While Judson True may not know whether or not the mayor is pressuring the MTA directors, I have seen evidence of the mayor working behind the scenes — indirectly — to scuttle MTA staffer proposals. He is playing the ‘economy card,’ no doubt at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, SF BOMA, and other organizations in his opposition to expanded metering hours.

But here’s the reality: the mayor is seeking to ensure his political future by protecting the parking status quo, and the Chamber and other organizations are playing the ‘economy card’ as a way to flex their political muscles and demonstrate that they still rule locally (besides protecting their bottom lines). (Sadly, their use of the ‘economy card’ is the same strategy that the fossil fuel lobby is using on the national and international level to scuttle climate change legislation and whatever could potentially come out of Copenhagen in December.)

If we are realistic, however, in no way is the ‘economy’ that the mayor and the Chamber and others are so passionate about going to be the same in a few a years. The vibrant, globe-trotting animal that we knew it to be from the late 1990s until the recent economic collapse is unlikely to ever come back, at least on a permanent basis — nor should it because it is not environmentally sustainable. If we are realistic, we will accept the likelihood that our economies will be — and should be — more and more based on local production and that ownership and operation of cars will become less and less common.

These trends will be in response to the increasing cost of energy as it becomes more and more scarce, as a result of competition and depletion, and to pressures from global climate change, among others. Over the long term, we need to prepare for these pressures by expanding public transportation and gradually adopting disincentives to driving cars. We need to prepare by engaging in organized “powering down,” as author Richard Heinberg, puts it.

In the next few days and weeks, however, we need to call on the mayor to support the recommendations of the Parking Meter study and on the members of the Board of Directors to approve the recommendations unanimously — at the very least, on a trial basis.

The punchline?

“Business owners and the general public often cannot comprehend the benefit they stand to gain from what appears to be “Just another tax on hard working folks”. I understand that given your Mayoral ambitions the temptation exists to exploit their ignorance and do the wrong thing. Please rise above.”

“Noyola suggested that a conversation about extending parking meters should happen”

does that mean that the parking meeter study is also not happening at the meeting, or is it just the MTA budget that’s been removed?

Thanks for any clarification.