And if SFPD actually WAS doing “aggressive patrolling” on Muni, then Campos would be the first to complain about “police state tactics” and infringing on civil liberties and such.

It’s been six years since we passed Prop H, and it is now high time.

-marc

This year, like in the past, SFPD will charge MTA for the “invisible” officers patroling Muni buses. New this year, SFPD will charge MTA for its traffic enforcement detail, because this is a “transportation function.” Of course, SFPD will continue to collect the citation revenue, as well as the deployment of traffic officers. What a joke!

I’m loosing any and all respect for the SFPD, they don’t even seem to be able to figure out how a mafia protection racket works. When you demand money for protection, and the mark actually gives it to you, you need to provide at least some level of protection. And you’re only supposed to hurt them when they refuse to pay.

But since the SFPD can’t pull off organized crime right, I’m guessing they’ll be easy marks. So I think I have a way to solve this entire budget deficit:

The SFPD have a lot of patrol cars, patrol cars which block traffic, take up parking spaces, delay transit, etc. and if they’re going to place a burden on Muni, then they should have to compensate them for it. Let’s pass a law banning SFPD patrol cars on city streets without a special MTA police car permit. If you set the permits at, let’s say, $1 million each, then we’ll completely solve the MTA budget problems.

Or is stooping to the same tactics as the SFPD does to low?

Was the leadership of the MTA ordered to stand down? Were they ordered to carry water for the Mayor which they did not feel comfortable carrying? Or did they just give the Board of Supervisors the bureaucratic finger? Is the evidence of absence the absence of evidence?

It must be taken as a given right now that Gavin Newsom is using San Francisco’s city government as a trampoline to higher ambition, and that plays like charging the kitchen sink to Muni, like attacking the unions and city employees, like opposing progressive tax increases, like the war on voter approved set-asides must all be analyzed in that context.

Dufty likewise is not without ambition, and moves like this, breaking publicly with the Mayor on a high profile populist issue, bolster the progressive/enviro flank of the guy who just voted to give Gus Murad a corrupt height bonus and praised Traffic Division Captain Greg Corrales, who is about to get whacked with his 13th or so disciplinary action for speaking to the press about Fajitagate (he’s already cost the City $270K in settlements for stunts like punching a motorist on the Golden Gate Bridge, and will earn like $170K/yr on retirement forever) probably not because the Supervisor believes that the Captain is doing hunky dory making the streets safer for cyclists and peds. No matter what the motive, I’m glad that Bevan held this hearing, did the homework and scored the points.

The soiled backdrop of all of this is Prop E, which hasn’t even succeeded at protecting the set aside and must be revisited at the ballot box. I see a tripartite alliance between riders, operators and the TWU, and enviro advocates as the best vehicle for bringing to the ballot the kind of comprehensive change to the Muni governance structure that this crisis demonstrates is needed. Many elements of reform have been discussed over the past few years, often during the harried Charter Amendment process,which tends to produce crap that we lose 2:1 on. We’d do well to build a community consensus capable of running (strategizing and financing) a grassroots contested Charter Amendment campaign behind a set of reforms that are then brought to the supervisors.

My general outline of reform is as follows: In our system of government, the legislature makes the “what” decisions and the executive makes the “how” decisions. The “hows” of the Muni need to be put into a budgetary strong box for operations and maintenance, while the “whats” of Muni and the streetscape need to be more politically determined as in a city 85% built out, there are no academically correct answers to these inherently political questions.

I’d sever the Muni from the rest of the MTA to keep focus on the lock box part, on running a transit system well. DPT, bike, ped and DPW street function would be overseen by a Livable Streets Commission, composed of 3 appointees of each of the Mayor (motorist, small business person, disabled person) and Board of Supervisors (pedestrian, cyclist, senior) and one appointee by the Muni Board to facilitate coordination. I’m cool with expanding the MTA Board to 11 members and electing them by supervisorial district, creating and redistricting 7 districts would involve too many moving parts. The Livable Streets Commission would also gain an annual set-aside over time equivalent to the dollar amount of the capital cost of the streetscape divided by its useful lifetime so that the most simple of our capital assets can be kept in a state of good repair, obviating the need to go into hock for a quick, temporary fix.

-marc