Making Life Easier: Sunday Parking and Kill Switches

Never on Sunday. Our Poll of business owners from Feb. 2010.

Never on Sunday. Our Poll of business owners from Feb. 2010.

 

The Municipal Transportation Agency voted to get rid of Sunday parking meter charges. Don’t they read Mission Local? Merchants here told them years ago that would not work. 

And Apple, Google and nearly all the major carriers are ready to add kill switches to their smart phones, writes SF Gate.   Still, we advise, do not pull your phone out to check messages or yap when you are around any of the Mission BART Plazas.

 

Share!FacebookGoogle+PinterestRedditLinkedInEmail

Filed under: Mobile, Today's Mission

14 Comments

  1. anon

    wait, I thought the Mission was gentrified and safe now??

  2. Alan Shaw

    You’re doing a Colbert here, right? Because it’s weird to claim that what people’s (even business owners’) guts told them in 2010 is a predictor of what will work.

  3. godzuki

    I’m actually for the Sunday meters. Doesn’t make sense when SF is flourishing with new money and consumerism that we don’t charge people for parking. If a San Franciscan can afford a $27 lunch, they can afford $3-5 to park.

    • marcos

      Eliminating Sunday meters is the ploy of the junkie who has run out of shit and now must play nice with the sugar daddy to get more cash to buy more shit, of the child who knows he’s done wrong but plies his parents with syrupy treacle in order to get himself that new toy.

      I doubt that this will placate the pro-parking crowd, in fact it will simply embolden them as it demonstrates that the Mayor will roll over in the face of people organizing and standing up to him. I guess that it is too much to ask for the Mission professional progressives to learn from this?

      The MTA is a duplicitous secretive and corrupt agency. The unanimous votes for the google bus deal and to scrap Sunday parking demonstrate that. No votes in opposition when public opinion is divided is the sign of a Stalinist political operation. If they get their bond funding, they will quickly revert back to their old ways. A thorough house cleaning is required before we throw bond money at the MTA because with such corruption there is no evidence that dollars spent will translate into better Muni service. They’ll just as soon widen sidewalks and snarl transit that we’re spending money to speed up.

      • marcos

        There is a group of people who gets motivated around parking issues. This group of people is much smaller than the auto owning population of San Francisco in the aggregate.

        Last year before the MTA decided it needed a big ass fix of bond crack, the MTA had no compunctions over imposing Sunday meters. Nothing has changed over the past year. There was not even sufficient outcry over Sunday meters, the concerns about parking were really elsewhere.

        The corruption of the MTA as an extension of the corruption in the Mayor’s office leads to unanimous votes on the MTA Board where the position of San Franciscans is much more diverse. Even if opposition to the google bus deal and rolling back Sunday meters is a minority, it should be reflected to some extent in MTA Board voting patterns.

        The downtown boosters spent big bucks to put a charter amendment on the ballot via signatures and passed Prop G which gave the MTA a free hand in labor negotiations to revise work rules. Three years down the road, the MTA has nothing to show for Prop G. This leads me to conclude that we have a management problem not a labor problem, a corruption problem with controlling expenditures that needs to be resolved before more revenues are sent the MTA’s way.

        • John

          The MTA has leftist representatives like Cheryl Brinkman, who the bike crowd love, or at least used to love.

          The problem is common enough. Once an idealist actually achieves some power , he or she needs to take into account real-world implications, and can no longer afford to be a hopelessly pure idealist on the sidelines.

          So Brinkman supported the tech shuttles and supports no Sunday meters.

          In the end, the MTA works for the mayor as does every city department. And we elect the mayor. so if you don’t like the MTA, or SFPD, or DPR, then persuade the voters to break with 30 years of tradition and elect an extreme left-wing mayor.

          Good luck with that.

        • marcos

          Brinkman said in the public hearing that the reason why she was voting down Sunday meters is in order to play nice to get the Big Bucks because that is what Ed Lee told her to do.

          Do not make the mistake of inferring that anyone who supports the “livable city” movement is a “leftist” or progressive or liberal.

          The Muni is too valuable a public resource to leave it in the hands of neoliberals like Lee, Ramos and Brinkman.

        • John

          Then, like I said, get a different mayor elected. The fact that you don’t like Lee doesn’t mean that a majority do not, and in fact every opinion poll published says that he is a popular mayor.

          Muni is mismanaged, but that is down to many factors that pre-date Lee. My criticism of Lee is that he has not yet developed the spine to really slap down the Muni workers and unions.

        • marcos

          There are many other tools in the kit that can be used to change how the MTA is constituted besides the mayoral election. Only fools would leave them be. Don’t worry, there are plenty of fools.

        • John

          Your tools and fools are clearly not working.

          And a good thing, because nobody voted for them.

        • marcos

          Back when I was working on campaigns we knew how to run to win. Corruption using city contracts as weapons is how potential opponents are neutralized.

        • John

          So, marcos, you were part of the successful campaigns that gave us Jordan, Brown, Newsom and Lee?

          I take my hat off to you and your electoral successes. I can certainly see why you still dine out on those successes in your dotage.

        • marcos

          Did I say that I was involved in a winning mayoral campaign? No, the campaigns that I worked on that won, more than I worked on that lost, were working their way up, almost taking the Mayor’s office in 2003, when corporate San Francisco remembered to get serious about coopting grassroots politics.

          Not only did I abandon the field once it became clear that the game had been rigged by funding nonprofit saboteurs, but many similarly situated to me decided it was not worth throwing good money and time after bad, leaving the nonprofits and labor to depend on their corporate patrons. For now.

        • John

          OK, so you admit that you never worked on a campaign that won the highest office?

          And then you “abandoned the field” once it became obvious that you could not win.

Comments are closed.