Sorry, Sean Parker: Fighting Safe Streets With Prop L Won’t Help the Poor

We may never know why Sean Parker decided to pour tens of thousands of dollars into Proposition L, a measure crafted and funded by Republicans who want to enshrine 20th-century car-centric policies in San Francisco. With his contribution, Parker decided to amplify this “primal scream from motorists,” as the Bay Guardian put it.

Sean Parker. Photo: Sean Parker/Twitter

On Tuesday, the measure will go to voters, who will either approve an advisory measure that contradicts SF’s 41-year-old Transit-First Policy, or send a signal that they want to put the era of automobile-centric streets behind us.

If Parker’s recent interview with Fortune Magazine is to be believed, his donation to Prop L was motivated by the sorely misguided belief that it will help less affluent San Franciscans:

It’s hard to figure out Parker’s own politics. His own priority is inequality. His political team – yes, he has a political team – flagged the referendum, called Proposition L, because it struck them as a hidden tax on the poor…

“I have a long-standing frustration that the only people who are significantly disadvantaged by onerous DMV regulations and parking tickets are the working poor,” Parker says.

“However,” as Fortune’s Shalene Gupta explains, “Parker’s enthusiasm is wildly out of sync with San Francisco’s politics.”

He’s also out of sync with the growing body of research that indicates the working poor in San Francisco are more likely to walk and ride Muni than own cars.

A “Yes on L” flyer.

Fifty-three percent of Muni riders identify as low-income, according to a recent SFMTA survey [PDF]. And while there’s limited data available on the income of car owners, a congestion pricing study by the SF County Transportation Authority found that 95 percent of drivers to, from, and within the downtown area during the morning rush are from households making more than $50,000 annually.

Meanwhile, free and underpriced parking causes drivers to circle around for spots, creating traffic that slows down Muni and its mainly low-income ridership.

“It’s manipulative to say this policy supports low-income workers,” Walk SF Executive Director Nicole Schneider told Fortune.

Not that Prop L’s proponents care about truth or accuracy. They misleadingly tout a false statistic (erroneously reported by SFMTA, and since corrected) that 79 percent of SF households own cars, seemingly arguing for majority rule. The actual number [PDF] is 69 percent, and 41 percent own only one car, giving SF a solid car-light majority.

Most San Franciscans use multiple forms of transportation, and by making it easier to get around without a car, policies that improve transit, biking, and walking also make it easier for San Franciscans to shed the enormous costs of owning, maintaining, insuring, and fueling a motor vehicle. This can drastically lower household costs for working families, but Prop L’s proponents attack efforts to make non-driving choices more attractive.

Maybe that’s why Prop L has been roundly rejected by SF’s Democratic political establishment — no current office holder has endorsed it. Among the opponents that Prop L spokesperson and political consultant David Looman called “Kool-aid drinkers” in a recent San Francisco Magazine article are eight supervisors as well as the SF Democratic County Central Committee.

A “No on L” flyer, parodying those from “Yes on L.”

What exactly do Prop L supporters want to change? Well, the flyers handed out by Prop L campaigners rail against a list of road diet projects that have made streets safer, saying they exemplify the SFMTA’s “ruthlessness” in getting “you out of your car.” The flyer points to streets like Valencia, Cesar Chavez, Folsom, Potrero, Third Street, Bayshore, San Jose, Sloat, and Laguna Honda/Seventh Avenue. Redesigns on these streets have “eliminated traffic lanes and created congestion on major streets,” the flyer says. (Oddly, a few of the streets listed, like Geary and O’Farrell, haven’t been re-configured in decades.)

“That’s one of the most tone-deaf things I’ve ever seen in San Francisco politics,” said Peter Lauterborn, the No on L campaign manager, and an aide for Supervisor Eric Mar (who is unaffiliated). “That they would be so unaware of the tragedies and deaths that have occurred [on those streets], like it’s some sort of crazy conspiracy to hurt drivers.”

Of course, the vast majority of street space in San Francisco is still devoted to moving and storing private automobiles, mostly for free.

One pro-Prop L flyer alarmingly announces that the SFMTA has “elminated 4000 on-street parking spaces.” If that’s accurate, it’s less than 2 percent of SF’s 275,450 on-street spaces, re-purposed for safer streets and better transit. In an apparent reference to the on-street car-share program that’s just kicked off — a proven method to open up parking spaces by making it easier to get live without a personal car — the flyer says the SFMTA has “given away 500 more spaces to Avis Rental Car,” which owns ZipCar and will pay for previously free spots.

The Prop L campaign’s willingness to lie in order to scare up some votes is especially apparent in one flyer that cites “an SFMTA Board Member” as saying on July 15, “Anything we can do to prevent people from owning and operating cars is a good thing.”

Here’s the actual quote they’re referring to, from SFMTA board member Cheryl Brinkman in a discussion about on-street car-share:

Even if you don’t own a car, every citizen has the right to use that curb space. Anything that we can do to help people live in this city without owning a personal car is a win for all of us. Whether we own a car, rent a car, bike, walk, or take a bus, fewer cars is a good thing.

“There are challenges and nuances” to transportation planning and policy, said Lauterborn. “They’re just showing how little they know about how transportation works, who uses public transit, and that all of us really need safe streets.”

Another “Yes on L” flyer.
  • @p_chazz – Next time I’m on Muni and I see someone with groceries, I’ll explain to them that what they’re doing is a non-starter. Because that’s the real crime.

    Oh, and this whole spiel about cars being eeeevil marginalizing advocacy? I do believe that was one of the bogus premises of Prop L, which went down in flames, in case you missed that part.

  • @murphstahoe – I sure hope there’s another charity to help them fuel and maintain the car. And yet another charity to pay for insurance. My experience is that those costs are pretty steep, and insurance is usually the first thing thrown under the GBus.

  • p_chazz

    You probably won’t see people shopping for a family of four for a week carrying groceries on Muni. And if transit activists want to come across as shrill extremists, well good luck with that outside San Francisco and New York.

  • Alex

    And thanks Chazz for saying that and for the engaging debate 🙂 . I understand your point and have seen that attitude myself. Believe it or not I’m actually am a bit of a car enthusiast, I belong to a club here in the Bay Area and own two myself. I commuted for 5 years by car and changed over to biking or public trans 2 years ago and despite the hiccups that sometimes occur with public trans my stress level has gone down and I’ve saved a lot of money on maintenance and gas. Having the choice to get around without a car is a real luxury in my mind, as much as I love cars, I know first hand that they are expensive and a headache and if you don’t love them or absolutely need one then I think you are probably better off without one but that’s a personal choice and I just want to allow everyone to have that choice, especially those who could use the savings.

  • @p_chazz – To put a fine point on it, I do see families taking groceries home on Muni, which is why I expect to see it again. I am not a frequent Muni rider, so I don’t think it’s an especially rare event.

  • Black n Pink Fixed Gear

    Yes. This. Thank you.

    The only occasional car trip works for so many people in other developed countries. People don’t need the individual automobile nearly as much as they think they do. Break free. It feels wonderful.

  • Did we follow the golden rule when deciding to blow 5 trillion dollars on the Iraq war? No? Oh well, at least we got a nice head rush out of it (briefly). So there’s that.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Who’s Not Against Cars-First Prop L? Supes Tang, Farrell, Yee, and Mayor Lee

|
With only a few days left until the election, four elected officials have yet to take a stance on Proposition L, the Republican-crafted measure that misleadingly urges San Francisco to “restore transportation balance” by giving priority to private automobiles and free parking. Supervisors Katy Tang, Mark Farrell, Norman Yee, and Mayor Ed Lee apparently see no need to come out against […]

The 2014 SF Streetsies

|
Happy New Year! Before we dive into 2015, let’s look back at the best and worst of the year in livable streets with the 2014 SF Streetsie Awards. These are the results from last week’s vote, along with some choice awards from Streetsblog staff. Most Backwards Move by Mayor Ed Lee There are a lot of […]

This Week: Election, SFMTA Workshops, Vision Zero Rally

|
Tomorrow is election day, so get out and cast your vote on measures like Prop L, the bid from Sean Parker and the Republican Party to enshrine 20th-century car-centric policies in SF. The SFMTA will also hold three open houses on proposed transportation improvements this week — two on Muni’s 5 and 28 routes, and […]