Signatures Grow for Petition Supporting SFPark Expansion

Update (Sept. 11, 7:53 p.m.): The pro-meter petition now has 197 signatures. ENUF’s anti-meter petition has 199.

It’s pretty easy to find people who want to perpetuate the free parking giveaway on SF streets, despite the traffic and street dysfunction that result. But it turns out that it’s also not that hard to find people who think the status quo needs to change. A new online petition launched last Wednesday has amassed 95 signatures in support of the SF Municipal Transportation Agency’s efforts to expand meters and introduce parking prices that cut traffic and increase turnover for local businesses.

Photo: ##'s City Insider##

Transit advocate Mario Tanev launched the petition last Wednesday in response to a petition opposed to parking reform launched by Mari Eliza of the Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF) on August 29, one week prior. That petition currently has 165 signatures.

In a draft press release sent to ENUF’s members today, the organization claimed the counter-petition was launched by the SFMTA. Tanev has no affiliation with the agency.

“As residents and taxpayers of San Francisco we believe that the SFMTA’s first and foremost responsibility is to improve Muni, bicycling, and walking and to make them a more desirable means of transportation,” the counter-petition reads. “As part of that, it is SFMTA’s job to decrease congestion and single-occupancy traffic on its streets. It will also benefit drivers by setting market rates on parking, improving turnover, availability, and reducing congestion due to circling for parking.”

The petition, addressed to the mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and the SFMTA, calls on the agency to expedite four actions:

1. Installing new parking meters and extending the hours of enforcement
2. Rolling out SFPark
3. Enforcing Sunday parking meters
4. Increasing meter rates, fees, and fines as appropriate to prevent double parking and sidewalk parking

Tanev also launched a new website called, whose name is a play on ENUF’s website,

As Streetsblog has written, merchants and residents often come out against expanding parking meters, even though it’s been shown to benefit merchants by increasing turnover and allowing more customers to access businesses.

Under SFPark, the SFMTA’s groundbreaking pilot program, the agency uses sensors and special parking meters to adjust prices throughout the day based on demand, with the goal of leaving one parking spot open on each block. The SFMTA had intended to install new SFPark meters in the Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, and northeast Mission neighborhoods, but vocal opposition from residents organized under the ENUF banner led the agency to alter the plan. Instead, the SFMTA is developing plans for an expansion of conventional parking meters in those neighborhoods.

The Northeast Mission Business Association (NEMBA) has been organizing merchant opposition to parking meters in that neighborhood, where a parking lot at 17th and Folsom Streets is set to be turned into a park and a housing project, removing nearly 200 spaces. SFPark planners say demand for parking in the area already far outstrips the supply, and rampant cruising for open spots is generating a significant amount of traffic. Unless parking is priced in response to demand, the problem will only worsen.

Angela Sinicropi, a merchant and vice president of public affairs for NEMBA, told Mission Local recently that she thinks new meters will “put us out of business.”

However, evidence that metered parking benefits retail businesses is only growing. A study in Seattle released in April found that downtown restaurant receipts increased by 5.4 percent after parking meter hours were extended from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Sinicropi did not return a request last week to respond to parking meter supporters. Jim Lazarus, public policy director of the SF Chamber of Commerce, said “we support the SFPark program,” but that “meters must serve the local community and foster turnover, not just revenue for Muni. Same with early evening hours and Sundays.”

Livable City Director Tom Radulovich, who lives in the Mission, said local merchants who support metered parking may not be as visible, and that opposition seems to stem largely from businesses whose employees benefit from free parking in prime spots, as well as automotive businesses who store vehicles on the street for free. Two of the four opposing merchants quoted in the Mission Local story represented automotive or motorcycle repair businesses.

“They would have to pay for something they’re getting for free now,” said Radulovich. “I think for those particular businesses, it’s not good, but other businesses would probably appreciate the turnover.”

Tanev pointed out that even merchants who sell heavy merchandise which may require a car to transport would benefit from parking meters, since “more spaces will be available to those who truly need them, and those who don’t will be [encouraged] to release the space as soon as they no longer need it.”

With the petition, Tanev said he hopes to “point out that [the opponents’] opinion is no more important than the opinion of those who believe parking should not be free.” He said he also hopes it leads to a “more permanent” collaboration of livable streets advocacy organizations “whose core constituencies would benefit from a saner parking policy” but haven’t united on this particularly contentious issue.

“Unfortunately, there is no organization uniting those in favor of a sane parking policy (one that argues for expansion of SFPark and parking meter hours to improve parking availability and reduce congestion, and also gather revenue for improving alternative transportation),” said Tanev.

“I don’t know how effective [ENUF’s] petition campaign will be, but I am concerned that our political system is biased towards the voice of the loudest,” he added. “I don’t want them to be the loudest.”

  • mikesonn

    Kudos to Mario!

  • If you are in the Mission, and parking meters are the thing that tips you from a vital business to out of business, you were probably doing something wrong in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    I support this 100%, but we need to make sure we don’t frame this as a Driver vs. Non-Driver debate.  Enforced parking meters will benefit drivers more than anyone, because meters make it much easier to find parking.  No more circling around for half an hour, wasting gas, slowing traffic, and getting yourself irritable and frustrated.  Any thinking driver should be all over this.

  • Anonymous

    Agreed. And, in fact, the petition does not frame it that way and points out that it’s good for drivers as well.

  • Mario Tanev

    Thanks for the feedback. Admittedly the petition started by just negating ENUF’s petition and the language may be a tad bit facetious. But I agree with you – when my girlfriend drives somewhere it really upsets me that SFPark is not everywhere, every time (especially Sundays), since it’s just so hard to find parking. We’ve even given up a couple of times on a restaurant and chose a different restaurant in another neighborhood because of that. That first restaurant would never know that however, unlike those who manage to park and complain to the merchant how expensive it is. It’s just a selection bias that makes merchants believe that the problem is that parking is expensive, rather than that it’s unavailable.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t mean it to be a criticism of your petition, but a response to the vitriolic debate going on in the Chron’s comments section and other places.  We can’t let this petition (and meter enforcement in general) be painted as some kind of culture war.  It’s a serious, sensible solution to the fact that our City’s population keeps growing while its surface area remains the same.  Keep fighting the good fight, Mario!

  • jimmy

    I love SFPark.  I used to bike almost everywhere and take MUNI on occasion. Now, with SFPark, I find myself driving to the SFPark neighbourhoods (e.g. Marnia, Hayes Valley) much more often.

    The city is already pushing SFPark hard and that’s a good thing.

  • 94103er

    The other day my husband overheard someone say she’s annoyed that Farina Pizza opened because it’s going to make parking even harder in that area. We’re talking about 18th and Valencia here. 

    If I’d been there, I think my head would’ve exploded. Where do people get the idea that parking should grow on trees in a place like this??

    Anyway, 197 signatures? That’s it? Come on, Streetsblog readers. Sign the damn thing already!

    Also, here’s a thought. If a few whiners continue to block the progress of SFPark, the city needs to respond in kind by aggressively enforcing the 72-hour-parking rule, particularly in the NE Mission. Seriously.

  • mikesonn

    Nevius’ recent North Beach column: “Parking is still difficult.”

    Yes, parking is difficult because a place is popular, but we need to sift our collective mindset to: a place is popular because parking is difficult.


The 2012 SF Streetsies, Part 2

Here is the second and final installment of Streetsblog SF’s first-ever Streetsie Awards. In case you missed them, check out Part 1 and the voting results from the recent reader poll. We’ll return to our regular programming on Wednesday. Biggest Fumble Why are so few drivers charged for killing pedestrians in San Francisco? District Attorney George Gascón’s answer demolished […]

Did “Restore Balance” Petitioners Lie About Sunday Meters for Signatures?

Petitioners for the “Restore Transportation Balance” initiative aimed at enshrining cars-first policies apparently made false claims about the state of Sunday parking metering to collect signatures. Backers of the Republican-crafted ballot measure turned in 17,500 petition signatures — well over the 9,000 required for it to qualify for the ballot this November, the SF Chronicle reported […]