Skip to content

Recent Comments



    But if you want to get private car storage off the streets, you should be trying to replace it with something else. Rental cars are still a “private” use of the space, and once you give away public space like that, it is difficult to get it back. You are focused on a short term gain, and not thinking about the potential long term effects this kind of shift to private entities controlling street space could have.



    If the streets were actually public then I would feel differently, but we’re talking about private car storage, not public right of way. You still haven’t addressed that 30% of the population doesn’t even own a car. This is like being against public bathrooms that are operated by a private company. If there’s not a public option and it increases public services then how is it privatization? Why don’t you protest Recology’s monopoly contract or Ed Lee’s actions on behalf of PG&E?



    It’s about a part of the public street being put in the control of a private, for-profit corporation.

    I’m against it, in particular because I think it’s a slippery slope.

    You’re for it, but for some reason you resist recognizing that it is in fact a form of privatization.

    Oh well then!



    If the city had a car sharing department being sold to Avis that would be privatization. That the city is allowing a company to use city streets to expand mobility access is not privatization. If the city was letting a private company sell public parking then that would be privatization. Just because a company is involved doesn’t make it privatization, even if you don’t like it.



    You don’t seem to be arguing that it is not privatization, just that you support it. It is privatization. That was the point I was making.


    Upright Biker

    I think you have perceived and described the situation accurately. Even old hippies gain a sense of entitlement when it comes to parking their cars.



    A+ trolling. To start with “Streetsblog can be pretty clueless sometimes” and ending with an anti-all-cars stance in defense of private parking.



    I disagree, it’s not privatization, it’s improving access. People without cars, previously excluded from using car parking spaces and who you have not addressed once, will be able to access this public resource even though it’s through a private contractor. Public agencies are unable to provide the car-sharing capacity that these companies can offer and therefore it’s private companies offering the service.



    Calvin used to be a progressive. Now he wants to advantage the wealthiest 70% at the expense of the poorer 30% that don’t own cars. I am betting that he owns a car and doesn’t want to lose his perqs.



    But that really is part of the point, that as far as saving the environment goes, “cars and capitalism” are part of the problem, not the solution.



    Really, the argument here was about whether this would in fact count as “privatization” like the flyer said. And it does.


    Andy Chow

    So what is inherently wrong for being a private, for-profit provider? Are they assuming that because it is a private, for-profit, they’re more likely to cut corners or rip people off? I don’t see a Greyhound bus to be less safe than a Muni bus. I don’t see flight attendants working for a for-profit airlines to have less concern for their passengers safety than a Muni driver.

    Part of the reasons why some services are mostly provided directly by government employees is politics. In some areas they are provided by private contractors or directly for private companies without a degradation of quality (and in cases may be even better service). As for car sharing, there are more than one company around and having some level of competition help keep cost reasonable and good service quality.


    Morgan Manos

    take Uber


    Morgan Manos

    get rid of your car or get a garage



    If private car parking is the hill you choose to die on in an anti-private property stance then you do you, but I think cars and car dependency are much more closely tied to capitalism and private property than a few companies, with city regulation, operating with potentially a few hundred reserved on-street parking spaces.



    Okay, if that’s how you feel, then you’re on the wrong website. You’re issue isn’t with converting street parking into car share places but with the whole idea of private property. That’s an issue way too large for this forum.


    Andy Chow

    If it is technically feasible to price the bike spots, it would help curb peak demands since pretty much there would be cost involved either with using e-lockers, having 2 bikes, or use bike share.

    In an way taking a bike on the train is just driving solo on 101, it is the most convenient and requires the least planning (compared to carpooling or transit, or storing bikes at station), but with the downside of either getting stuck in traffic or getting bumped during peak times.

    With the bike capacity expansion over the years, the bump relief has been temporary. Just as there are realistic limits as how far you can go to widen 101, there are realistic limits on bike capacity without making Caltrain having overall less passenger carrying capacity.

    The best and the most cost effective way to enhance bike access is to improve bike parking options at stations. There are very little constraints to add more parking capacity. The technology is there. The problem is inaction on the part of JPB and inattention on the issue from the professional bike advocates.



    “And come to think of it, how is charging a private company for street
    parking any different than privatizing land buy letting people buy

    You’re on the right track with that. As a wise man once said, “property is theft”…



    Nevertheless, that is how enclosure (or privatization) works. It starts with space or resource being taken out of public hands into private. The trouble is, it gets hard to get it back once this happens.



    This is part of the distinction I was pointing out in the first post, that City CarShare (for example) is not the same as Avis.



    Sounds like street parking is worth $50 to $225 per month. Charge all users that much (to be fair of course) and there will be plenty of spots for car share…


    Aaron Bialick

    We normally don’t do forced new tabs, but a switch must’ve flipped somewhere that’s setting it to default now. I’ll see if we can fix it.



    It wasn’t sarcasm per say, more mocking of people protesting this by showing the logical acrobatics that need to be made to be against expanding car share access. If you re-read the quotation of mine that you posted, it states that something that will benefit many people, at small cost, is both socialism and privatization (opposite of socialism). It’s neither.



    And come to think of it, how is charging a private company for street parking any different than privatizing land buy letting people buy houses? Space used to park cars has nothing to do with letting people travel down roads (which is a public right). It is purely storage of private property, just like a garage (or even the rest of a house for that matter). Yet you have to pay for a garage but somehow we give that space away for free or vastly subsidized when it’s on the road.

    You want to store your private property (car)? Pay for it! Just like we do for *everything* else: clothes, appliances, books, guitars, hiking gear, boxes of old crap, furniture, computers, etc., etc. As a society, we have agreed that you should have to pay for space to store all your stuff … except a car. How does that make any rational sense, and how can anybody defend that?

    And, for this reason, we don’t complain when people buy houses because now that land isn’t available to the public. Why should it be any different on the part of the road that is purely used for storage? This whole idea is so convoluted that I’m amazed people can actually sit here and argue about it.

    And that’s not even getting into the idea that car share has been shown to reduce the amount of cars owned which has a net positive benefit for increasing parking availability.



    Ah, love the loading zone mention.



    Just like every loading zone in front of every business, private school, etc.


    Russell Blank

    I think you’re confusing me with the other Lebowski.

    If “All I know is losing 1-2 spots within a multi block area to something that will benefit multiple people is both evil socialism and extreme privatization.” is an example of sarcasm… someone needs to work on their sarcasm before they apply for that job with The Onion.



    Cars for rent parked on the street?!? What the hell would be wrong with that? Can someone send those over to my neighborhood?



    Dude, turn on your sarcasm detector.


    Russell Blank

    Why should the city subsidize car ownership by housing individuals private property (their car) with public resources (land)? That seems to me a more pernicious example of extreme privatization and evil socialism.



    The city is *not* given these spaces away. The car share companies are paying a monthly fee for using these spaces and they are providing a service that anyone in the public can use. As has been said above, it is no different then letting people use parking spaces for parklets or loading zones that are correspondingly paid for by private entities.



    In a way it is no different than putting more lanes on 101

    Come on, Andy. I mean, really.

    And also, really, you think we should charge for ‘bike spots’ like one does for car parking? Because bikes take up so much real estate? Because they do nothing to reduce traffic and leave parking spaces for other drivers who are less able to cycle?

    Mostly I agree with your comments, though. Bike garages are a total no-brainer. Why can totally dysfunctional cities like Washington DC get them put in so easily, and not us?

    Also, the real answer is bike share. Dammit, BAAQMD, find a way to bail out Bixi already and let’s really get it rolling!



    “The McCoppin Hub Plaza, located at the end of McCoppin street, will serve as a community gathering place” … for the homeless


    Elias Zamaria

    I agree. This is annoying and pointless. I have enough tabs open in my browser already. I think the headlines page was fine the way it was before. Anyone who wants links opened in a new window or tab can use their browser’s “open in new tab” feature.



    Rental car companies as well as auto body shops and tow shops already park their cars along the streets for free so that nightmare scenario has already come to pass.

    Access to many things, such as electricity, gas, garbage, construction, phone service, housing, internet, etc. is controlled by private, for-profit companies. Just because the company is private doesn’t mean that this is bad, although I am generally against privatization and monopolization of essential services. Also worth noting, City car share is not a for-profit company, although the other two companies are.

    You’re right, this doesn’t remove parking from the streets, but it does enable more people to access a car when they need it and the potential to get rid of a car that they under use or cannot afford. That will make parking easier for everyone in the long run.



    But access would be controlled by a private, for-profit entity. You might as well let car rental companies park their cars along the streets for free.

    BTW, in any of these scenarios, you still end up with a line of parked cars filling part of the street.



    The space would still be available to the public through the services. This is like saying you can’t have a farmers market in a plaza because you want to stand where the produce stand is and they are a business, but ignoring the fact that they’re bringing a service to the area. This pilot program is another use for that public space that opens up private car storage to people who don’t own a car as well as increasing mobility. Sounds great to me, as someone who could use more car sharing in my neighborhood since there isn’t any right now.



    In fact, my citycarshare was ticketed when I DPed on my small sidestreet to unload groceries.

    You’ve certainly confirmed my theory that people don’t think double parking is a big deal.



    Streetsblog can be pretty clueless sometimes. A space that is available to the public, being given over to the control of a private company, is a serious issue. In the case of parking spots for car-sharing, it depends on the car-sharing service’s relationship to the city. If we’re talking about for-profit companies then that would be a form of enclosure of publicly owned space for private gain.



    As Murph pointed out, parking enforcement isn’t done by police, it’s done by SFMTA. Congestion pricing, and parking rates are also not done or regulated by the police, but the SFMTA. The only thing cops would help with is keeping cars out of transit only lanes as that is a moving violation and therefore their purview and not PCOs, but that could potentially be changed at a legislative level I think.

    We already live in a police state, it’s just one that doesn’t see double parking as an issue worthy of targeting.



    It hasn’t been built but it has been extensively planned, brought to the public for input, and environmentally reviewed. That costs a lot of money and time, scrapping those plans would be a loss of millions of (mostly federal, I believe) dollars spent on the project already.



    Read his response again; he won’t be blocking the fire hydrant b/c he’s in his car and will move immediately if that is needed. Use your noggin. Jame is doing the polite thing.



    MTA seems happy to hand out tickets for not blocking your wheels or being six inches into a red zone or any number of other minor offenses. So I am very skeptical of your insinuation they are letting any double-parkers off the hook.

    (In fact, my citycarshare was ticketed when I DPed on my small sidestreet to unload groceries.)

    So while I agree that we need education and a change in societal attitudes, I don’t see how SF could realistically enforce parking offenses any more than they already are without some orwellian camera system or something.



    That reminds me – maybe it would make more sense to move Geary BRT off of Geary entirely? The project hasn’t been built yet so that means it should be easy to change the plans, right?


    Jeffrey Baker

    I don’t live in Mountain View, but if you do, don’t forget to vote for someone with a working forebrain in this year’s council election.


    Jeffrey Baker

    re: local shuttles in mountain view. Only in Mountain View is reducing jobs the answer to the problem of more jobs than housing.

    “I think we need to reduce the amount of office space in Mountain View that we’re building,” said city council member Jac Siegel. “It’s affecting everything in Mountain View. Every day we hear about someone being pushed out of the city. Why? Because there’s more jobs than there is housing.”




    One of the city employees at the hearing last week seriously suggested a municipal car share as the best possible outcome (but that it wasn’t going to happen). I disagree, if municipal car share is run anything like the municipal railroad they’d probably buy a fleet of unmaintained 1972 Ford Pintos.



    I attended the hearing on this last week (one of the spots is near my apartment) and it was SF planning writ small. Probably forty people came out to speak against the proposal. Half of them were backlashers who felt like cars don’t have enough space on our roads. The other half were the “liberals” who are all for car share…just not on their block. The subsidy argument came up several times, but no one noticed that they, themselves, are getting a subsidy that non-car owners do not receive. Even if they pay for a residential parking permit, that’s only $0.30 a day!

    I hope the SFMTA approves this pilot project, but if they listen to with the squeaky wheel it’s going to go down in flames. I strongly recommend carshare members and supporters email your support for this pilot or take the time to speak in favor of it.



    Here are the definitions of “intersection”, “alley”, and “crosswalk” in the California Vehicle Code:

    An alley does constitute an intersection under the law, although it does not imply a crosswalk where a pedestrian has the right of way. However, that does not make it an illegal crossing.

    Further explanation compiled by a lawyer is provided here:

    A graphical representation of legal and illegal mid-block crossings is provided here:



    Contrary to what the editor learned in his rhetoric classes, “privatization” is the right word. The city is semi-permanently transferring the use rights for this public property to a private entity, in this case for the purposes of making profit by running a car share company. That’s privatization, which is fundamentally different from the swapping one temporary private use for another when residents park on the street surface. Good or bad, it’s something categorically different.