4 ms·

One issue he doesn't mention is traffic congestion. A potential remedy could be a significant tax on parking. Perhaps very significant. Parking is ugly and a b

One issue he doesn't mention is traffic congestion. A potential remedy could be a significant tax on parking. Perhaps very significant. Parking is ugly and a blight on the city, as well as a tremendous waste of space that could be more effectively used for housing.

mmagin 11y ago
You already have SF placing a maximum (not a minimum) amount on how much parking is built per new housing unit. Theoretically people are supposed to use mass transit more as a result, but the city government repeatedly cripples SFMTA, as I understand it.
zt 11y ago
(I'm the author). Traffic is a big problem -- as is parking. Public transit investments do have to correspond with building housing, but too often the lack of one is used as an excuse not to expand the other. We have to start somewhere. As I said in the post, public transit deserves it own analysis -- I was already in the thousands of words just on housing! -- maybe that will be next.
- xenadu02 11y ago
  Indeed. In the current Prop-13, anti-tax environment you simply cannot propose building infrastructure to support future needs. The need must already exist and be bad enough to get people to vote for taxes to pay for improvements. Muni will not be extending T to Fisherman's Wharf, nor BART building a 2nd trans-bay tube and line through the Richmond/19th Ave unless the bay area can manage this housing problem and bring in more residents to pay for it.
Zhenya 11y ago
Instead of taxing people (negative reinforcement), build better (or at least function) transit with the absurd amount of tax dollars already generated(positive reinforcement). Taxing parking(which is already done) is something only 2 groups of people will/can support: 1) Those without a car ( can afford to live close to work,take uber, rent cars - high income people) 2) Those who can afford the tax (high income people) So no, this is most definitely not the solution.
thrownaway2424 11y ago
You don't have to tax it. The city doesn't even charge for metered parking spaces on Sundays. Just pricing these would be a huge first step.

mmagin 11y ago

You already have SF placing a maximum (not a minimum) amount on how much parking is built per new housing unit. Theoretically people are supposed to use mass transit more as a result, but the city government repeatedly cripples SFMTA, as I understand it.

zt 11y ago

(I'm the author). Traffic is a big problem -- as is parking. Public transit investments do have to correspond with building housing, but too often the lack of one is used as an excuse not to expand the other. We have to start somewhere. As I said in the post, public transit deserves it own analysis -- I was already in the thousands of words just on housing! -- maybe that will be next.

xenadu02 11y ago
Indeed. In the current Prop-13, anti-tax environment you simply cannot propose building infrastructure to support future needs. The need must already exist and be bad enough to get people to vote for taxes to pay for improvements. Muni will not be extending T to Fisherman's Wharf, nor BART building a 2nd trans-bay tube and line through the Richmond/19th Ave unless the bay area can manage this housing problem and bring in more residents to pay for it.

Zhenya 11y ago

Instead of taxing people (negative reinforcement), build better (or at least function) transit with the absurd amount of tax dollars already generated(positive reinforcement). Taxing parking(which is already done) is something only 2 groups of people will/can support: 1) Those without a car ( can afford to live close to work,take uber, rent cars - high income people) 2) Those who can afford the tax (high income people) So no, this is most definitely not the solution.

thrownaway2424 11y ago

You don't have to tax it. The city doesn't even charge for metered parking spaces on Sundays. Just pricing these would be a huge first step.