Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 21, 2013 7:00am-7:31am PST

7:00 am
and if there are different interpretations of income. the federal poverty level is not sufficient for most seniors and there's an elder security, economic security index. there are many different things if you want to separate out low income seniors it's not an easy job. and now that we see that california has more poor people and a higher percentage of poor people than any state in the union, it makes me concerned that we go farther with that, with wanting to charge people for parking. i don't believe that you will find more parking spaces. when you do that, i know philadelphia, it's flat and i don't think it will work here. i've seen two blue zones removed and i have had two visits by inspectors checking my placard within the past two
7:01 am
weeks so you must be doing something more with enforcement and before that i'd had one in 5 years. but i see more city vehicles taking up spaces that people used to have disabled placards and i don't like that. >> thank you, miss hale >> espinola jackson. >> miss jackson. >> good afternoon, espinola jackson again. i just learned about this i think about a month ago when there was a meeting i attended and it bothers me where when one of the speakers said a smart phone. i don't own a smart phone. i don't know how to use a smart phone. in fact, it's hard for me to even use a cellular phone. now, the time limit, i been walking the halls of city hall for 55 years.
7:02 am
sometime i come at 9:00 in the morning and don't leave until 2:00 the next morning. now, i have a placard on my car. i don't have the one you hang in your window. and what it would look like for me to be jumping up, moving my car, 4 hours here and having the disability i do have. i know i may not look like i have a disability but i'm 80 years of age and i hope some of you get to be my age and then when the weather change like it is now i couldn't even hardly walk here. you know, and it bothers me in the front here all around city hall you have the mta permit parking. they are city employees. they get to park free all day long all the time they want to. this used to be the city employees used to have parking over there in the parking lot. this just happened
7:03 am
in the last 15 years when -- city hall is supposed to belong to me and i can't even park at city hall. i'm parking 2 or 3 blocks away. thank you very much. >> jim walkum. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i work, i have worked for the city for 37 1/2 years, i am now retired. i've almost forgotten about how disgruntled citizens can be about stuff but since i've retired now i am one of those disgruntled citizens. i think having looked at the -- i'm also the vice president of the franklin delano roosevelt democratic club. our president will kind of
7:04 am
elucidate our position on this and mr. riskin and miss johnson are pretty familiar with my complaints so i will make a couple suggestions. one is to educate people about instead of spending $50,000 to send those rude people out to tell us we only have two minutes to talk, take some of that $50,000 and educate people who are parking in the city about, you know, what the rules are. and my theory on this is, i look at around city hall here and around no. 1 south van ness, a lot of people with permits on their cars and two blocks away there are blue zones with nobody in them for short periods of time. so my theory is the thing that says $250 fine on there, i think if people are misusing it maybe we can educate folks.
7:05 am
my second one is to make sure mr. planthold addresses the california state assembly. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> karen mccoy, jonathan lyons, howard strassner. >> (inaudible). >> thank you. jonathan lyons, howard strassner. is mr. lyons here? he's coming up, good. >> good afternoon, mr. lyons. >> thank you very much, my name is jonathan lyons, i am president of the fdr democratic club of san francisco, chartered by the democratic party here in san francisco, we are the local democratic voice for our communities and, you know, we are here to oppose the
7:06 am
i believe they are recommendations 4 and 6 to impose time limits and begin charging. as was alluded, director nolan, i appreciate the comments that you made at the beginning regarding the economic impact. you know, there's another issue behind this. we believe that we acknowledge that there is fraud in this system. however, we don't believe that the fraud is so pervasive that it is vital, the only way to save the system is to advice rate the benefits that it offers and we would draw an analogy to some law makers in congress that believe fraud and misuse of food stamps and unemployment are so pervasive that you have to obliterate those programs. so it's really important to recognize as we sit here, we have an affordability crisis in san francisco. and it's not
7:07 am
simply just low income folks and high income folks but that's really what it's turning into, it really is turning into a tale of two cities. it is also the middle income folks, people being squeezed out, incomes are being raised, charges are being raised and that's what this is going to be. as much as i know folks in this room don't like to admit it, muni doesn't like for a lot of people with disabilities and we have no option but to drive and parking downtown costs $32 per day. imposing these charges is an undue financial hardship for people at a myriad of income levels. we have extended a hand to the mta and to the committee, we would love an opportunity to sit down and work with folks more extensively to come up with a third way. >> thank you, mr. lyons, next speaker, please. >> howard strassner. >> good afternoon, director
7:08 am
again. howard strassner. this kind of shows a reasonable committee got together and they came to realize you can't have enough of something that you give away free. so they agreed you give them some more parking, use it for stuff that they need and then you have to pay for parking and the chair -- and i thought this was enough of a solution many years ago, just have some people get a regular blue sticker and some people get a blue sticker that shows they are really, they don't have the income and they won't have to pay, but i think now hearing this twice, because i went to one of those meetings, that you have to do all of the things that they are recommending plus do something about giving some people a chance to pay less. i don't think you can really do it for less unless you can figure that out. that would be even greater and it would make one -- but it might have to be free. one comment about the time. if you are mostly charging for the
7:09 am
parking, time takes care of itself. i mean, professor shoop said that. you don't need time limits, all you do is have the appropriate charge. another thing, i hope you are not looking forward to making any money from this, adding charging, because you are not going to. a lot of people were parking free and they are going to figure out they can use muni, they can park less time, it's going to balance out. their magic number of 470, hope that's enough, not too much, whatever. let's start this thing going in california. >> thanks. >> herbert weiner. >> mr. weiner ?oo . >> herbert weiner. by and large i support the spirit of what is being done. i think you should crack down on people using them illegally and use
7:10 am
whatever methods you need to do this. but i have a problem with charging for parking. it will raise reverend gnaw for mta and maybe a political deal was struck where you would implement these changes you have parking. if you wanted to be equitable, you would go after the bicyclists which has president been done to date. why go after one group? i have the feeling you are going after disadvantaged people for money and this is a form of fiscal bullying and in the back of my mind i ask the question, will they be taking candy from babies next and possibly selling the candy for revenue? i don't know, but i hope this is not true. i also think that given physical impairments maybe 4 hours is not a realistic
7:11 am
limitation because people have medical procedures, they may have other pressing things. what if they go to school? that would be another thing and also be a physical hardship to run out and put money in the meter for parking. that would be stressful. so i i'm for some of it and i'm against some of it. i think it should be examined. >> good afternoon, mr. henderson. >> good afternoon, good afternoon, i'm with the black american congress of san francisco and i'm opposed to charging seniors and disabled people for parking that have the placard. since i retired and i'm on a fixed income now, it's hard to even try to drive in san francisco and park. you
7:12 am
know, i get a roll of quarters every month for my washing and now i have to get a roll of quarters to park and that roll of quarters, that $10 of quarters isn't going it last too long in san francisco. i've applied for my placard and i should be getting that. if i had to, with the placard and parking in san francisco and having to pay, i don't know if i could drive, which i don't draif a lot any way, i like using muni. it's cheaper and to me it's, since i'm on the green team now, i guess it would be correct to use muni. plus our city is so small and you can get anywhere on the bus in san francisco. it's one of the best transit systems in america. but
7:13 am
when i do have to park, when i do have to drive, spending those quarters like somebody said it's like $3 an hour now at some places to park. you know, that's -- when you are retired on a fixed income, that's lot of money. so i'm opposed to charging parking for people with placards. >> thank you, mr. hen derson, next speaker, please. >> edna james. >> good afternoon, miss jameses. >> my name is edna james and i'm president of a commission on aging and i'm president of african american partnership for the commission on aging. i'm here to petition against sfmta recommendation 4 to
7:14 am
remove the meter payment exemption for placard cards in the city and county of san francisco for the following reasons: no. 1, san francisco is different from other cities in many ways and in particular due to the high cost of living compared to the other cities that she mentioned. no. 2, the reduction of parking tame to 4 hours should be tried first before charging a fee. the idea of punishing seniors and disabled persons for those who really need this for medical and dental appointments for the few who are abusing the system is incomprehensible and should not be the way to solve a problem. no. 4, the sfmta should implement only a few of these recommendations in increments to evaluate which ones working and why. i don't think you should try to do all of this at one time, you probably should do it in implements and see that it works. i'm a veteran and this will be
7:15 am
an unwelcome act to many disabled veterans returning home and visiting this beautiful city. i have attended many meetings with the african american seniors in bayview hunters point in omi listening it complaints about the inadequate service from mta paratransit service for those who drive any more and depend on these services and pulling the death certificates monthly and comparing those to the placard cards up for renewal will remove fraud from the system. san francisco is a city of such resources that it does not need to impose hardship on the seniors and the disabled who are struggling to survive each day. with the bicycles taking up so much parking space and the busses we need to pay homage to those who have worked to make the city what it is today. therefore i submit the petition, i have some petitions, 5 pages of seniors
7:16 am
who have signed saying -- and this is miss terrence >> good afternoon, miss workman. >> i'm deedee with the chamber of commerce, representing over 1500 local businesses supports all the accessible policy recommendations that will increase parking availability for the disabled and everyone else. we commend the mayor's office of disability and the san francisco transportation agency for their leadership in convening a broad cross-section on this committee including the chamber impacted by the difficult decisions the committee successfully addressed. the committee's recommendations will increase parking resources for all motorists and help alleviate traffic congestion by reducing
7:17 am
the number of cars circling blocks searching for parking. it will provide services in san francisco as well as their customers and clients and will contribute to a healthier economic climate in this city. the san francisco chamber of commerce supports these policy recommendations and urges the committee to implement the policy changes including those at local and state level ?oo . >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, miss kelly. >> hithere, my name is henny kelly, you can thank my parents for the spelling. they weren't good spellers. you know, when i was a young person and i saw older people walking across the street taking so much time to do it, and grunting as they did it, i wondered what the hell was wrong with them. and now i
7:18 am
realize being that person that it hurts to walk. it is difficult to walk. my age is becoming a disability. i do not have a blue placard and i will fight getting a blue placard as long as i can walk, grunting though i may be. but i believe that people on a fixed income should not have to pay at the parking meter. and i want to thank you for the amendment. i think it's extremely important. you know, in some instances i had to park 5 blocks away from where i taught because people in the neighborhood had a little thing on their car that said they could park there but i could only park there for an hour. and maybe we could do that for seniors and give them a thing on their car that says
7:19 am
it. it is hard growing old. it is not your golden years. it is difficult being disabled. it is not a pleasant thing to have to walk back and have to put more money in the meter. i really appeal this fourth thing that they have put. i really thank you for it. i would like to see you expand it. thank you very much for giving me this time. >> thank you, miss kelly. next speaker, please. >> allen dowd, he is the last person who has turned in a speaker card. >> i tend to read a lot on transportation literature and it's very nice to see what you read actually coming to policy. this same topic seriously do we have to pay for parking, was actually an article in the atlantic cities in june and it was actually also in the uc --
7:20 am
university of california transportation access magazine in june as well, parking without paying, so it looks like you are implementing it and i want to thank you for doing that. thank you. >> does anyone else care to address the board on this topic? >> we have one more person, peter men dosa >> mr. chairman, commissioners, my name is peter mendosa and i am with the independent living centers of california. i think the reason the committee came up with the recommendations is there's a significant problem in san francisco with parking. i myself am a person with a disability and a lot of times i
7:21 am
use public transit but occasionally i use a modified van to get to work and i can't find an accessible parking place most of the time. i have to use, go to a garage and private parking or private property, rather, i have to pay for parking. i do understand the issue brought up as far as the issues around the financial issues for those of low income and i think personally that should be explored, but i want to just done vai we're really in a crisis in san francisco with parking because there isn't enough accessible parking it really is a barrier to access for those of us who live or work or commute to san francisco and who travel or are tourists. there are many more
7:22 am
placards than places to park so thank you. >> thank you, mr. mendosa, anyone else wish to address the board? i would ask our colleague, director. >> thank you so much for everyone who participated in this process, lisa faus foster, you did an amazing job providing endless amounts for us to read. definitely tough issues and huge changes we are proposing with these recommendations but i want to focus on a few things. it's really a relatively narrow focus we're discussing here, we're only talking about metered spaces, we're not talking about unmetered spaces on the street, i think the last speaker mr. mendosa mentioned we do have other parking options. so a lot of people
7:23 am
mentioned the idea of punishment and obviously that was not our intent when we convened the committee. i think what we are really aiming for is some revolutionary ideas to create better equality overall in our transportation and parbing management here and it feels like punishment because some of us with blue placards have been parking for free but if we're aiming for equality we should be paying the equal amount as everybody else. we may not be there yet but i think this is a great step in the right direction and i appreciate the thautdful comments from everyone and the thoughtful amendment in light of the low income considerations. i think it's a challenging thing to address because of the administrative feasibility but we're looking to staff to help us out with that and i appreciate the help of staff with that. >> thank you, director. the last point you made and
7:24 am
mr. hale made easier, it is not an easy thing to do, to determine who is a low income person with disabilities. i understand that but i still think it's a worthwhile goal and i think since we have time to do that, i guess the rest of the amendment i would offer is that we direct staff to develop some kind, develop options for us to consider about how to make it more equitable for the low income persons with disability. so that's an amendment, julie can come up with better legal language i'm sure, but is there a second on that? >> second. >> all those in favor? the ayes have it. talk on the amended resolution. >> i just had a question. first of all the presentation was excellent, thank you both for that , that was very eye-opening and i appreciated mr. planthold's about this was a dialogue that enabled people
7:25 am
to change their mind and figure things out. one of the comments that struck me is the comment that there's uncertainty that any one of these would work in isolation, it's really a package deal and the idea is to get all these working together which makes an awful lot of sense on that but on that it seems we are able to do some of these things ourselves but we are not able to do others and have to wait for the state and i wonder about the timing of that. i realize there's a desire to move more quickly so it seemed to me we were doing some of these things like expanding the number of parking spots without doing on the things that we would have to wait until state approval to do but at the same time there was a suggestion that some of the things that were going to be done locally we had already committed to doing. i wondered how that all worked together, whether it made sense to wait on the expansion of blue zone spots for the whole picture to be complete with the state approval or whether these were things that we were already starting. i hope you see the
7:26 am
nature of the question, director riskin and what is the timing of the package and the various components to it. >> that's a good question. one thing we learned in looking at some of the other jurisdictions that tried just pieces of this such as very aggressive enforcement only or very strict tightening of placard issuance criteria or process really were not effective, really didn't move the needle on increasing parking access for people with disabilities and hence the committee's recommendation that we look at all of these, advance all of these as a body. that said, there is value in enforcement and to that end we did already shift a little bit more resource into the placard detail.. with regard to -- and that's something we'll monitor the effectiveness of, as carla suggested, it is very time
7:27 am
consuming and labor intensive, but feedback we heard from people concerned about these recommendations is that you really should try to increase enforcement, to educate people about enforcement, before you do some of these other things. so i think it's a reasonable step forward. with regard to increased blue zones, two things. one is what we committed to doing is creating the equivalent to what we have for the public right of way in terms of an ad a transmission plan, a path for how we would get to an increased number of blue zones, how we would prioritize them, define them. the committee recommended we work with the mayor's office on disability on looking at how we restrict locations for blue zones which
7:28 am
were quite restrictive now as a city, maybe loosening that restriction. also i don't think we mentioned in the presentation that we're going to change the requirements to 4 percent. we're starting to prepare for new requirements we believe to be coming to us any way. we have heard some concern in the feedback if we increase blue zones but can't implement the rest of these recommendations then instead of effectively increasing the general parking supply, we're decreasing it. >> correct. >> that's something that we'll be cautious of as we develop the transmission plan for increasing the number of blue zones and as we implement it. >> it's not an overnight
7:29 am
thing, we are not issuing all these new spots as of this vote, it's something you are anticipating doing and as you are doing that you will also be working with the state so we will have this multi pronged approach when the new things come in. >> and we will continue to bring new legislation on the board. >> other communities around california, moving in this direction? so when we go to the legislation, others are supporting this? >> i'll let bob take a crack at this one. >> there's a lot of interest in what we're doing and local governments tend to always support local control, right? >> on november 8, lisa foster and myself gave a presentation to the california public parking association. we were the last session on the last day and we had the place pretty much filled, that's how much
7:30 am
interest there was. separate from that, we had the director of parking enforcement from the city of richmond come up, give us a card. people from los angeles, the point is -- and the city of sacramento also has done a parking study for all major cities in california a, that recognize the problem and, c, want to find out what they can do. we are not alone. >> increases the likelihood that something could happen if it's going on all over the state. anyone else care to talk on this. >> thank you, chairman nolan, i wanted to express my gratitude to see this kind of coming together of the community, your leadership from the committee, staff i know worked really hard on this. it's been a long time coming and i think it's a great comprehensive approach to a very serious problem that's affecting all of us. the other night i was trying to do a little early christmas shopping, was driving and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on