Local parking permits -- and fees

08.13.12 - 2:57 pm | Tim Redmond |

(69)

SF Newspaper Company photo

So the city's going to take a look at the neighborhood parking program. Good. Here's my first question: Why do the car owners get away so cheap?

It costs $64 a month to buy a Muni Fast Pass. It costs at least $300 a month to rent a garage. But if you're in the neighborhood parking program, you get essentially a guaranteed parking space on a city street -- public property -- for $104 a YEAR, or about 28 cents a day.

That's crazy.

I'm not for eliminating the neighborhood parking stickers; the program keeps out-of-town commuters from driving into SF and using residential areas as free parking lots. But let's make the car owners -- who, by the way, are still reaping the Schwarzenegger VLF windfall -- pay their fair share.

Double the fee and you get another $6.5 million. And the parking permits would still be the bargain of the decade.

And then maybe we can get God out of the parking system.

Comments

Well, of course the decal doesn't guarantee you a space

I qualify for one of these decals but I don't believe in neighborhood parking so I don't get them.

The $104 cost cannot be doubled easily - this number is based on what it costs DPT MUNI SFMTA to run the program. Interestingly, they've assigned 16(?) PCO's to this program in order to get the annual cost as high as possible.

The parking is free, of course. The annual payment is to run the program to keep auslanders out. It's sounds like you're calling for a parking tax - be my guest to call for that.

Be my guest to end the neighborhood parking system. That would be OK as well...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

End permit parking?

I think the idea when it was instituted was to prevent commuters from driving into the city, taking up parking in the neighborhoods, and commuting downtown by transit.

Now that downtown is a relatively devoid of humans compared to what it used to be like, the problem may be different; people who commute into the city are more likely to be able to park close to where they work and monitor their cars, either moving them or erasing the chalk on their tires (of course the latter doesn't work if the PCOs are taking down license plate numbers and/or using GPS marking systems).

I'm a bit mystified by your statment that permit fees are determined by costs and that an increase in the number of PCOs would result in an increase in cost; don't they *make* money for the city on balance by writing tickets? It always seemed to me that if they just wrote a couple tickets per hour, they'd be more than covering their costs. Is that wrong?

______________________________________________________
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...
lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

I don't know - you tell me how much the fees have gone up

the past 15 years. What is it, a 300% increase? That's not on account of inflation.

It could be that the costs and benefits of the bizarrely-assigned RPP PCOs are paid for by the annual fees and the revenue they generate goes right to the SFMTA.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

I imagine homeowner Redmond

I imagine homeowner Redmond has a garage.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

garage

No, homeowner Redmond does not have a garage. He does own a car, will sell it the minute his kids are old enough to take Muni by themselves, and thinks that he, and other car owners, pay far too little for the privilege of owning a motor vehicle in the city.

Sorry, this is another example where you're trying to get me, but in fact my political stance is not consistent with my own economic self-interest. It's often that way.

Posted by tim on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

Tim, I'm a bit doubtful just the same.

While I hate to seem like I'm in agreement with the kind of trolls who say absolutely *anything* to seem like they are "scoring points," it seems to me that you have habitually discounted the gentrifying effect of increasing the cost of driving a car in the city.

Some people are similar positions to your own with regard to needing a vehicle and they aren't looking forward to any near-term future when they can stop needing a vehicle: people who work odd hours, self-employed tradesmen, care-givers and such.

I see any "congestion pricing" scheme -- which is essentially what you are promoting when you say that "people don't pay enough for the priviledge of owning a car in the city" -- as a means for clearing space so that the well-to-do can enjoy their wealth all the more.

______________________________________________________
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...
lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

Junk your car

That's exactly what I did, Tim. I junked the car when the kiddies reached high school, and I have been using City Carshare ever since. I have saved a lot of money and hassle by using only MUNI and CC.

A day without car ownership is like a happy day without jock itch.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:49 am

Sadly not a reality for many people

Our family have three cars because we need three cars. Me, the wife and the eldest kid commute to three different counties every day. Transit isn't an option. It's just how it is.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 8:33 am

It is an option

Actually, you do have options: you all have chosen to take jobs far away from where you live. That is almost certainly your choice, and the reason it was even optional for you is because we have a culture where the true costs of a car is externalized. If you actually had to pay the true cost of the damage caused by driving that many cars that far and that often, you wouldn't be able to afford it. But saying you have no choice is like people deciding to have 5 kids and then complaining that society doesn't cut them enough breaks as if it wasn't there decision to create such a burden on themselves.

Posted by jd on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 9:38 am

Quite true that it is an option.

Not only has fake lillipublicans and his clan made a personal *choice* to work and live in different counties, but unless they are working the grave shift, there are probably far better mass transit options that they'd credit if they stopped the whining and looked into it.

I used to commute by Caltrain halfway down the peninsula every day, taking Muni to 4th and King and walking 15 minutes on the far end. That took up 3 hours of every day, but I got to spend much of that time reading. Might do you good, fake lillipublicans, to try and develop your intellect further.

jd, good point about the costs of cars -- and commuting even in less energy consumptive ways -- being externalized. Most of these hidden costs are camoflaged as our huge military expenditures directed towards keeping the oil flowing around the world. Similarly, the back-end loading regarding environmental destruction that will be felt by future generations.

Whiny fake lillipublicans, with three car commuters under one roof, a reasonable small step would be to at least carpool someone onto regional mass transit.

______________________________________________________
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...
lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 10:05 am

It is an option

Posted by jd on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 9:39 am

jd, yeah, people choose to

jd, yeah, people choose to take jobs in other cities, just like we choose to work so that we don't starve and go homeless.

Of course, all jobs are always for life, with businesses honoring the employer/employee relationship, never firing except for just cause, never outsourcing jobs to where labor is cheaper, never insourcing workers to undercut domestic standards of living and always investing in America and Americans first.

And it is so easy to pick up and move within the Bay Area, whether a tenant or a homeowner, because it is trivial to sell a home and buy another or to find a new rental and amass a move in dollar amount.

And transit always runs on time, reliably and rapidly.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 11:04 am

JD, so I should take a crappier job just because it is

closer to where I live?

Do you even live in the real world?

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 11:05 am

An imp/troll such as yourself, *ought* to have a crappy job.

So taking one that is a bit "crappier" can't be a bad thing in the greater scheme of things.

More people should try harder to find jobs close to where they live. Often I have pondered the possibility that every day many people with similar skills are probably passing each other going opposite directions on the freeway, driving to jobs which they could to swap.

Thank god we don't have a planned economy where jobs are created and stay where people live.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 11:28 am

Fees and state law

Yes, it's tricky to raise "fees" under state law. So call this something else. Create a parking tax. Or put all-day meters in those zones and allow residents with stickers to pay three months in advance. There are all sorts of ways you can charge for street parking.

Posted by tim on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

Ass. If you double the fee,

Ass.

If you double the fee, that adds to "this city is only for the wealthy" direction that this city is currently on.

The same direction where one has to be able to afford one of these $3,000+/month apartments to live here and that doesn't include parking fees. Outrageous. Only the wealthier could afford a doubled fee. I couldn't afford that to park my rust-bucket vehicle on the street. If the fee is doubled, there should be a low-income residential parking permit as well, so I would qualify for that. The current fee is too high for me.

Instead, take the money from the wealthier's end. Charge a fee for taking up valuable street space with their garage entry which takes away a parking space or two. Why do you keep going after the low-income residents for city income? You don't want to tax the bourgeois elite it would appear.

Tim Redmond is sounding more like the 1%.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

Where do you get the idea that the wealthy have garages?

There's no correlation between a garage space and wealth in San Francisco.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

How about all increases in

How about all increases in car charged are programmed to make Muni better? Now the MTA just wants to throw more money into the rat hole. If regional transit is not reliable or rapid enough to be a viable alternative--I am so grateful for my 10 min, 2.5 mi Mission to FD bike commute after BART/CalTraining it to a meeting at Stanford last week--then there needs to be carrot along with the stick to make transit more attractive.

I am not supporting one more dime in increased revenue for this government until there is some evidence it won't get shunted away from capital and service provision and into the pockets of someone on the winning side of corrupt politics.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

car fees

My first choice would be a city car tax, based on the value of the vehicle. The low-income folks with their rust buckets would pay less, and the folks with the $70,000 mercedes would pay more. Mark Leno has tried three times to get the state Legislature and the governor to allow SF to do that. No luck yet.

I'm all for taxing garages and curb cutouts. I think you will notice that my entire political life is about taxing the rich.

But seriously: You own a car. You pay for gas. It presumably gets you around. If you bought a Muni pass, it would cost you far more than the modest $208 a year I'm talking about for parking fees.

Posted by tim on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

"But seriously: You own a

"But seriously: You own a car. You pay for gas. It presumably gets you around. If you bought a Muni pass, it would cost you far more than the modest $208 a year I'm talking about for parking fees."

I already take Muni (no Fast Pass) whenever I need to go somewhere. My rust-bucket vehicle doesn't get me around but once a week for groceries because it's not easy to carry 4-5 full bags of groceries on Muni. That's the only time I use my vehicle. In the meantime, my vehicle has to be parked somewhere, so it's on the street with a residential permit on it. And Muni is....well most people know how Muni is who ride the system. It's not that reliable, especially the buses.

Rather than the city giving corporate welfare to some corporate social network like Twitter and other corporations, get the $$ from that rather than going after poor people and their parked vehicles.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

The only reason I voted for the state

ban on keeping the various levels of government from further taxing the sloven peasants that progressives loath so much is because of Avalos and his beer tax. If it would have just been a referendum on taxing Chevron or whatever, don't care. Populists/progressives want to tax everyone for everything, so that they our self appointed betters can burn our money in the street for no real good reason.

It's so good that Redmond wants to take a neighbourhood program that was called for by local residents to keep out long term out of town parkers, and turn it back on the actual citizens to fuck them over.

What an asshole.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 7:33 pm

Have to agree with the naysayers here

What I liked about the VLF before Arnie took a sledgehammer to it, was that it was based on the value of the car. But increases in the parking fees are regressive taxes that disproportionately affect the poor. It's not just that the fee is flat, but the fact that the wealthiest residents with garages can get out of paying it completely.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 6:57 pm

Redmond of course likes the top down

approach to government that is the SFMTA.

We are all here to support the revealed born again agenda one way or another, as long as people like Redmond get over it is OK to have a government based on coercion..

What a crazy world people like Redmond live in, when the government wants to enforce sit lie laws it has run amok (which I agree), when the government wants to coerce people in another area, the government knows best.

What an obvious conniving opportunist.

No one could give a shit that Redmond wants his taxes raises, he could always just give more and his sense of guilt would be placated. That talking point is just moronic.

It is all happy face authoritarianism.

Obey your progressive masters peasants. the so called progressives know how you should live out you shitty life.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

Talk about a moronic talking point!

Want to raise taxes? Why just pay more then! Oh, wow, this is brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? Why not just go back to the days of Dickens-ian utopia when charities and orphanages took care of society's needs? 'Cause that worked so well in the 18th century, you know.

The talking point about "government based on coercion" is another lame, tired, hackneyed libertarian talking point that Ayn Rand accolytes and other assorted reptiles love to trot out all the time. It's rubbish, of course, because as soon as you lay down any rule of conduct, there's an element of coercion. It's just a question of who is being coerced, and how much. The type of society they usually advocate is actually the most coercive of all, because it's basically the law of the jungle. The rich and the powerful do whatever they want, and if you don't like it, then you have no recourse from the government.

Oh but giving the already powerful free reign is not coercion. Taxes, wage laws, rent control, campaign finance laws... all brutal authoritarianism! But service cuts are savings. Sweat shops are examples of efficient markets. Evictions at the landlord's whim is sweet liberty. And corporations monopolizing the airwaves is democracy.

The cognitive dissonance of the libertarian mind never fails to amaze.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 8:04 pm

Incoherent

ravings.

Greg has more in common with Ayn Rand than I have ever had.

Ayn Rand, Greg, Tim Redmond and all the other progressives have far more in common with each other than I have with them.

Keep up the crazy Greg.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 9:26 pm

I'm not the one

I'm not the one whose entire "philosophy," if it can be called that, consists of incoherent sarcasm and tired regurgitated libertarian talking points.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 10:44 pm

Like Ayn Rand

your entire philosophy is based on opportunism and treating the citizens as lab rats.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

Perhaps, but why malign dead

Perhaps, but why malign dead authors?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

Perhaps, but why malign dead

Perhaps, but why malign dead authors?

Posted by Shredded Wheat on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

Tim- this is not the Soviet Union

Owning a car is not a privilege.

I would also disagree with you on the notion that I do not pay for parking. I in fact do pay quite a bit to the City for parking and other city services. As a property owner in SF, every December and April 10 I write a big fat check to the City. A decent amount goes to cover the upkeep of streets etc. If anyone should pay for parking on the residential streets (and they shouldn't) it ought to be the non-property owners.

And frankly- if the City is going to double tax me- once via property taxes and again via the insane residential permits to park on City streets, I question why I am required to maintain city property in front of my house- i,e sidewalks, trees etc. When the stupid tree which I am not allowed to chop down has it roots pushing up the sidewalk or the branches are in the power lines- does the City take care of it? Nope- I get to pay the tree dude and the cement guys even though both are city property.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 8:08 pm

D.Native, This is the Soviet

D.Native, This is the Soviet Union, driving is a privilege not a right. Using the streets to store a car that you don't have the privilege to drive while people who depend on their cars can't find parking is beyond the pale. And you will like it.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

If driving is a privilege then so is gay marriage

Both require licenses.

Driving is essential for most people, especially since Muni is almost unusable and also unsafe in many parts of the city. Jobs now are also much more widely spread out. Heck, if even Tim has a car, you know they're essential.

People have made important decisions, like where to live, based on there being free, available street parking. You can't just change the rules and, if you try, I guarantee you there'll be massive protests and progressives will lose power across the board.

Residential permits are to keep outsiders out - they are not a revenue source.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

Taxes confuse progressives

taxes are to pay for union flunkies, non profits, drunken hobo's to spend the day at the hospital, make work jobs for ass kisser's, racialist dreams, etc...

This is how the progressive brain works...

You pay taxes to subsidise their agenda, as a citizen of the city you owe them. The government owes you nothing unless you ride a bike, squeeze out endless children, or are part of a certain racialist or sexual demographic...

Really a quite simple world view on the part of progressive children, they get all sorts of free shit because they are tax payers... bike lanes, community centers based on race and sexual preference, studies classes, special events based on identity, etc.. a whole host of things are owed the "progressive" demographic. Car owners as tax payers get nothing because they pay taxes.

Redmond's world view is of monumental entitlement to make his own reality.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

Yes, Matlock, I think most people know that but

you'd never know it reading some of the tripe here.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 11:42 pm

I'm a car owner

I get something in return for my taxes. I get the ability to actually use the car. I'm glad we got to see what happened when BART was shut down for just one day because of that fire last month. Traffic was snarled for dozens of *miles* throughout the Bay Area. It should make us car owners appreciate the importance of public transit. I'm willing to pay taxes for that.

Taxes pay for the roads I drive on. They pay to clean up the air so I can breathe and reduce my risk of cancer and asthma. What I'd like even more is if we had even better public transit so that I could use the car even less. I use it because I have to, but I'd gladly pay more taxes for better transit.

What I don't like is regressive taxation that hits poor people hardest, or overzealous cops and parking gestapo that get you for every little thing. That's normal and I think we could probably get 80% agreement on those points. But don't mistake that for an endorsement of a radical, anti-tax, Ayn Rand-ian agenda of the type that matlock is proposing.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:48 am

bong

bong

Posted by matlock on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

The streets are property of residents, NOT City employees...

MOST of whom don't live here. The purpose of our streets is not to get raped time and time again by City employees to pay for their bloated workforce and benefits.

SFMTA is robbing residents at every turn and there is not ONE SCINTILLA of improvement in service. It's a greedy money grab by City employees and you'd have to be naive to believe otherwise - unless you believe bandit Ed "it's not about the revenue" Reiskin.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

Tim just wants page views at this point - seriously.

He's drifting into becoming a small scale version of the Michael Savage of the Left.

He promotes this ridiculous, outlandish shit that alienates *almost* everybody, then sees how many comments he can get. Tim, your idea sucks, you know it sucks, articles like this is why nobody takes the SFBG seriously.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

ah, my parking zone pet peeve!

I live on a four block section of a major street that is surrounded by two-hour parking zones but is not, itself, part of those zones. My street hosts a major Muni line that goes all the way to the FiDi and therefore is heavily used by commuters. There is never any parking on my street because it is filled up with people who park their cars all day for free, then take Muni downtown. I can't park on my own block, and I can't park on surrounding blocks for more than two hours because I can't buy a residential parking sticker because my block isn't a residential parking zone! Catch-22. Why can't residential zones cover continuous areas of the City (like Zip codes or Supervisor districts or voter precincts) so that you can buy a sticker if you live in a zone, not only if you live on a block that requires them? And yeah, while we're at it, I would completely support raising the price of the parking privilege. $104 a year is a bargain to occupy a 10-ft square piece of SF real estate.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 12:09 am

£104 a year is only a bargain if it comes with an actual

parking place. But it doesn't. In fact you can have one and have to park a mile from where you live, maybe in another zone!

That $104 is just a fee to avoid getting fined. It gives you nothing else.

Residential permits are allotted almost on a black by block basis. Usually the residents of a block or area get together and petition the city to grant them. It's to keep outsiders out and not in any way a revenue source.

If Tim wants a new tax (and when does he ever want anything else?) then he'll find cars are already one of the most taxed things in the city.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 3:28 am

The deal is that nobody is

The deal is that nobody is asking for anything for free. We pay property taxes whether we rent or own, we pay sales taxes whether we rent or own. Our taxes pay for government, for the sidewalks, for street cleaning, our taxes pay for Muni and for the streets themselves.

Quibble about how much we all pay the government for services we're supposed tor receive, but don't say that taxpayers are expecting something for nothing in this instance. That is insulting and exemplifies the contempt in which much of San Francisco government holds existing San Franciscans, the MTA leads the pack on the level of contempt in which it can hold those who pay its freight.

Demonstrate how increased charges for parking are going to directly and reliably improve Muni and the politics of enacting these good policies might come into focus. Otherwise, it is more money into a rat hole to be diverted to other departments to cover political debts accrued outside of the transportation system and that will not make transportation any more sustainable.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 5:47 am

It's free when progressives are entitled

Taking over the side walk and demanding money from pedestrians is an entitlement...

I don't mind telling the Guardians asocial bums to beat it, I also don't mind letting tax paying citizens of the city use up parking spots.

While Guardianaughts....

Think taking over vast swaths of the city by our bums is revolutionary, while using street parking for what it was intended for is high fascism.

This is why Redmond is a 50something pushing high school grad.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:48 pm

How to deal with autos

The best way to generate revenue and reduce traffic would be to enact the downtown driving fee like London has.

This is an idea originally put forward by that Evil Libertarian Milton Friedman. You know, you pay for what you use. All highways should be toll roads, too.

Friedman also thought that all neighborhood curbside parking places should be leased to the highest bidder. I agree with that, too. Anything to discourage car ownership in cities. Unlike in the Dreaded Suburbs where the Suburbanites (The Lost Tribe) live, we don't need cars here.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:57 am

How to deal with autos

The best way to generate revenue and reduce traffic would be to enact the downtown driving fee like London has.

This is an idea originally put forward by that Evil Libertarian Milton Friedman. You know, you pay for what you use. All highways should be toll roads, too.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:59 am

How to deal with autos

The best way to generate revenue and reduce traffic would be to enact the downtown driving fee like London has.

This is an idea originally put forward by that Evil Libertarian Milton Friedman. You know, you pay for what you use. All highways should be toll roads, too.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:59 am

How to deal with autos

The best way to generate revenue and reduce traffic would be to enact the downtown driving fee like London has.

This is an idea originally put forward by that Evil Libertarian Milton Friedman. You know, you pay for what you use. All highways should be toll roads, too.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 7:59 am

Here's the deal, Make Muni usable first and then we will

talk about discouraging cars.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 8:31 am

MUNI is usable

I use it every day, and it gets an unjustified bum rap.

So it is only on schedule 77% of the time.

When you jump into your belching hunk of metal and drive from, say, the Richmond to the Mission, assuming you will get there in 20 minutes, how often do you get there on time. 77%? Doubtful. And if all of you used public transportation, we would all get there quicker.

The car-driving community – the spawn of Henry Ford and the Auto-Industrial Complex – live in a "film noir" world. You think that public space (MUNI, for example) is dangerous because you never go there.

Junx the vehicle and give it a try.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 9:32 am

Muni would be just the first

Muni would be just the first link in the public transit commute chain for San Franciscans who don't work in the City.

Once you've trundled down to BART, CalTrain, SamTrans or AC Transit, then you've got to make do with spotty, slow and unreliable transit service out to dispersed job sites.

We're looking at two hours each way to get most anywhere out of the City from most places in the City.

If the additional charges proposed for cars were reliably programmed to bolster transit, then I'd support them. But they're destined to end up in the corrupt crap bucket, adding more and more burdens to the cost of getting to work.

In general liberals and progressives support an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. Commutes are the unpaid aspect of the work day, the longer commute, the more free time shifted out of people's lives, the more expensive the commute, the more unpaid labor equivalent required just to get that first hour's pay.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 10:45 am

For Some people Muni is not really feasible

Please- think about- many people need their car for work, many people have family schedules that pretty much demand a car- i.e. get the kids to school, then go the opposite direction to get to work, then pick up etc. This doesn't even consider the all the soccer games, swim lessons, day care, etc. For some people car is a luxury- for others having a car is needed. SF needs to keep the few families that are staying here and more taxes and fees on cars is not the way to do it.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 11:15 am