It's important to note on point II. that the reason we want to approach McGoldrick about the fare evasion issue is that he is buying the hype from the Examiner and the TA that it costs a large amount of money, and that we want him to learn otherwise; and also, since he is very sensitive to breaches of personal civil liberties that if we could describe for him the harassment and abuse that riders are receiving from fare inspectors he might totally change his perspective on the matter. To start out, it might be better to have someone like Daly, Ross, or Peskin, call for an honest study of fare evasion that debunks the hype, and -then- take those study results to Jake. I also raised during the meeting that there is already -some- data debunking the fare evasion myth and that Peskin might know how to dig it up, since he was previously scathingly critical of the TA and MUNI for exaggerating fare evasion figures. cheers Eric B susan_e_vaughan@juno.com wrote:

Notes (I am also going to post these to the official SFGP web page):

I. We agreed that Richard Marquez and/or others should be contacted about participating in our January meeting to discuss forming a Riders Union.

II. We discussed getting Jake McGoldrick to call for an academic study of fare evasion. Among the questions that should be answered are, "What percentage of fare evasion is due to poverty?"

III. We agreed that we should formulate a piece of legislation to take to Mark Leno to change the law such that municipalities have the power to raise the cost of parking permits above the amount needed to administer the program. John-Marc had a more specific suggestion that I can't remember.

IV. Micheas suggested that we go to Jerry McNerny, with whom he has a personal relationship, and request the introduction of federal legislation that eliminates the requirement that a certain amount of money for transportation projects comes from fares -- if we want federal matching funds. Sue also added that we should eliminate the requirement that matching funds go to primarily capitol projects as they do now. Federal money should be allowed to go to operating costs as well.

V. Sue will rewrite the letter re. the schoolyard at Newcomer High School to focus on the needs of the students: a) the fact that they are immigrant students of color (for the most part) b) the fact that permitting overnight and weekend parking poses health risks to students from the toxics left by motor vehicles c) the fact that permitting overnight and weekend parking sets a terrible precedent for the rest of the school district d) and that fact that permitting overnight and weekend parking on the lot will preclude ever changing parts of the lot into dirt or grass lots for particular kinds of sports.

The compromise that we suggest is that the Seventh Avenue lot is retained for parking for the time being, and that overnight and weekend parking will be permitted on Sixth Avenue lot until the lot is resurfaced and striped for sports during the summer. This will give time for neighbors and merchants to adjust -- and for Muni to get ready to add service if necessary.

The letter will also acknowledge issues of proper neighborhood/merchant notification.

(I will also add here that a neighbor who lives across the street from the Sixth Avenue lot who is active in the Sierra Club, Pinky Kushner, has suggested that the Sixth Avenue lot be made available to the neighborhood after hours for recreational purposes. I guess the responsible authority in that case would be Rec and Park -- or the school district if it contracted out to insured after school programs. Pinky says that the closest basketball courts are 14 blocks away in the Panhandle. That does sound far to me -- as I know that in my neighborhood there are three playgrounds with basketball courts within five blocks of where I live at most, besides the elementary schoolyard that my apartment overlooks and that stays open late when the weather is nice.)

Sue