- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

agenda for August 23?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

What's our agenda? 1) Planning our next event -- Ross wants it to be in sometime around mid-September as there's something at the Board of Supervisors related to it about then, and then he wants the peak oil hearing to follow that; 2) Emily Drennen wants an endorsement in her efforts to be appointed to the MTA; 3) the SPUR documents? I have not been able to forward them from my yahoo account, perhaps JMC can forward them to all of us at transpo(a)sfgreens.org 4) endorsment of the MLK Drive ballot measure which was finalized yesterday? What else? Sue

1 0

Reserving space in the Communiy Room of the Red Victorian B&B for an e vent with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

Dear Sami, I met you two weeks ago. We discussed using your Community Room space to do a screening of the documentary "The End of Suburbia," followed by a panel discussion with, among others, District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. We discussed doing this event on September 22, World Car-Free Day, but we would like to have a few other dates in mid-September that could be available for this event because of the supervisor's busy schedule. None of these dates should fall on Tuesday evening, as the supervisor could be in his weekly Tuesday board meeting until quite late. I have CCed Supervisor Mirkarimi's aide, Regina Dick-Endrizzi, as she does his scheduling, and the Transportation Working Group, as the members of this group will be helping to put on this event. I can be free to meet with you almost any time between now and August 24, or after August 31, to work out the details of this event. I also recall that the San Francisco Green Party will divide donations with the Red Victorian B&B, with your business receiving a minimum of $60. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Sue Vaughan co-chair, Transportation Working Group of the San Francisco Green Party home: (415) 668-3119 cell: (415) 601-9297

1 0

Re: [Transpo] MUNI Strike
by Katherine Roberts 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

> I would disagree with this approach as not being radical enough. > We should be demonstrating for Muni to be free. Don't get me wrong -- considering the quality of service we get from MUNI, they should be paying _us_ to use it. But I still say when the demonstrations start, we should all just go on paying the current fare. Kathy

1 0

Re: [Transpo] MUNI Strike
by Katherine Roberts 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Dear SFGreens, About the proposed MUNI strike: I think it would be better to militate for continuing to pay $1,25. That way we won't be seen as complete scofflaws, just as people who don't think the new fare hike is valid. This seems to me to be a much more effective solution. Kathy

2 1

Re: [Transpo] Carrying Water for the MCCP (MLK Drive Initiative)
by Stephen Willis 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

The development of this ballot initiative was closely held until last Friday, when it was released by Ross's office. The wording of the initiative does not violate our settlement agreement with the Music Concourse Community Partnership (MCCP) but, rather, may be the best possible wording that we can get, given the absence of pressure on the other Board Democrats, or the Mayor. They're the ones calling the shots in case you haven't noticed. Not Ross. While the MCCP long ago transferred their responsibility for creating the "Pedestrian Oasis" Surface Improvement Plan to the Rec and Parks Commission, along with the costs, according to Susan they recently threatened to withdraw the MLK ballot initiative if the "stakeholders" were to demand limits to dropoff or commuter traffic in the Music Concourse Surface Circulation Plan. These assholes play hardball at every venue, and they always have. Susan and John and Dennis Antenore believe this wording including possible transit use is the best possible version they can get the Democrats on the Board to agree to support. So their inability to demand stronger wording goes to the heart of the problem. We had over eight months to develop this into a critical grass roots issue of pedestrian safety and public accountability, but there was no serious committment by Green "organizers" or the SFBC, or the Sierra Club leadership to pressure the Democratic Party leadership. Therein lies our corruption, in the failure of our leaders to act, and our unwillingness to confront corrupt Democrats. There is no political will on the part of the SFGP, or the original visionaries including John Rizzo, Dave Snyder, or any of the Sierra Club ExComm "environmentalists" who negotiated the "auto-free pedestrian oasis," to actually hold the Democratic Party machine, including Warren Hellman and Gavin Newsom accountable to their promises. Now that the garage(s) are almost completely built all of a sudden, there is all of this denial about the degree to which we were slammed by the Courts, including an Appellate Court which eighteen months ago lifted a preliminary injunction allowing over $20 million worth of Pedestrian Tunnels to be demolished. Dave knew the risks as he led the environmentalists into the negotiations with MIchael Yaki for the auto-free Pedestrian Oasis. He told me several years ago that he raised the red flag of caution, as they were approached to make a deal. He told me that he determined "we" had a lot more to lose by not dealing, than we had to gain, so "we" went forward. Now, feigning supreme concern for the only "concession" that we, The Alliance for GG Park, extracted from the MCCP, Dave comes in at this late date to provide some guidance. Thanks a lot, Dave. Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! Katherine Roberts <grrlfriday(a)scorcher.org> wrote: Dear D-5 and SFBCers, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi is holding a meeting today at 11 a.m. to discuss whether he should sign off on the ballot measure proposed by John Rizzo of the Sierra Club and Susan King of the Green Party. Although the genesis of this proposed initiative is shrouded in secrecy (which is its own issue), it appears that Mary Hughes of Warren Hellman's front group, the MCCP, and possibly the Museum trustees' legal team had a hand in writing it. The initiative purports to extract a promise not to widen MLK Jr. Drive in "exchange" for adding an amendment to Prop J which legalizes having an entrance inside the Park. Prop J clearly states that such an entrance is illegal. That means we would be taking an already horribly flawed and problematic document (Prop J) and making it worse instead of better. The second thing this initiative does wrong is that it _doesn't_ prohibit turning MLK into a four-lane road -- which is supposedly the "concession" _we_ got. Instead, it only prohibits widening MLK to accommodate "privately-owned vehicles". Nothing would stop them from building dedicated lanes for taxis, limos, and tour buses -- the only vehicular traffic the museums really care about. Shades of Prop J -- voting in an initiative that allows them to roll all over us and get exactly what they want -- and this time we would be working to help them get it. Another classic bait-and-switch -- which is why I'm calling this one "Prop J Redux". I'm leaving out arguments about the legality of all this -- i.e. the fact that the MCCP violated Prop J by siting an entrance inside the Park, got caught by citizen watchdogs, responded by coming back with something even worse, found a corrupt judge to validate that, and are now forcing all of us to bust our butts to implement the plan they wanted in the first place -- while conveniently allowing Mike Ellzey to scapegoat the watchdogs for causing all this trouble in the first place. For the record, Judge Warren's validation on the project is _not_ a final ruling, and Trees Not Cars is appealing it in its entirety. No polls were done by either side to determine the so-called "winnability" of any proposal. I've got an idea: why don't we do something truly shocking and try to create what we really want -- no entrance inside the Park and no widening of MLK -- or else step aside, stop wasting our energy on all of this, and let them stew in their own juices. In a democracy, people have the power to vote for anything they want. Why waste this awesome power on something this mediocre? Please call Ross at 554-7630 and tell him _DO_NOT_ sign off on this initiative. We need one more bit of flawed legislation like we need a hole in the head. If we haven't learned this from Prop J, we haven't learned anything. Peace, Katherine Roberts _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 2

Re: [Transpo] MUNI Strike
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Hi Matt, You have a good argument about getting things for free. It contradicts our tranportation plank which advocates an eventual move towards free Muni, funded in ways similar to the ways our schools and parks are funded. SUe -- Matt Spencer <matt.spencer(a)earthlink.net> wrote: If I can chime in here, I have my own concerns about the "social strike" as follows: I think that we as progressives should be promoting a positive, solution-oriented agenda for transportation. The solutions are out there, but they need to be proposed and implemented, and as a political organization I feel that we should be at the forefront of advancing new proposals for public transit which is a government-run transportation system. As I see it, the social strike is a reaction to the rise in Muni fares, but it does not address the root-cause issue of the Muni budget (which is in a nutshell inadequate funding to pay for the robust public transportation system that we all would probably like to see). Instead of the strike, I would love to see a ballot initiative that called for a new source of funding that would replace or supplement the income generated by fares. However, I don't believe that there is any funding component to the social strike - correct me if I'm wrong. I also disagree with the general statement that Muni fares are too high or that they restrict access to public transit. The average person can afford to ride Muni and could afford to pay $2+ in fares - particularly if they are a regular rider and purchase the Fast Pass. For those who can't afford to pay the full fare, there are existing discount programs (for seniors, youth, etc.) which could be tweaked or expanded to meet the needs of the low-income population. Even if we were to double Muni fares to $2.50, my understanding is that fares would still only account for a fraction of the budget - the rest of which comes from other sources. While you could argue that this means that fares are not important to Muni's overall budget and thus could be cut or dropped entirely, I think it also shows that riders are not being charged very much proportionally compared to the cost of the service of which they are the primary benefactors. I actually think that many people, like myse! lf, would be happy to pay more for Muni if there were a more effective system in place with shorter wait times, more express bus options, less crowding, increased off-peak service, etc. One more point on the topic of fares - I think that people in general show greater respect for things when they have to pay for them compared to when they are "free" or nearly free. Having lived near and with people who enjoy public housing or section 8 housing, I have limitless evidence that many of that population disrespect the property that is provided to them. My concern is that "free Muni" would be similarly disrespected, leading to a fall-off in ridership which is the opposite of what we all have as our goal. As great as free Muni sounds as a concept, I fear that people would abuse the service making it much more ghetto-ized than it already is. Anyway, I would be enthusiastic about the Green Party and transportation activists making a positive contribution to the debate about Muni where we propose both increased funding for Muni and corresponding increased service such as substantial BRT or other programs that would make Muni better. I don't see the social strike as being a positive contribution to the dialog around Muni so I'm not in favor of it. I know that the TWG has been largely against all of the various Muni fare increases over the last couple of years, so perhaps there are some good arguments that can be made, but I am not sure what they are. If you want to clue me in, feel free send me your opinions. Regards, Matt (lurking on the mailing list) -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)netscape.net> Sent: Aug 8, 2005 2:45 PM To: transpo(a)sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [Transpo] Blue Angels and MUNI Strike Hi all, I've gotten a handful of emails about participating in a Muni fare strike starting September 1st (when the fare hike goes into effect). My concern about this plan is two fold; 1) All of us as organizers, groups and coalitions simply haven't done the broad and deep ground work needed to light up the whole community on this issue. If we had done, we would have likely succeeded in blocking the Muni budget out right. If we are going to prevail, we need to make Muni reform one of San Francisco's top two or three campaigns and do a lot more grassroots outreach on it. (A great organizing focal point for such an effort will be Ammiano's Charter amendment to reform the MTA appointment process.) 2) Largely because of point one, I don't get the sense that nearly enough people know about the fare strike to make it effective and city wide in scope. The Coalition for Transit Justice should have an organizing meeting soon to hammer out a plan of action, and perhaps kick a good fare strike into motion. As to the Blue Angels, by all means, let's get rid of them. We gained some traction when the Supervisors rejected the USS Iowa berthing in SF; many of them citing either SF's anti-war climate, and the military's lack of equal respect for the entire gender spectrum as reasons for the rejection. Perhaps someone could contact Ammiano, McGoldrick, et al, about the obvious connection to ending the Blue Angels displays for the same reasons. Peace, Eric chrismcclintock(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > Hi, Fellow Transpo Folks! > > First - does anyone know about the "Social Strike" that Mark is > talking about on the staff list? Did I nod off at a Transpo meeting? I > don't remember him asking the transpo group about it - but I might > have missed something. I'm not even really clear on what it is - is it > MUNI workers striking or MUNI riders striking. If it's either of these > options, I really don't see how it would be effective - the people > with the option will just drive and the rest of us might just be > screwed. But this might not be the case at all... can someone clarify? > > Also, I really want to do something about the Blue Angels. Namely, I > want them to go away. To do this, though, I know I need to do > research, but I have no idea where to start. Does anyone know how I > would go about finding out about the contract the city has with them? > Specifically - how long is this contract? I remember reading something > last year about it when they decided to bring them back. How much is > the city getting out of this, and why is it so essential that they fly > over the actual city? I'd also like to see the contract to see what it > has in there about the practice that they do that week before. Mostly > I think there three reasons that we could/should get them out of San > Francisco 1) The waste of gas, fuel, energy in general 2) The > unnessecary danger to the city 3) The militarism of the event. I know > that the defense is the old "It bring additional revenue into the > city" - but does it really? And to whom does this go? At the very > least, why aren't they doing these little tricks out over the ocean > where they can't hurt the population? > > Ok - so seriously - any help is greatly appreciated. I really don't > know where to start, but I really think they need to go. On a related > note - is there any way to find out if any San Jose greens are working > to get rid of the Grand Prix ridiculousness that's going on now and > for the next five years? > > Thanks! > Christine > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Meeting w/Ross (RE: MLK Drive Initiative)
by Stephen Willis 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Dear Jym, How are things in New York City at your Trees Not Cars board meeting? You two must be having fun kicking up dust from a distance. Here in the Bay Area, I received your fearful and misinformed note, and can assure you that the City attorney long ago provided ROSS HIMSELF with the language of the settlement agreement negotiated by the Alliance for Golden Gate Park! Chris Duderstadt has since forwarded the relevant settlement language for all concerned. Our interest is in stopping the increase of traffic lanes on MLK Drive. Not everyone is going to support this initiative, but defeating it means we will get what Judge Warren ordered: four traffic lanes on MLK Drive, AND a second garage entrance inside the Park. Since last September, Trees Not Cars did nothing, not one thing, to cooperate with The Alliance for Golden Gate Park, or our lead attorneys, or the grass roots MLK Coalition which we helped build and which Trees confronted and alienated with several demands for funding. Now you pose as one of us who is looking out for our community, while perpetrating a virtual fraud all the way from New York City. If given a choice, I'll trust our attorneys interpretation of of the MLK Initiative over any version emanating from New York City or Trees Not Cars. Give us a break. Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! Katherine Roberts <grrlfriday(a)scorcher.org> wrote: Dear D-5ers, SFBCers, Alliance people, et al.: Overall, a good meeting, and a good effort on everyone's part. I have one final concern, which I was just able to put my finger on. "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Meeting w/Ross (RE: MLK Drive Initiative)
by Stephen Willis 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Dear Jym, How are things in New York City at your Trees Not Cars board meeting? You two must be having fun kicking up dust from a distance. Here in the Bay Area, I received your fearful and misinformed note, and can assure you that the City attorney long ago provided ROSS HIMSELF with the language of the settlement agreement negotiated by the Alliance for Golden Gate Park! Chris Duderstadt has since forwarded the relevant settlement language for all concerned. Our interest is in stopping the increase of traffic lanes on MLK Drive. Not everyone is going to support this initiative, but defeating it means we will get what Judge Warren ordered: four traffic lanes on MLK Drive, AND a second garage entrance inside the Park. Since last September, Trees Not Cars did nothing, not one thing, to cooperate with The Alliance for Golden Gate Park, or our lead attorneys, or the grass roots MLK Coalition which we helped build and which Trees confronted and alienated with several demands for funding. Now you pose as one of us who is looking out for our community, while perpetrating a virtual fraud all the way from New York City. If given a choice, I'll trust our attorneys interpretation of of the MLK Initiative over any version emanating from New York City or Trees Not Cars. Give us a break. Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! Katherine Roberts <grrlfriday(a)scorcher.org> wrote: Dear D-5ers, SFBCers, Alliance people, et al.: Overall, a good meeting, and a good effort on everyone's part. I have one final concern, which I was just able to put my finger on. "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Blue Angels and MUNI Strike
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

CHristine, my remarks are below your paragraphs which are between the <>. You could post this to the staff list also. Micheas Herman is on the staff list. SUe <Hi, Fellow Transpo Folks! First - does anyone know about the "Social Strike" that Mark is talking about on the staff list? Did I nod off at a Transpo meeting? I don't remember him asking the transpo group about it - but I might have missed something. I'm not even really clear on what it is - is it MUNI workers striking or MUNI riders striking. If it's either of these options, I really don't see how it would be effective - the people with the option will just drive and the rest of us might just be screwed. But this might not be the case at all... can someone clarify?> Hi CHristine, No, the transit strike didn't come up at our last meeting in that our last meeting was held before the last COalition for Transit Justiec meeting in which the strike was discussed. Marc Salomon has asked that the social strike be agendized for the next meeting (which already has a very full schedule). THe Coalition for Transit Justice is abstaining from a YES endorsement or a NO endorsement of the strike because we are a coalition and there isn't time to get all our endorsing organizations to go to their boards and endorse the strike and then tell us. As to the Green Party, I have already heard objections to endorsing the strike. I'm on the fence and will not be at the next CC or the next GM. <Also, I really want to do something about the Blue Angels. Namely, I want them to go away. To do this, though, I know I need to do research, but I have no idea where to start. Does anyone know how I would go about finding out about the contract the city has with them? Specifically - how long is this contract? I remember reading something last year about it when they decided to bring them back. How much is the city getting out of this, and why is it so essential that they fly over the actual city? I'd also like to see the contract to see what it has in there about the practice that they do that week before. Mostly I think there three reasons that we could/should get them out of San Francisco 1) The waste of gas, fuel, energy in general 2) The unnessecary danger to the city 3) The militarism of the event. I know that the defense is the old "It bring additional revenue into the city" - but does it really? And to whom does this go? At the very least, why aren't they doing these little tricks out over the ocean where they can't hurt the population?> Talk to Micheas Herman. He says that Matt's office dod a lot of work on trying to get rid of the Blue Angels while Matt was in office and were not successful. It's basically up to Feinstein and Pelosi. <Ok - so seriously - any help is greatly appreciated. I really don't know where to start, but I really think they need to go. On a related note - is there any way to find out if any San Jose greens are working to get rid of the Grand Prix ridiculousness that's going on now and for the next five years?> As to the Grand Prix, I would talk to Dave Snyder and people in the Bike Coalition to find out if they are supporters of having the Grand Prix here and if so, why. My main objection to the Grand Prix is the reduced fees for city services that they have finagled. Sue Thanks! Christine _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Meeting w/Ross (RE: MLK Drive Initiative)
by Stephen Willis 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Dear Jym, How are things in New York City at your Trees Not Cars board meeting? You two must be having fun kicking up dust from a distance. Here in the Bay Area, I received your fearful and misinformed note, and can assure you that the City attorney long ago provided ROSS HIMSELF with the language of the settlement agreement negotiated by the Alliance for Golden Gate Park! Chris Duderstadt has since forwarded the relevant settlement language for all concerned. Our interest is in stopping the increase of traffic lanes on MLK Drive. Not everyone is going to support this initiative, but defeating it means we will get what Judge Warren ordered: four traffic lanes on MLK Drive, AND a second garage entrance inside the Park. Since last September, Trees Not Cars did nothing, not one thing, to cooperate with The Alliance for Golden Gate Park, or our lead attorneys, or the grass roots MLK Coalition which we helped build and which Trees confronted and alienated with several demands for funding. Now you pose as one of us who is looking out for our community, while perpetrating a virtual fraud all the way from New York City. If given a choice, I'll trust our attorneys interpretation of of the MLK Initiative over any version emanating from New York City or Trees Not Cars. Give us a break. Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! Katherine Roberts <grrlfriday(a)scorcher.org> wrote: Dear D-5ers, SFBCers, Alliance people, et al.: Overall, a good meeting, and a good effort on everyone's part. I have one final concern, which I was just able to put my finger on. "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0