McGoldrick’s “Congestion Pricing Plan” Really Means “TAX!”

San Francisco Board of Stupidvisor Jake McGoldrick is at it again.

In a guest column in the May 15th issue of the San Francisco Examiner, he asks people to keep an “open mind” about congestion pricing. Congestion what? Let me explain.

Congestion pricing is basically a user fee (read: tax) on drivers to drive on a city’s most congested streets. They use transponders to collect fees in much the same way that FastTrak works at the bridge toll plazas around the San Francisco Bay Area. The money raised theoretically is used to make improvements to the local transportation systems and other necessary public works projects.

This was a topic that came up last year in 2005 that I didn’t blog about because I was too busy. At the time, McGoldrick proposed having toll roads in downtown San Francisco as a way to raise revenue for the city. Also at that time, I don’t recall him really saying anything about making improvements to our city’s streets, just that he wanted to charge a toll so that it would reduce downtown traffic.

When I first heard about it, my first thought was, “Is he nuts? Why would you want to charge people to drive on our city streets?”

I believed that it was a bad idea then and I still believe that it is bad even now. What this would most likely do is drive more people away from San Francisco because this is yet another tax/penalty/money grab from the city’s politicians who are such the typical Democrap. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. They never met a tax that they didn’t like, as long as it didn’t apply to them. This tax would hit everybody in their pocketbook at a time when they are already finding it difficult to make ends meet. Gas is already expensive, bridge tolls are going up, parking meters and parking fines are through the roof. Do you see the trend here? I’m sure the stupidvisors would want to have an exemption for themselves because they feel that it shouldn’t apply to them. After all, they’re more special than either you or I.

McGoldrick goes on to cite how this “strategy” has been successful in Singapore, London and Stockholm. Although it works, theoretically, on a sliding scale – higher during more congested commute hours, less or free at other times – it still means that people are being taxed on something that is a daily necessity and when there are already high taxes being levied on property and business owners alike.

In his column, he states that local efforts to improve the city’s transportation system isn’t keeping pace with increasing car ownership rates. “As a result, workers, visitors and goods vehicles waste valuable time and energy waiting in traffic, to the harm of our economy, environment and stress levels.” Is he trying to sound progressive now? If anything, he’s using doublespeak. I believe that the harm to our economy is from the fines and tariffs that the city is seeking to enact on motorists.

By charging people to drive through downtown San Francisco, it sends the message that San Francisco only wants their money and then for them to get the hell out. It is very anti-business and anti-social. Businesses will get tired of having to pay more to conduct business here in the city and regular citizens will not want to have anything to do with San Francisco because they already have to commute long distances only to be charged just to drive through the city. Does this sound progressive?

Part of the reason why there are so many extra cars on the city’s streets is because so many people have moved out of San Francisco to find affordable housing. They want to buy a home so that they can raise their families but also realize that they cannot do that in San Francisco. I have heard of people moving one and-a-half to two hours away from the San Francisco Bay Area and then having to make that god-awful commute just to go to work. People are forced to drive to their jobs, jobs that they can ill-afford to give up now. And now they may be faced with having to pay yet another “fee” just to go to work? Isn’t that a load of crap?

Again, gas isn’t cheap, the bridge tolls will be going up to four or five dollars for cars soon (never mind the multi-axle trucks), and then McGoldrick wants to charge people another fee when they get off of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge? Hogwash! This is the reason why I don’t vote for Democraps: They want to tax you for everything, they don’t want to reduce expenditures where it makes sense to, and they don’t do things to HELP people and business. Rather, they hurt people and business alike. When will they ever learn?

This is a direct quote from his guest column:

“As with anything that is overused — and underfunded — we must consider the possibility that the price of road use is too low. A congestion charge may sound costly and inequitable at first. However, a road user fee can actually re-balance the equation to make the current system less costly in terms of motorist delays, lost sales, efficient goods movement and environmental damage, and more equitable in terms of faster buses and safer streets for walking, cycling, and driving than the current system.

Experience around the world suggests that road user fees can be an effective way to improve a city’s accessibility, environmental quality and economic vitality. Traffic congestion is down 18 percent in London and 25 percent in Stockholm. Transit use is up, and the programs are generating significant revenues for transportation infrastructure development. London continues to thrive, and business sales in the Stockholm pricing zone are actually up 5 percent because drivers have to pay in both directions across the pricing cordon — making that trip to the suburbs less attractive than shopping locally near home.”

Again, he is forgetting the fact that people have moved out of San Francisco for the very reason that it is unattractive and unaffordable to be here at all in any capacity.

How about this for a thought? Why not lose some of the top-heavy managers in some departments so that we can save money there? This city has far too many managers for its own good. Also, what about those union positions? That’s what drives up the cost of running this city: Having to pay those expensive union pay scale jobs is draining the city of money that it could better spend on other areas such as repaving the roads, maintaining public safety and upgrading the infrastructure.

Also, for the places that he cites as having successful results from charging user fees to drive on the most congested roads, one must remember they are densely populated areas with a geography unlike here in the United States. Sweden is very mountainous, and so their population centers are different from what you find here. They tend to congregate on the shores and waterways. Also, with Singapore, for all its vaunted modernism and progressiveness, its development isn’t kept in check such that it keeps the infrastructure in balance with its growth.

Even by his own admission, we are very different:

“But in order to move ahead in this direction, we need to be sure that the San Francisco solution fits our congestion problem. Although several conditions suggest a pricing system may work well here, San Francisco’s congestion profile, transit system and role in the regional economy are quite different from other places where pricing has been implemented. We must be careful to take these considerations into account when designing and evaluating potential pricing alternatives.”

So what does he want to do? Spend money on a study to find out if this will actually work here or not. Gee, spend more money needlessly? Sounds like a plan so typical of liberals!

Why not use common sense and scrap the idea and find better ways to be EFFICIENT instead of WASTEFUL? I guess that would make too much sense for our city’s liberal leaders.

Phil Angelides Redux

Okay, so his campaign ads are on the air again. Big deal, yes and no. Yes, because this indicates that he’s got some more money so now he is trying to woo Democraps and the undecided voters to be on his side.

That’s all well and good for him, but he’s still a danger to Californians. By that, I mean that he will still raise your taxes “He is the only one who will fully fund education…” Yeah, by raising TAXES!

His current ad has talking heads that show a “police officer,” a “firefighter,” and shows “educators” who are for him because he will “do what’s right.” Translation: He is kowtowing to the unions so that they will back him. He even goes out of his way to tell us that Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are backing him up. Of course! The two biggest Democraps outside of the Kennedy family would back him because they feel he’s the best choice for the job of governor.

I could hardly agree.

Just hearing their names being touted like that sounds like so much desperation. But, since he has their backing and Steve Westly doesn’t indicates that Westly will have a little bit of a challenge ahead of him before the June 6 elections.

But, if anybody out there has any inkling of common sense, they will see that Angelides is still running his campaign based on raising taxes on everybody instead of practicing fiscal responsibility. Gee, isn’t he our state’s treasurer? Shouldn’t he KNOW what fiscal responsibility means? Trying to get more money into the state just so that it can be squandered away by Democraps in the State Assembly by raising taxes shows little to no fiscal responsibility at all. In fact, it just highlights their tax and spend mentality.

While I would prefer neither Democrap candidate to win, I know that one must be chosen to face off against Arnold Schwarzenegger later on when voters decide who gets to be governor. They should probably choose Westly, if that’s even really a good choice at all. If the public has any common sense, they would choose Schwarzenegger because at least he is doing something in the public interest, not self-interest.

Arnold’s been trying to fix the systemic problems that currently ail our state – mainly, its spending problem. As he stated early on when he first took office after ousting Gray Davis, “The state doesn’t have a money problem, it has a spending problem.” A lot of the spending is going to pay for the union salaries that are sucking the life out of our state’s coffers.

It is here that Steve Westly, in his ads, says that he would audit state government to identify waste. Wait a minute, isn’t that what Schwarzenegger already did? And, as State Controller, shouldn’t he already be aware of that? Both he and State Treasurer Angelides? Are the two top contending Democrap candidates who are vying for the governor’s office really that stupid and clueless? They are in positions that require them to be aware of the state’s fiscal health and how our money is being spent. If they have to make empty promises and use slippery slope tactics to try and win voters, then neither of them should get the peoples’ vote, Arnold should get peoples’ votes!

Going back to Angelides: I really hope his daughters can look at themselves in the mirror after election day because I don’t see how they can support somebody who would want to raise taxes on everybody who is a property owner or a business owner. Sure, he’s their dad, but I think that dragging one’s family into the foray that is the political arena is really something that should be banned. I mean, how can they sleep at night knowing that their father is a tax and spend kind of guy?

Is their expensive college education paying off? I guess not! If they had any good sense, they’d politely decline and quietly support him from the sidelines. By putting themselves out there like that, they are making a definitive statement: We agree with our dad and feel that everybody should be taxed!

And, now that it is coming down to the wire for elections, they are getting nastier and more negative in their ads. Each candidate is slamming each other even though they are fairly similar. Either way, having a tax and spend candidate (Angelides) versus a millionaire who will try to buy his way to the governorship (Westly) just won’t bode well for Californians. What about Schwarzenegger, who has lots of money himself?

Don’t forget, dear reader, that he doesn’t really stand to gain much in the way of political capital because he’s not as entrenched as these other guys are. They have special interests and have a background of it. Westly is a businessman, so is Angelides, but he’s a developer. If anybody has interests to be beholden to, it would be those two. Schwarzenegger may have been an actor, but he’s also got the chops to do try and make things right. However, his job is hampered by the Democraps who don’t want to see that happen.

Even when Fabian Nunez and Don Perata showed up for a press conference to back Schwarzenegger on his budget compromise, they did so grudgingly. They didn’t actually care for Schwarzenegger’s plan. They’d rather see their (the Democraps) plans be in place, which means that Californians stand to lose a lot.

So, do your part and vote the way you choose to. That is your right that is afforded to you (as long as you are not a felon). But, if you don’t vote and you continue to bitch and moan about state government and this, that and the other thing, then I want you to wrap an entire roll of duct tape around your mouth. You should shut up and not piss and moan because YOU didn’t vote. You only added to the problem, you didn’t try to add anything to the democratic process of elections by adding your voice.

See you at the polls.

How To Inconvenience The City’s Constituents

You may or may not have heard in the news lately that the Board of Stupidvisors, in yet another display of their lack of wisdom, approved the six-month trial period for closure of John F. Kennedy Drive to cars in Golden Gate Park. This is, supposedly, for the benefit of all San Franciscans so that they can enjoy the park more like they do on Sundays.

A little backgrounder: Golden Gate Park’s John F. Kennedy Drive is currently closed on Sundays from the eastern edge (near the Panhandle) all the way down to Transverse Drive which is just past and below where Park Presidio/19th Avenue cut through the park for heavy traffic. The traffic flow goes on an overpass that John F. Kennedy Drive runs beneath.

The leftists are saying (and I’m paraphrasing here), “It’s for everybody!” However, the residents who live adjacent to the park and the attractions within the park are saying, “You’re hurting us more than you are helping us!” There was a representative from the Conservatory of Flowers who attended the meeting to say that attendance is always down on Sundays when the road is closed compared to other days of the week. Some residents were also in attendance to complain and to speak out against the idea of the closure. Of course, their pleas fell on deaf ears (because the liberal Democrap stupidvisors only listen to their supporters, not those whose opinions should matter more).

I took my son to the Conservatory of Flowers on April 19 and I saw the petition that they had out for visitors to sign if they were opposed to the park’s closure on Saturdays. From what I saw, even those visiting from out of state were opposed to the idea. But, more telling were the signatures from within the city and from around the San Francisco Bay Area. No specific addresses or phone numbers requested, but they did ask for your name, city and state. Generic stuff.

Because I missed the first round of meetings on the issue, I called the mayor’s office (mayor Gavin Newsom’s office is 415-554-6141) and voiced my opinion about the issue. I told them that, as a resident who lives near the park and who has to drive through the park, it was an inconvenience on the weekends because of the sheer number of cars in the vicinity.

The local news talked to both sides and aired their opinions. The person who was in favor of the closure said “The park is for everybody!” Like, there are no other places that people can enjoy in the city? Only leftist liberals and socialists would talk this way. This is not to say that most people are inherently selfish, but they have to exercise some common sense. If you have to go further out of your way to get through the park or to get into the park to see some of the attractions, then you have to think about how you are going to deal with this. That’s common sense, not socialist doctrine that says that everything has to be for everybody. There are plenty of things to see and do in the city that’s for everybody that won’t inconvenience other people.

There are those who feel that there aren’t enough places that are family-friendly for them to go to. Excuse me? Not enough places? I guess Ocean Beach isn’t good enough for them? You mean Yerba Buena Gardens near San Francisco’s Moscone Center is also inadequate? What about the restored wetlands near Crissy Field that took millions to accomplish? And what about Aquatic Park and the Jefferson Street Pier at the end of Van Ness Avenue? Still not enough places? I could go on!

I find it incredible that they can make such a bold statement on television when they are obviously blatantly lying. Yes, accusing them of lying is rather bold, but that’s how I see it.

How can they possibly say what they are saying with a straight face? There are plenty of options for families to enjoy themselves indoors and outdoors!

The other thing that strikes me about their perspective that it’s fine to close Golden Gate Park is that they most likely don’t live anywhere near the park and so the concerns that the rest of us have who DO live near the park don’t matter to them. Why should they care about the local residents’ woes? They don’t have to deal with the consequences of the closure, that’s why.

One resident who was interviewed put it very succinctly: “We don’t invite friends over on Sundays because they can’t find any parking around here.” How true it is! If you can’t park on the concourse or on JFK Drive inside the park, then you will have to park OUTSIDE in the residential areas. And, as any San Franciscan knows, parking is at a premium in the city. The closure compounds the problem by putting more cars on the streets and hogging up spaces where the residents who truly need the parking will now not be able to find an available spot because of the increased/overflowing capacity. Those people who don’t live in the area and come to visit the park are forced to walk into the park to get to their intended destinations.

When I thought about the petition at the Conservatory of Flowers and one of the representatives from said establishment, I fully understood what they were aiming at. I forget her name, but she said that the people who want to come and visit the attractions within the park, not just the Conservatory, will have a harder time accessing them. This includes the elderly and those with mobility issues.

Now, on that particular issue, I REALLY empathize because my father is a stroke patient and if we want to take him anywhere, it needs to be convenient for us to get him in and out. If we have to push him in his wheelchair for four or five blocks just to get to the entrance to the park, do you think we’re really going to want to stick around and do even MORE pushing up hills and for long distances when the handicapped parking places are much closer to the attractions we want to get to? The elderly will tire sooner and families/groups will just say “screw it” and go elsewhere. That representative from the conservatory also said that attendance drops severely on Sundays when they close the park to vehicular traffic.

Still don’t get it? Do the math: If you can’t get to the Conservatory of Flowers, the newly reopened De Young Museum and the Japanese Tea Garden, you’re not going to want to waste your time and gas hunting for parking. Gasoline isn’t cheap these days and time is also another premium these days. If you want people to come, then make it a hospitable environment and people will come!

While the roller skaters, bicyclists and other pedestrian traffic have been able to enjoy the park on Sundays, adding another day to that tally is going to make life more difficult for more people than it will satisfy on the weekends. Is that a fair or good trade off? I don’t think so.

Closing the park only to appease a (relatively) small group on the weekends will make a greater number of people very angry – myself included. Of course, the Board of Stupidvisors would want to vote for the closure because it will make them look like they are listening to the citizenry, looking out for their best interests and trying to make the city a family-friendly place. What they are actually doing is NOT listening to the citizenry who have to live AROUND or NEAR the park, looking out for their (the Stupidvisor’s, not the citizen’s) best interests and making our city a family- and parking-hostile environment.

Keep the park open on Saturdays!