Peter iNova
05-20-2003, 12:58 PM
NPR reports this morning 5-20-03 that San Francisco's hyper agressive parking ticketing operation circulated an internal memo to "get 40,000 parking tickets in 45 days," meaning at full value, $100 each, or pumping up the city's cash by $4 million.
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1269019
Why at that rate, they can bleed the population of $32,000,000 each year unless San Franciscans start rolling up and down their hills on some non-parked conveyance. (The actual income last year was $67,000,000 with seven tickets on the average per household!)
Citizens were outraged to discover this cynical bleeding of the public trust by their government when it was leaked in a local newspaper story. The Mayor even accused the reporter of "fabricating" it. Right. As if. But SF is known for its highly enlightened governance around here, isn't it?
The city most poised to benefit by the presence of the HT turns out to be the one city that most stands to endanger this cash cow unless they are banned. For every HT that is allowed on the sidewalks of San Francisco, that means one less driver circling endlessly for precious parking spaces and potentially one less opportunity to catch the vehicle as soon as that meter flips. To couriers in the city center, each HT could represent its complete cost per year in lost ticket revenue.
And one certainty: The city isn't spending $32,000,000 per year on relief-giving parking structures. And if HT popularity were allowed to breed, they wouldn't have to, but then again they wouldn't have the 32 million.
Of course we are completely certain that the artificial pressure to keep city parking as a scarcity, thus ensuring a higher rate of violators from which dollars can be trimmed, is totally and utterly a side issue. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's a... complete coincidence.
Seriously, San Francisco: The whole nature of urban transportation needs a change. Oops! Here's one now. What's that? You're not interested? Or not awake?
-iNova
http://www.glidewalk.com
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1269019
Why at that rate, they can bleed the population of $32,000,000 each year unless San Franciscans start rolling up and down their hills on some non-parked conveyance. (The actual income last year was $67,000,000 with seven tickets on the average per household!)
Citizens were outraged to discover this cynical bleeding of the public trust by their government when it was leaked in a local newspaper story. The Mayor even accused the reporter of "fabricating" it. Right. As if. But SF is known for its highly enlightened governance around here, isn't it?
The city most poised to benefit by the presence of the HT turns out to be the one city that most stands to endanger this cash cow unless they are banned. For every HT that is allowed on the sidewalks of San Francisco, that means one less driver circling endlessly for precious parking spaces and potentially one less opportunity to catch the vehicle as soon as that meter flips. To couriers in the city center, each HT could represent its complete cost per year in lost ticket revenue.
And one certainty: The city isn't spending $32,000,000 per year on relief-giving parking structures. And if HT popularity were allowed to breed, they wouldn't have to, but then again they wouldn't have the 32 million.
Of course we are completely certain that the artificial pressure to keep city parking as a scarcity, thus ensuring a higher rate of violators from which dollars can be trimmed, is totally and utterly a side issue. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's a... complete coincidence.
Seriously, San Francisco: The whole nature of urban transportation needs a change. Oops! Here's one now. What's that? You're not interested? Or not awake?
-iNova
http://www.glidewalk.com