When Herman McCoy parked his car and rushed into Casa Adelante, an affordable housing complex on 16th Street, to grab the keys to his new apartment, a tow truck was already taking his car. That was the start of McCoy’s pricey parking problems. During the first nine months of his lease at 2828 16th St., the neighborhood’s strict parking rules continued to confuse him, costing him $5,000 in tickets and tow fees, he said. The 57-year-old is far from alone.
Since 2019, the northeast Mission has added 732 new affordable units without adding any parking. State and local laws eliminated parking requirements for certain projects, arguing it brought more density and encouraged “transit-first” living.
But this ideal inadvertently punishes low-income tenants with cars, tenants said.
With few on-street parking spots nearby, affordable housing residents along 16th Street say they’ve collected mountains of fines, wasted hours hunting for spaces, and suffered health issues from rising at dawn to move their cars for street sweeping.
“You feel hopeless,” said Nina Flowers, who moved into La Fénix, at 1950 Mission St., in 2021. In her first year, she racked up $2,500 in ticket fees. Her car was booted twice.
Another La Fénix resident, Andrea, declared at 4 a.m., while her sister moved her car: “It’s so unfair.”
As a new city parking regulation comes to northeast Mission, residents worry that a proposed affordable housing development at the Potrero Bus Yard may worsen conditions, adding 500 more units to an especially dense 16th Street.
Flowers rises at dawn “every day, 365 days a year” to keep her spot and avoid street sweeping. As a single mother whose baby has Down Syndrome, it’s hard to shuffle her kids to school on the bus. Policies meant to disincentivize cars are “elitist,” she said. “Rich people still keep their cars.”
Higher-income tenants own and use cars at higher rates, and an overwhelming majority — 80 percent — park in a garage, according to a 2019 SFMTA survey. Meanwhile, 36 percent of low-income tenants citywide park on the street, meaning a higher likelihood of fines and break-ins.
Officials justify the lack of parking in affordable housing projects by pointing to city data showing low-income residents’ low car-ownership rates. About 47 percent of those earning less than $100,000 annually have at least one car.
But 81 percent of families own cars, according to the city. Using those metrics, more than 344 tenants in the 732 affordable units in the northeastern Mission own cars. Some 235 tenants planned for the bus yard will also likely own cars.
None of the new Mission developments officially report car ownership. About one-third to one-half of households at a family complex at 2060 Folsom St. own cars, estimated Carrie Swing, a resident services supervisor at Chinatown Community Development Center who works at the building.
Low-income tenants “still own cars, as we well know,” said Peter Papadopoulos, the senior land-use policy analyst at the Mission Economic Development Agency. “And when they do, it’s out of critical necessity.”
The city survey states 22 percent of low-income persons drive to work, as do 40 percent of families with one child, and 49 percent of families with two children. While McCoy lives in front of a bus stop and just four blocks from BART, he said using transit to get to his desk clerk graveyard shifts in Chinatown proved difficult.
Kevin Ortiz, a co-founder of Mission Destino, a people-of-color transit-focused organization, said this demonstrates how sometimes policy is at odds with reality. Until transit infrastructure is reliable and safe, tenants prefer to keep their cars. Unintentionally or not, that becomes “a tax on poor people.”
Avanza 490
81 units
Market St
Casa Adelante
143 units
La Fenix
157 units
Potrero Yard
500 units
2060 Folsom
127 units
681 Florida
130 units
Dolores
Park
Bayshore Freeway
S Van Ness Ave
Valencia St
Church St
1296 Shotwell St
94 units
Cesar Chavez St
Avanza 490
81 units
Casa Adelante
143 units
La Fenix
157 units
Potrero Yard
500 units
2060 Folsom
127 units
681 Florida
130 units
Bayshore Freeway
S Van Ness Ave
Bryant St
Valencia St
1296 Shotwell St
94 units
Cesar Chavez St
Map by Will Jarrett. Basemap from Mapbox. 1296 Shotwell Street is senior housing.
The cost of a cheaper home
In 2010, PODER SF activists Alicia Briceño, Aracely Lara, Miriam Zamora and Maria Aviles sought a solution to the rapid displacement ravaging the Mission in the early 2000s. They set their sights on a former Department of Public Works parking lot at Folsom and 17th streets, hoping to develop it into housing.
By last June, 126 deeply affordable units opened up for families and transitional-aged youth, alongside a vibrant park. “The vision was to be able to help low-income families,” Aviles said that day.
A major motive to eliminate parking is the $40,000 to $75,000 extra cost per unit for a parking space, a financial disincentive when per-unit costs reach more than $700,000 in San Francisco. Parking spots also take away space that could otherwise go to housing.
In 2008, Supervisor Aaron Peskin pushed legislation separating parking costs from unit costs in new buildings with 10 units or more. A California law passed to eliminate parking requirements in 2022.
These policies unintentionally created a separate price for poorer car-owning tenants. Some residents wonder whether the savings on a subsidized home is worth the extra cost in fines or break-in repairs.
A Latina mother who asked not to be named said her car has been broken into three times since moving into the affordable building at 2060 Folsom St. Parking has been “terrible,” she said in Spanish; so terrible that she has considered moving out over the car situation.
When some tenants sold their cars, they later regretted it, said Swing, the resident coordinator at 2060 Folsom St. When she taught classes in the building, she regularly overheard siblings squabbling about the situation: “‘I can’t do soccer anymore, because mom has to take my brother to flute lessons on the bus.’”
Despite the blue disabled placard hanging from Alfonso’s rearview mirror, he still competes for limited street parking. There are zero disabled spots at 2060 Folsom St. The 60-year-old immigrant guesses he must have paid $1,200 in total fines — same as the rent for a subsidized apartment.
Transit isn’t an option to reach his bagel-delivery job in Burlingame, a suburb 16 miles south of San Francisco, a job that requires he drive as far as Santa Cruz at times. Alfonso’s shifts start early, before bus lines even start running, he said in Spanish. “It’s a huge problem.”
Some residents suggested that the city should implement discounted parking permits for affordable housing tenants, a car-share program, and disability parking. All affordable housing developments in the neighborhood have bike parking, though at 2060 Folsom, much of it is taken by children’s bikes, Swing said.
Swing agreed that the lack of disability parking has rattled residents. “Maybe going forward we will have better transit, but it doesn’t quite match up right now,” Swing said. “The utopian ideas don’t match.”
There are low-income parking ticket payment plans offered by the city. Visit them here.
Correction, 10:30 a.m.: This article has been corrected to reflect the correct law eliminating parking minimums in California.
Interesting conversation and hopefully some of the changes being proposed to the residential parking and meters in this area help, though not exactly holding my breath. The Fresh Air show on NPR just had an interview with the author of a book on the history of parking, probably worth seeking out to learn more.
Owning a car in SF is a privilege. I own a parkingless unit while affordable housing folks across the street with their luxury cars enjoy a suburbia style parking services that are subsidized from my tax. The only group that may be granted subsidized parking are physically disabled citizens. Able bodied can and should use public transportation
Never! To filthy, unsafe & unreliable. I prefer the safety, cleanliness & flexibility of driving my OWN car.
Thats one of the most transit rich and high density areas in the country. The answer is to have more affordable housing in low density areas.
There is a deeply conservative political movement in this city that wants free parking for their cars. This political movement uses poignant stories to paint itself in a favorable light, but in truth, it is disproportionately privileged. These privileged types prize their own short-term convenience over the lives lost disproportionally in underprivileged communities in this country and generally in the Global South due to climate change and vehicular violence.
People with disabilities should have access to whatever transit they need, including reserved parking when necessary. For-profit businesses should pay for parking if they need vehicles. That shouldn’t be on the employee, nor should it be subsidized by the rest of us. And for most of the rest of us, this is a city, not the suburbs: housing for people is more important than housing for private vehicles.
God bless the people in this story, but cars are stupid and expensive.
People can’t but stupid and expensive things and then complain that what they have is stupid and expensive.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The city is punishing low income residents by continuing to favor and subsidize cars over public transit. No parking is basically required to make affordable housing that developers are willing to building, otherwise they are guaranteed to lose money by making the units affordable to lower income residents, due to all the flat rate permitting and consultant fees. Continuing to build housing with parking makes the issues worse by further spreading population and making efficient public transportation more difficult. The solution is to make public transit better and reliable for everyone, so that there is no disadvantage to living without cars or parking, not to continue making these problems worse.
Stop contributing to car-centric behavior with bad articles like this.
Who needs a car in San Francisco? I owned one in 1990 and all I did with it was move to Oregon.
About Mr. McCoy – he street parks at a Chinatown job- how many of the tickets are from there, a place even tighter for parking than the Mission? And the MTA doesn’t tow just for a meter and it doesn’t happen in the amount of time it would take to rush in and grab keys. All for improving transit — driving between 2 transit rich and parking poor areas makes no sense.
I live on the same block. I know how bad parking is. Therefore, 10 years ago I decided to go carless. I do not have an affordable unit and it was the only way I would not go into debt. No one in my family owns a car. I take Muni, ride my bike, walk, and occasionally take a Lyft. There are many grocery stores within walking distance. I know that not everyone has that option, but I bet many people could do it who think they can’t.
Required parking is one reason our nation has a crisis in affordable housing.
Take a hard look at yourself in the mirror, bro.
Ditto sweetheart…..
We need to take the economic impact of these residents seriously and help them as a city in anyway we can especially for those who ACTUALLY need private vehicles. “Some residents suggested that the city should implement discounted parking permits for affordable housing tenants, a car-share program, and disability parking” – yes, this is what would probably be most equitable and we need more ideas like these. But e-bikes, scooters, cargo bikes, better/faster/safer public transit and other sustainable modes of transportation should be heavily pushed for intercity travel and SFMTA and city leaders need to invest and implement that infrastructure much faster than their current speed so that people don’t need cars. Too many “studies” is so tired at this point.
One thing I would say is continually ignored in this conversation is any mention of climate change. Excuse my language, but we are in a fucking climate crisis. Gas powered cars SHOULD be reduced and if reduction of parking helps combat climate change then we should continue doing that. But let’s also not forgot that reducing private-owned cars on the roads make our streets safer, makes our communities healthier, and gives more options for affordable housing which is so scarce that this will be a bigger issue years in the future if we don’t get our act together. These complaints about parking will not even be remembered because everyone including these residents will have worse things to worry about at that point.
City parking policies punish everyone not just low-income tenants. Parking scarcity is not a class problem. It is a city-wide problem that started when big developers and investors backed the Sacramento politicians who removed the CEQA environmental laws that protected humans from their folly, one cut at a time. We had back yards and parking garages in residential neighborhoods for a reason and we miss them now that they are gone and people are fighting over what is left.
The SFMTA survey is bogus. 80% of the population is not wealthy or parking in garages. San Francisco state representatives wrote the laws that removed the parking minimums and open space requirements. They created the scarcity.
But, they are not done yet. This year they will make the 50 story tower at 2700 Sloat legal and remove more on street parking unless they are stopped. How do they do it? The lie a lot.
The best way to stop them is to support ourneighborhoodvoices.com and the ballot initiative to override state mandates on developments that started coming online around 5 years ago when the neighborhoods started falling apart.
Those who both live and work in a place that is well-served by transit are affluent office workers. These are people who don’t have to carry around tools and/or equipment to do their jobs. Just try to take public transit to all the construction, janitorial, and light industrial jobs in the southern end of SF and in the suburbs.
Comments like “I did fine without a car” are so self-absorbed and clueless.
Very well said.
Public transit in SF is fine for those who are affluent and live in well-served areas.
The parking plans are backwards. Fix public transit first. Make it so good that people just prefer it to driving.
But fixing public transit is unlikely to happen in SF. People are tired of riding in a system which is always late, is slow, has violent attacks on what seems like a weekly basis, people shooting up or snorting. People have been tired of it for years, and no-one has ever been able to make a real dent. The times they’ve tried, they shut down Van Ness for most of a decade, and spent 1.6 Billion dollars to build subway line that’s only 1.7 miles long.
There is nothing “unforeseen” about the parking mess! It’s all been planned. Jeff Tumlin and the Bicycle Coalition have decreed that CARS ARE BAD! and that this is the age of Vision Zero whether we like it or not. There’s very little parking anywhere in the Mission. Valencia St has been coopted by the parklets and the bike lanes. Probably a third of the city has been red zoned for buses, green zoned for cyclists, and ceded to private use by restaurants.Only pariahs drive, and of course they shouldn’t expect to park.
Transit first? hahahahaha. More of that blather.
You can’t take force folks to take Muni. Folks without money will take Uber/Lyft – they won’t be jumping on Muni anytime soon. If you need a car for work (labor jobs, handyman, trades) then too bad.
Builders want no parking just to make more money.
Wow.
Any of y’all wanna tell Alejandra as she and her crew are unloading the vacuum cleaner and cleaning supplies in Noe Valley that she shoulda taken the bus?
Or hey – Miguel – don’t you know you can just pack all your saws and drills and construction supplies and 2’x4’s in a cart and tow it behind your bicycle?
Gustavo – you takin’ away housing by having a beater and driving to the Daly City Home Depot to beg for a job.
It’s like people don’t understand the concept that poor people are most likely gonna be doing manual labor. And if you manage to claw your way up – you’ll have a work truck/vehicle so you can maximize your time and income.
This town ain’t like getting around Manhattan.
And, supposedly, Muni is gonna cut service and layoff employees unless they get bailed out. Transit rich my ass.
The working poor wanna get some parking – outrageous.
This.
Exactly!
When I lived in the Mission, I didn’t have a car. Occasionally it was tough – grocery shopping, vet appointments and trips out of town were always challenging. I found car sharing was cheaper for me when I needed a car than lease payment + parking + gas + hassle of owning. So while I’m a fan of the message “use transit and walk, you live in one of the lucky few places in the world that’s feasible” I am sympathetic to how it could be rough.
Perhaps these buildings need some dedicated car share spaces, or a limited number reserved for people with disabilities or families so the most needy have options. And there are some great organizations in the east bay who aim to get non-white non-rich people on bicycles – I wonder if there’s an opportunity there to do more outreach to make that a more comfortable option? California has a new program to subsidize ebikes for low income households; that could be a real benefit!
The guy who drives miles this job every day at weird hours may need to find a paid parking space. Those aren’t cheap! But reserving space in a dense expensive city isn’t cheap. Might be worth thinking through the tradeoff there about what job you have and if it pays enough to be worth the hassle of having to own a car.
Most of them were here before either of us.
I’ve had to spend 8 hours on Muni this past week hitting Sloat Garden Center on Sloat, Floorcraft, Cole and Sloat on 3d to get my gardening supplies because I’d prefer to patronize local garden centers than order online.
Taking the 23 Muni through Monterey Heights from 16th/Mission to Glen Park to Sloat, how would anyone expect anyone living anywhere near there to live car free? The 23 was not as bad as I’d thought, but there’s no neighborhood serving commercial within walking distance of any of that.
Annika, you should have linked to your great earlier piece about the upcoming parking changes in the area – which should hopefully make things easier for residents and fairer overall: https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/mission-moves-metered-parking-may-come-to-northeast-mission/
Why doesn’t the bagel guy park his work vehicle or better yet the company’s vehicle at the bakery? Take public transit home or find another job, or is that the only job in the world?
SF and NYC are meant to be pedestrian walk towns with public transit. Many, if not most, of the “rich” in SF and NYC don’t own cars,
I live and work in the Mission, public transit here by American standards is good and one can get around fine without a car.
George Davis – I suggest you read Carlos Spinoza’s comment, above, for a reality check.
Haha. SF is meant to be a pedestrian walk town? Rich folks in SF own cars…I bet they own two in fact. The hip electric car and the burly gas one for long trips.
A very pro transit article at slate that states flat out the best way to lift poor people from poverty is to GIVE THEM CARS.
But that flies in the face of so many entitled puritan San Franciscans with their dreams of an all bicycle transit utopia San Francisco that is most unfriendly to families, to the elderly, to the disabled, to women, to kids and to reality.
> if the Green New Deal is a pure social justice project, it should probably just give poor people cars, because access to efficient transportation is the most effective predictor of escaping poverty,
https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html
Please do not speak for women and kids. We are cool with bicycling and training our kids to take the bus. Plus if we had safe bike infrastructure, that would accommodate the elderly and people with disabilities who could ride mobility scooters.
“ In dense, transit-rich cities like New York and Boston, vehicle ownership is more closely linked to population density than to income. ”
Jay take the bus.
I’m curious which of the people interviewed would be willing to give up their homes so their neighbors can have parking spots. Thank you for covering the city’s epidemic of unhoused cars.
Concerns raised by this article seem misguided. Surely some people need cars but not everyone. Plenty of low income residents dont need or want a car and so they shouldmt lose out on their housing just because someone else needs a car in their specific high density neighborhood in SF.
Furthermore, the article hints that the proposed parking regulations wouod make it harder to park for residents- this seems to be opposite from what i would expect for a permit based system which is only available to residents
Housing for cars or people? I’ll choose people every single time, especially in the city with the highest population density outside of NYC.
Thanks for the excellent example of the logical fallacy known as a “false dilemma”, wherein two choices are inaccurately presented as the only ones available, so that one of them can be deemed the only acceptable choice.
While there may be some downsides to not building car parking, it’s extremely important keep the downside of building it in the forefront: Some of their neighbors would not have been able to receive affordable housing, since the money would have been spent on housing cars instead. That feels very unethical.
This this this. Parking is not free! It costs literally tens of thousands of dollars per spot; tens of thousands of dollars that housed a *person* instead.
Yeah. That’s true.
There’s a lot of growing pains with transit oriented development since it’s still relatively young in SF, and lots to improve.
The issues with them not being able to do many things should be reasonably solved though, but driving can’t be the panacea unless there’s no other choice.
Cry me a river. Sell your car or learn how to park on street properly like the rest of us.
We are now hunting ‘your’ spots, Darren. We are a fleet of homeless vehicles growing in size and strength…..see you out there.
This is a very poorly researched and edited article. It refers to laws that never passed (SB50) and totally fails to analyze how on-site parking requirements are NOT free! Finally, it doesn’t even bother to refer to the many accommodations the city makes to car owners such as an extremely low cost residential parking permit program or text before tow policies to give people a chance to move their car before it’s towed. Finally, many towing fees are waived for those to whom it poses a financial hardship.
If someone is not in a position to be able to take advantage of these programs, I’d rather they have a Muni which functions than continue to have everyone pay the cost of the expensive roadwork, damage repair, climate pollution, etc cars pose.
Uncritically printing one person’s bitter quotes about how rich people can buy parking is borderline misinformation. Do better.
As a person currently living in affordable housing, I’d like to add that often these buildings are not eligible for the residential parking permits. I’ve found this to be true with many buildings and units throughout sf when there are meters outside the building as well. The petition process if lengthy and complicated. Some longtime residents rely on their vehicles to get to work or go help family, and can’t simply give up their vehicles. Especially in the last 10 years it’s felt like the city has been on a relentless path to demonize, and profit off of the poor. Thanks to Mission Local for shedding light. – SL
Hi Jake,
Thanks for reading. I apologize, I have corrected the article to note the actual law that eliminates parking minimums.
I’m aware of the programs you speak of; you’re right, I can update the article with those. The tenants I spoke to did not know about those, or couldn’t participate.
I appreciate the feedback.
Best,
Annika
Annika,
How pathetic is it that these programs exist and while incurring all these parking offenses the individuals in the article didn’t say, “hey how the f*ck can this be avoided in the future?” I guess feeling sorry for oneself is always easier.
Cry me a river. Taxpayers already pay their rent, buy their groceries and do everything else but wipe their asses in the bathroom. Quit crying and take the bus. That’s subsidized as well I believe.
The thesis of this article is “it’s sad that trade offs exist; everyone, even low-income people, should have their cake and eat it to”. This is a juvenile and ridiculous understanding of the world. Using the numbers you provided in this piece, every three or so parking spaces is an additional unit of housing that could not be built. Should we be more concerned with rooves over heads or rooves over cars? That’s the actual question at hand. It’s a very simple question with a simple answer. Be better
On one hand, it helps to use transit if you don’t rely on it at odd hours or use it all the time. On the other, saying it’s elitist is kind of ridiculous. I wish more high income people would at least give it a shot – I’ve heard many flimsy excuses for people not taking it. As far as parking concerns, sounds like a change is needed as far as the sweeps or transit scheduling. Ultimately this city is too dense to have everyone one-to-a-car and trying to ameliorate it by requiring parking is regressive because it increases the cost of housing and means there’s less land to build it on.
Many people who need affordable housing either work in low wage jobs, many times take jobs because the services they are offered does not allow them to turn down employment; which can cause them to lose services like housing, money, food, benefits. Some
people do better working odd shifts to take care of disabled kids or family members. Some people don’t have YOUR social circle of support. We struggle, we scratch, we jump, we ask, we pay, and you elitist only laugh, judge, and pass the buck to the politicians that your DOLLAR elects: THE PEOPLE WHO HIDE THEIR INTENTS AND THINK JUST LIKE YOU. DON’T FEEL SORRY FOR US…YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS PITIFUL. Through every situation you should figure it out without a car, family, or friend…take your bicycle and ride MUNI and BART. FOR YOU that’s nothing; You have money and options. Hypothetically, an unexpected thunderstorm and one single ride bus ticket and a job interview at 10:00 a.m. And the phone rings, daycare calls and your kid just had a seizure. So many times, it is not the choices we make, but the choices we are forced to live due to a selfish and unrelenting society looking down their noses never stooping to THE STRUGGLE. Stop keeping your simple basic needs and believing those in poverty are just wasting your taxpayer dollars! Stand up for FAIR POLICIES
This is a really bizarre rant, especially the part at the beginning: “Through every situation you should figure it out without a car, family, or friend…take your bicycle and ride MUNI and BART. FOR YOU that’s nothing; You have money and options.” Umm…I think the point of cities being ‘transit first’ is that it makes it easy for anyone to get around without a car, especially those without money. I don’t know what to tell you about how backwards your view of the world is. ‘Fair policies’ should always, always be centered on prioritizing quality mass transit and discouraging private car use. So, if transit doesn’t work perfectly for every solution, tell me–why is getting a car and having your own space in a dense city a reasonable fix? Wouldn’t it make sense to have access to vouchers to call a taxi or ride share in case of an emergency? Especially for a very rare occurrence of something like a seizure?
Very informative article. Seems to me that the city should allow Mission tenants to park near their residences at discounted rates. Or, at least low income housing dwellers should receive that assistance, as suggested in the story. But I’m not sure if even that will fully alleviate the problem. I come to the Mission often to take classes at CCSF and the Community Music Center or to go to the movies. I almost never drive and take MUNI instead. Parking around there is next to impossible.
Almost don’t cut it. Sometimes is not the struggle.
I wonder where the residents in these new buildings used to live, that they didn’t know parking is challenging in the Mission. Even if you enroll in SFMTA’s RPP program ($165 per year), there are more cars than spots.
Some lived in your slums of crumbs called encampments. Now trying to find a way back to life, but Americans suffocate the people who were misinformed of the true status of the American Economy…which time were analyst telling THAT truth?
Huh? The street parking permit is extremely subsidized. You can park on the street for $80 a year.
Huh? I just renewed mine for $165. It goes up nearly every year. A garage rental is about $400 a month.
Jake – per a resident, the tenants at 3100 21st St, Caritas/Mission Housing can not qualify for parking permits. Even if they wanted to pay the full-price.
$163, currently for a permit sticker, not $80,
I was always offended when wealthier, whiter, maler urbanists would lecture me that since car ownership skewed to the higher income, that meant that more poor people did not drive. Clearly these urbanists do not walk about our coveted walkable community with their eyes open or at least looking up from their screen.
The bagel delivery guy should just learn to code, eh?
For real. Now they want to take our jobs and beat us up with THAT OPTION that presented itself to us. These strange thinking ALIENS should go back to Dreamland. They can’t fix nothing in the real world.
I hear you, clearly ppl who have never clocked a single day of actual work in their lives. Also of note are the ones in city agencies and SPUR etc. who are always looking out for opportunities to put “forward thinking” projects on their resumes.
marcos, how could anyone be “whiter” than you?
You are the stereotypical white tech working condo owner in the Mission.
The difference is that I’m not demanding that people with less power than I have do what I say no matter how it impacts their situation, unlike urbanists.
Whoosh – you missed their point entirely
“Just because all data suggests the poorer you are the less you drive doesn’t mean poor people drive less!”
The data suggest that car ownership skews to the wealthier. This is portrayed by urbanists as poor people don’t drive or drive less, conveniently ignoring the bothersome half of the distribution.
$5,000 in tickets and tow fees… um if you’re this incompetent following parking signs you should not be driving. Just like everyone else in the city, sometimes you have to park a few blocks from where you live. That’s city life. Take some responsibility people.
You don’t even stay on point the point is we’re talking about parking for low income people in affordable housing. The bottom line this is discrimination of the disenfranchised or bad planning. Or was the affordable housing just a band-aid to get the governor off the back of S.F. in regards to the housing shortage which quickly turned into a nationwide fentanyl crisis. Discrimination? Bad Planning? or Do we need more funeral homes so we can try to Cover Up the tragedy of fentanyl overdoses and murders? Stop talking and think for a minute. This is a war against PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY!!!!!!! IF I UPSET YOUR MORNING COFFEE….IT IS BECAUSE I AM SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
If you stop making parking illegal. How about we don’t permit any cars in San Francisco. Ho will that affect your GREAT TOURIST CITY? REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE! RIGHT?
Seriously. And what a slanted article. Anyone want to guess whether the author owns a vehicle?