Arguments about parking boil over quickly


Arguments about parking boil over quickly

If it seems like a lot of these posts are about San Francisco, that’s because it has just about the worst parking problems in the country, besides New York City. The high population and topography are challenging enough, but strong and varied opinions about parking complicate matters further.

In fact, an blogger recently penned the following headline “Parking-Obsessed Extremists Threaten Plan for Safer Walking on Potrero.” How’s that for a loaded statement? It seems a planned sidewalk expansion in the Potrero neighborhood would eliminate 100 parking spaces. The walkers love this and the parkers hate it, naturally. The parkers sent around a petition that might have an affect on the plan, but the walkers say the parkers have lied to to public about how pedestrian-friendly changes will affect the neighborhood.

“In their attempts to appease the parking-obsessed opponents, city planners already reduced that number to 79 spaces a few months ago. … While the pedestrian improvements in the plan would help reduce injuries and tame motor traffic, some petition signers seem to believe the  claims that the “local street” will be turned into a “high-speed transit” corridor. Others simply insist that car parking is paramount.”

Bloggers aren’t subject to the rules of ethical journalism, which emphasize truth, impartiality, and the dissemination of information without bias, so this blogger is well within his rights to label people who choose parking spots over wider sidewalks as as “obsessed extremists.” His use of hyperbole endears him to his supporters and gives his detractors ample ammunition to discredit him – and that makes everybody happy.

The blogger, a Mr. Aaron Bialick could easily be called a “sidewalk-obsessed extremist,” or my favorite, a “bleeding-heart liberal, kale-smoothie-drinking hipster.” But name calling doesn’t get anybody anywhere, it’s another nice big word that smooths some of the bumps in the earth’s rotation: “compromise.”

Read the article here.



Picture of John Van Horn

John Van Horn

One Response

  1. the program was about cnsoegtion and not about money, which the residents knew was not true.In May, the SFMTA decided to take NE Mission, Potrero, and Dogpatch out of SFpark’s pilot program. This didn’t mean no meters, this meant no smart meters.In June, the SFMTA revealed they needed to fill a $10M+ budget shortfall and that they’ll be doing it through meters and tickets. The SFpark program does have a slick website and smartphone app. There are a couple fundamental problems with it:1) 24%+ of the people who live in the original SFpark pilot areas do not speak English.2) More than 99% of communications from SFMTA and SFpark, including the website and app, have been in English.3) More than 25% of the people who live in the original SFpark pilot areas are below the poverty line.4) Parking information is only available to those who are online or have smartphones.5) The SFpark app gives you greatest availability OR lowest rate, but NOT the intersection of the two. So, if you speak English and have a smartphone, you are golden. Otherwise, you can circle. I also love that they pick and choose which of Shoup’s theories to follow. Just last month Shoup said,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Only show results from:

Recent Posts

A Note from a Friend

I received this from John Clancy. Now retired, John worked in the technology side of the industry for decades. I don’t think this needs any

Read More »

Look out the Window

If there is any advice I can give it’s concerning the passing scene. “Look out the window.” Rather than listen to CNN or the New

Read More »


Send message to

    We use cookies to monitor our website and support our customers. View our Privacy Policy