parking_meters.jpgA neighborhood coalition is holding a community meeting in San Francisco this evening to oppose a proposal to place thousands of new parking meters in areas on the eastern side of the city.

The meeting, organized by the Coalition of Residents and Businesses in San Francisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods, will focus on the Municipal Transportation Agency’s plan to install up to 5,000 parking meters in the Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, Mission Bay and other neighborhoods.

The plan was initially scheduled to be considered by the SFMTA board of directors at its Feb. 7 meeting, but the discussion was postponed until a later date because of the strong opposition, agency spokesman Paul Rose said.

“This will allow for more community outreach before we take any additional steps,” Rose said.

He added that a plan to install meters in the northernmost part of Mission Bay will still go before the board on Feb. 7.

Bill Schwartz, an organizer with the coalition, said he is glad SFMTA officials decided to delay the implementation of what he called a “flawed” project.

“I think that the community really feels that this has not been researched properly, and there hasn’t been enough outreach,” Schwartz said.

He said businesses in the neighborhoods are “up in arms” about the proposal, with some threatening to move out.

“Parking meters obviously have been useful in retail districts, but that’s not the case in places we’re talking about,” Schwartz said. “Dogpatch and Potrero Hill, there’s not a lot of retail business.”

Schwartz, who lives in Dogpatch, said he is one of many residents “who feel they don’t want a parking meter in front of their house.”

He said about 300 people came to testify against the plan at an SFMTA hearing earlier this month.

Supervisors Jane Kim and David Campos will attend today’s meeting, as well as SFMTA officials. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. at Project Artaud (Z-Space) at 450 Florida St.

Dan McMenamin, Bay City News

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Sebra

    Thanks to SFAppeal for covering this story. After much discussion at the meeting one fact came out that is particularly disturbing. The goal, according to SFMTA spokesman Jay Primus, is not to expand revenue for muni, but to improve the flow of traffic by providing the MINIMUM of parking required for cars to easily park. When asked about anticipated revenue Jay admitted that they are expecting to break even. If we take him at his word, the SFMTA is preparing to make everyone mad and force lower income people and small businesses and their employees out of the city for nothing. The question as to which human being benefits from this plan brought no satisfactory answer, unless you would really rather pay to pay to park faster, rather than drive around looking for free parking.

    We learned the goals driving the parking meter installation frenzy were set in 1973, based on anticipated growth in population that has obviously not materialized the way the planners thought it would. Since then we have gone through numerous booms and busts, and find ourselves in a slow economic recovery that has been especially slow for the residents of the “test” neighborhoods. As some of the guests suggested, it may be time to consider a shift in the 1973 “transit first” plan to realign it with the current reality. We applaud that suggestion.

  • Sebra

    Thanks to SFAppeal for covering this story. After much discussion at the meeting one fact came out that is particularly disturbing. The goal, according to SFMTA spokesman Jay Primus, is not to expand revenue for muni, but to improve the flow of traffic by providing the MINIMUM of parking required for cars to easily park. When asked about anticipated revenue Jay admitted that they are expecting to break even. If we take him at his word, the SFMTA is preparing to make everyone mad and force lower income people and small businesses and their employees out of the city for nothing. The question as to which human being benefits from this plan brought no satisfactory answer, unless you would really rather pay to pay to park faster, rather than drive around looking for free parking.

    We learned the goals driving the parking meter installation frenzy were set in 1973, based on anticipated growth in population that has obviously not materialized the way the planners thought it would. Since then we have gone through numerous booms and busts, and find ourselves in a slow economic recovery that has been especially slow for the residents of the “test” neighborhoods. As some of the guests suggested, it may be time to consider a shift in the 1973 “transit first” plan to realign it with the current reality. We applaud that suggestion.

  • Greg Dewar

    Typical. People say they want to be pro environment and the city says it is transit first, but when push comes to shove, people don’t want to pay for the system and don’t wan to give up their gas guzzling cars and are delusional in thinking that every single person can drive a car and park right in front of their destination easily. If we put more people into cars, the resulting gridlock would make LA look like a paradise.

    once again SF’s liberals say one thing and do another. It’s the SF Way!

  • Greg Dewar

    Typical. People say they want to be pro environment and the city says it is transit first, but when push comes to shove, people don’t want to pay for the system and don’t wan to give up their gas guzzling cars and are delusional in thinking that every single person can drive a car and park right in front of their destination easily. If we put more people into cars, the resulting gridlock would make LA look like a paradise.

    once again SF’s liberals say one thing and do another. It’s the SF Way!