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@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@netscape.net> Sent: Aug 8, 2005 2:45 PM To: transpo@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@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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo
_______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo