking initiative slated for the November ballot may be
left by the wayside, as a proposed deal between opposing forces could
leave the measure with little financial and political support.
Weekend negotiations between downtown business-interest groups, transit
advocates and Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin produced a
possible compromise that would derail a November measure to increase The
City's parking supply and, at the same time, fuel support for a separate
Muni reform initiative.
While it's too late to make changes to either initiative, both of which
will appear on the November ballot, transit advocates have asked backers
of the parking initiative to withdraw support from the measure. In
exchange, they will support a third initiative on the February ballot
that would help increase parking throughout The City, but with greater
restrictions than the current measure.
"This is predicated on them no longer running a campaign," Peskin said.
"It's 'yes' on Muni reform, 'no' on adding 100,000 cars to a city that
already has half a million, and 'yes' to a sensible parking policy in
February."
The neighborhood parking initiative, backed by downtown businesses,
would loosen parking restrictions and allow developers to build parking
garages with little planning oversight. Transit advocates claim the
measure would reverse decades of transit-first planning guidelines.
If backers agree to withdraw support of the November parking measure,
Peskin said he is ready to introduce a measure for the February ballot
as early as today.
However, Jim Ross, a consultant for the parking initiative, said Sunday
that the campaign for the November parking initiative is still moving
forward. "That may change next week," he said. "But as far as I know,
there's no compromise or deal."
Peskin's Sensible Parking Initiative for the February ballot would allow
developers to build one parking space for each new unit in the Marina,
Sunset, Richmond and Outer Mission neighborhoods. Specific neighborhood
plans designed around public transit, such as the Balboa Park plan,
could apply for an exemption from the one-to-one requirement.
The February measure would retain the current parking restrictions
downtown, while allowing developers to build one or more parking garages
with a total of 1,500 new parking spaces in the South of Market
neighborhood, according to Peskin, specifically the area bordered by
Townsend Street in the southeast, 10th Street in the southwest, Howard
Street in the northwest, and Sixth Street in the northeast.
"What this compromise would do is allow us to make real progress on Muni
and add a moderate amount of parking in appropriate places," said
Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research association, a local think tank.
arocha(a)examiner.com <mailto:arocha@examiner.com>
Examiner
Hi,
My minutes from last night's meeting, including the draft language,
are online:
http://sfgreenparty.org/events/singleminutes.gem?idx=195
Since I'll be out of town for much of the time between now and
the endorsement GM, please send edits to the transpo list. Sue, when
the group thinks the language is "done," please send it to the active
list and the CC to be scheduled for a decision. Jeanne has agreed to
present if this comes up at the first endorsement GM, when I'll be out
of town.
JMC
--
John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org)
http://sfgreens.org/
