The SF Examiner Gets Lots of Ad Money from the SFMTA – The SF Examiner Now Hearts the SFMTA – Connection?

Never have I seen such a one-sided newspaper article having anything to do with the SFMTA / MUNI / DPT.

Check it:

SFpark hourly meters actually save motorists money

But actually, SFPark hourly meters cost motorists money.

Oh well.

Guess which side of this street has brand new parking meters and which side doesn’t. (Yeah, I know it looks like street cleaning day, but it’s not.)

Click to expand

Hey, doesn’t the Examiner run a bunch of ads from the SFMTA saying boosterish stuff like here comes the Central Subway?

Mmmm…

And hey UCLA professor Donald Shoup! Is this kind of thing what you call “responsible parking management?”

What the SFMTA likes to do is spend as much money as it possibly can.

Right?

Mmmm…

And didn’t “motorists” pay the vast vast bulk of the $20,000,000.00 or so that was spent to start SFPark and pay for its concomitant website filled with SFMTA spin?

Yes.

So how does that “save” motorists money?

Mmmm…

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “The SF Examiner Gets Lots of Ad Money from the SFMTA – The SF Examiner Now Hearts the SFMTA – Connection?”

  1. Rob Anderson says:

    Right on, Jim. SFMTA is, by their account, just trying to help city drivers by “managing” our parking (“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you”). It’s not about the money (“When they say it’s not about the money…”).

    Will Reisman’s stories are beginning to sound like MTA press releases. Maybe he’s polishing up his resume to replace Paul Rose, who is supposedly going to resign soon, so he can move on to his next six-figure sinecure.

  2. Alai says:

    Yeah, yeah. No parking meters, fine. You don’t want ‘managed’ parking. Ok.

    But then you can’t complain when a project “takes away” parking spaces for some other purpose, whether parklets or bike lanes. Street parking already accounts for thousands of acres in SF, and if we followed the rules most of the country does to guarantee ample parking, we would have thousands of acres more. There’s never going to be enough parking in SF, so you have two choices: use some sort of SFPark-type system… or live with the fact that you’re going to be circling for half an hour.

    Well, I guess there’s a third choice: use the power of the government to mandate more parking, whether by spending money directly or by forcing property owners in the city to do it. In other words, make everyone pay, whether they drive or not. That’s the status quo, and it’s really dumb.

  3. sfcitizen says:

    So, SFPark is “good” for all drivers and everybody else? That’s what they said. It’s not true.

    So, motorists will save money with SFPark? That’s not true either.

    That’s my point

  4. Alai says:

    “Instead of drawing in reams of revenue for the SFMTA, the SFpark program has actually contributed to a slight loss. The agency expects to receive about $5.5 million less than expected from parking citations this fiscal year, although those losses are offset mostly by an increase of $4.4 million from additional meter revenue.”

    Apparently, motorists are saving money.

  5. sfcitizen says:

    The $19.8 million that kicked off SFPark came mostly from … people who drive cars, from motorists.

    The SFMTA isn’t obsessed with “making” money per se. It’s obsessed with spending money.

    And perhaps they’ll plant SFPark meters in the avenues of the Sunset and the Richmond, thousands and thousands. And they can charge just $.25 per hour. And then the “average” amount made per SFPark meter would decline, right? Hurray! Hurray for the SFMTA.

    If the SFMTA wants to manage something, why doesn’t the SFMTA start with the fucking MUNI? That’s not enough of a job?

    I’ll concede that the salutary effects that the propaganda website SFPark.org claims for the entire city can exist in certain places at certain times, such as Clement near 8th Ave on a Sunday afternoon. (But it would be politically impossible to raise prices to market at that time and place.)

    And I’ll concede that naive rich tourists might also be heartened to find street parking at any price during a Fleet Week weekend or on New Years Eve.

    But SFPArk happy talk is all about how everybody wins with the spending of money that seemingly fell from the sky.

    I disagree.

  6. Alai says:

    The problem with refusing to charge for parking–for instance near transit stations–is that you end up with the ridiculous situation where people demand the transit agency pay $20 a day to provide a parking spot because it would be unfair to charge people $2 a day to park on the street. See the brand-new Macarthur Station parking garage, for example. It’s planned to lose a crapload of money.

    And then people complain about how the transit agencies spend so much money for so little result.

  7. Rob Anderson says:

    “Little result” is surely right in SF. According to the city’s own documents, it now raises more than $170 million a year from its parking lots, parking meters, and parking tickets. Yet Muni is chronically underfunded, and the city is deliberately making it harder and more expensive for its source of revenue—that is, motorists—in the city. But then the MTA has more than 5,000 employees to compensate…

  8. Alai says:

    You mean to say rents are going up? How terrible. That should only happen to residents and businesses– people who park should naturally be exempted from it.

    But ok, you win. Shut down the parking meters. Muni can pay for itself. We can call it an experiment, like SFPark is supposed to be. I’m sure it’ll work out great.

    Just don’t make me pay for parking in addition to Muni. When you require anyone to build parking, whether BART or Safeway or an apartment owner, it’s everyone using that place who ends up paying for it, whether they park or not. That’s just bizarre.

  9. sfcitizen says:

    I mean to say that the people at sfpark are liars.

    maybe they should charge more in certain areas, if they want to go to market rates.

    perhaps the sfmta itself should be shut down…

    sfpark is an expensive experiment. It’s funded mostly by drivers. it, per se, is not “good” for the average driver.

    so, like trader joes is oppressed by being required to provide parking? i dont think so…

  10. Alai says:

    maybe they should charge more in certain areas, if they want to go to market rates.

    Well that’s what they’re doing, isn’t it?

    so, like trader joes is oppressed by being required to provide parking? i dont think so…

    A lot of people would say that Trader Joe’s isn’t providing enough parking. Should future grocery stores be required to provide even more parking? Should their customers be required to pay for it, even if they don’t drive?

  11. sfcitizen says:

    They aren’t charging enough to make it effective. Is there ever a time when 15% of parking spaces are avail in C-Town or on Clement at 8th Ave? North Beach on a Saturday night?

    So that’s not what they’re doing.

    I’d say that TJ’s #100 Masonic should have been required to provide more parking. I’m sure they would have been happy to pay for it. They weren’t allowed to do so…

    Do you think TJ’s would be charging more for broccoli if they had been allowed the proper amount of parking? I don’t.

Leave a Reply