I really love reading articles that has lots of knowledge to impart. I admire those writers who share the best of their knowledge in writing such articles. Keep up the good work and continue inspiring readers.Thank you so much.

I've always found how/why people believed more interesting than what they believed. I grew up on left wing views since the late 60's early 70's and had what I assumed was a healthy loathing of experts and the self appointed. I was wrong. love your masters is the new mantra of the left! Nothing makes the new new new left more angry than individualism.

For the last 2/3 of Bush's being president I always found it amazing that there were still people who were right wing martyr's. These poor sour shouters would bemoan the state of the union while controlling the entire federal government. Right wing republicans had appointed most of the supreme court and had control of the other two branches, they even had John Ashcroft to do their bidding...

In SF the whining left has pretty much run the entire operation for some time and yet they still pretend to be victims? Even a person as dense as the average Guardian reader can fathom that being opposed to the crazy antics of right wing Christians isn't persecuting Christians.

Oddly Not bowing to the self appointed genius of the San Francisco Bay Guardian we learn that anyone not toeing the line are akin to fascists and racists? In a city like San Francisco where politicians go begging to their George Wallace like racialist masters and SEIU spenders the Guardian still whines about how unfair it all is?

I find it weird, the oddest thing has developed, not letting the SF "progressives" tax and torment people is persecuting the them, the progressive. This is an bizarre turn of events considering that the Bush mono religious-culture bitched so much.

When the progressive can't give tax money to the correct entitled citizen its an atrocity, yet the un-entitled tax payer should be soaked as much as possible? As the article above states.

To the Guardian authoritarianism, not giving tax money away to certain people is making these people victims. This is the strangest patch of logic, "you didn't give us money so we are persecuted." Just like the average born again Christian.

The two sides of the crazy coin have made common cause with how stupid the rest of us are,

The meter changes may just backfire if they continue with the current pricing. In the "Downtown Zone" motorcycles are being charged $.070/hr. Work that out to a monthly rate, and it's between $120 and $140. Most private garages downtown that I've encountered charge around $80/month...taxes included...for a motorcycle. And there are lots of empty motorcycle spaces down here since they made the change...between the meter rates tripling and the recession, MTA may be shooting itself in the foot here. Now we're faced with a choice between expensive and inefficient public transit (30 minutes for a 2 mile trip, in many cases) and efficient but expensive private transit. Not a great situation in a recession. I, for one, have a choice between commuting to San Mateo or working downtown. I'm spending more days in San Mateo in part because of the meter rate increase...it's actually cheaper to commute 25 miles than it is to commute 2.

Tim, like you mentioned the larger issue is the revenue side of the equation. This amounts to yet another tax increase on working people...all because we have a mayor who won't try to raise a penny from big business or the rich.

@JWM: Have you ever taken economics? Smaller quantities (i.e. hourly) vs. large quantities (i.e. monthly) are always more expensive per unit. That's how it works. You've bought bottle of aspirin before, haven't you? The 500 is always cheaper per-unit than the 100.

And to your second point that your gas consumption for 25 miles X 2 is really saving you money is laughable and false on its face.

@mcas: I happen to have a degree in Economics so drop the patronizing tone. The small quantity factor is relevant for those parking for short times. But the relevant market downtown is for people parking motorcycles all day while they work. That's the vast majority of bikes down here. Cars are a different story, as most of the car spaces have a short time limit. So again, the choice is between a private garage and parking on the street.

And if you want to talk about laughable, how about the fact that you don't understand that many motorcycles get 50+mpg? Combine that with free parking in San Mateo and yeah, it's cheaper...by a long way. Here's some basic math for you: 50mpg/50 miles = 1 gallon of gas. That's around $3.25 these days. Factor in other costs and it's maybe $4 per day. Far cheaper than $7.

In the end, you're not helping the progressive cause by patronizing people who happen to disagree on this point.

I don't really understand Glen's gibberish, but I agree with JWM's point that we should stick to the issue rather than attacking the people. And the issue here is that the MTA needs money to balance its budget, and right now that can either come from motorists or public transit (and in both cases, through fee hikes, service reductions, or some combination thereof). So far, it's come mostly from transit users, which is a short-sighted strategy that discourages people from using Muni.
I've laid out a case, in this post and its many links to past stories, that more revenue needs to come from motorists. Maybe that's through extended meter hours or increased rates, or maybe through some other mechanism. But the public land devoted to storing private automobiles is substantial and valuable, so it's motorists who are right now getting the biggest handouts from government.
Besides just complaining about limited parking and evil bureaucrats, I'd love to hear someone make a cogent argument about why we all should continue to subsidize such an inefficient transportation choice.

Here's some more simple economics: If two products or services are substitutes, and you make one more expensive and the other cheaper, people will switch from one to the other.

Driving and Muni are substitutes; lots of people every day choose between the two. It's insane that it's cheaper for JWM to drive his motorcycle 50 miles a day than to take Muni (and I include the cost of his/her time). If you make parking more expensive -- AND use that money to make Muni cheaper, more convenient and more efficient -- then you encourage more transit ridership and less driving.

That's the idea here.

I understand JWM's complaint -- if time is money, and it takes too long to get around on the bus, and you can get gas (which is too cheap and not taxed enough) and parking at low rates, why take Muni?

A fair system would tax the rich AND raise taxes on gas and parking, AND spend a lot of money improving Muni. Then we'd get the environmental and urban benefits we all agree we're looking for.

Steve - I agree that hitting transit users doesn't seem fair right now. Hell, I think public transit should be free. MTA and the Board seem to be making bad pricing decisions all around, and it'll hurt more than it helps.

Another factor here is that public transit is either too slow (Muni, 35-40 minutes to go the two miles to my office) or too expensive (BART, $3.50/day) to be viable for many. And some are afraid to ride Muni, especially lines like the 14 Mission. And it's not reliable, save for a few marquis lines. When faced with those kind of choices, many people will choose to bicycle, walk (both good things...just not for the MTA's revenue)drive (and park in a private garage) or work somewhere else...even in this economy.

It all comes back to your mention of revenue. For 30 years, taxes on those who can most afford them have been politically off the table, so government routinely comes in and picks the pockets of working people and small business. Whether it's parking meter rate increases, arbitrary/questionable "enforcement" by the DPT, the DPW systematically citing property owners for sidewalk repairs (to get permit fees), or any number of other ways, average people of all stripes feel like they're being gouged. I can't think of a better way to fuel a modern tax revolt...something that would probably do more harm than good.

Thanks Tim. I think our posts crossed on the wire...you said it well: the choices facing people determine their actions. Add in our emotions, and you get some unpredictability, some ingenuity, but things ultimately move in the same direction. And I'd rather solve the larger problem (e.g. revenue) than spend time and effort fighting amongst which sector of working people will bear the burden...doing that will just turn us against each other. We'll fight over the crumbs while the Vikram Pandits and the Gettys of the world make off with the entire loaf.

Newsom is a total opportunist. He had an opportunity to have sexual intercourse with his best friends wife and he took it. He had an opportunity to pay her as a staffer, and he did it.
Now he has an opportunity to run for Governor...

I'll make it simple for you Steve, republicans had controll of the entire federal government for years and they still considered themselves victims.

IN SF liberals have control of the entire city government and when some of them don't get their way they claim to be victims.

Steve, you and the SEIU criers don't get your way in a city run by crying liberals and you and them are victims?

Simple enough?

I love to read interesting post that has knowledge to impart! Thank you for sharing your insights! I will avidly wait for your next blog entry.

Best regards,
Kosher Vitamins