SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) – Neighborhood parking permits and disabled parking fines were some of the 2012 fee increases the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency approved during Tuesday’s board meeting at City Hall.

Sonali Bose, the SFMTA chief financial officer and director of finance and information technology, explained that many of the increases serve as a cost recovery measure for the city.

Increased fees include upping the disabled parking fine from $750 to $850, effective July 1, along with other fee and fine increases for residential, business and student parking permits, boot removals and transit violations, as Bose reported.

Barry Toronto, a San Francisco taxi driver, told the board Tuesday he was concerned about the disabled parking fine increase as a driver who occasionally uses handicap zones to drop off disabled or grocery-laden passengers.

(Copyright 2011 by CBS San Francisco. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services may have contributed to this report.)

Comments (12)
  1. tn says:

    John Alley in SF Chinatown (between Powell and Mason St). I remember when a meter overtime parking ticket on Powell St was $10 and the “A” parking permit was $25.00/yr (available to the zoned tax-paying residents of the immediate area). And we thought THAT, was a scam…

  2. Big G says:

    This once great & beautiful city has been ruined by the liberal progressive agenda of tax & fee & fine everything, Instead of cutting costs & find other alternatives, all the supes & mta & the rest of so called leaders, can only come up with 2 things. Spend more than you have & raise fees, tickets & parking every year!!! Funny how they always have an excuse to raise prises, but never answers to fix the real problems!!!

  3. anbiethc says:

    I am all in favor for the increase in the San Francisco Parking Fees and Fines. People may blubber and whining other than feel like protesting against this, but I have news for them..”Please learn how to get used to it” If they continue to dislike it, and I will say. “Thats just too dang, bad”. But the city currently doesn’t have any other choices other than to fully enforce it in hopes that it will create needed funds to help save programs in dangers of being eliminated. People who are not in favor of taxes really don’t want to see services provided. so many of the services that have been proven to help people are being cut and the result will hut people more.

    1. Big G says:

      Your so wrong, they ghave tons of choices. Like start enforcing immigration, cut all the free hand outs to non-progfit groups. Quit giving away handicap signs for parking. It’s not whinning when your right. Clowns like you that just accept whatever some official tells them . Its not the tapxyers duty to take care of evry drunk, homeless & drug addict in this City. It’s not the job of the taxpayer to pay for perks, non-profit groups. It just amazes me when people like you just roll over & tell others they must too. Maybe if people in this city held themselves accountable they wouldn’t have to worry about someone else taking care of them!!!

    2. Aerial View says:

      As one who works for the City, there are many reasons for budget cuts; $90 Mil reduction in Hotel Tax (visitors), $110 Mil reduction in sales tax, $230 Mil reduction in Prop Taxes (as folks have their prop values reviewed, case in point, my condo complex a 1 bedroom use to sell for $385K, we got 6 on the market, some as low as $225K, not selllllliiiiinnnnng).

      As for revenues, there is no reason to raise fees or fines as the City does. First, per the Charter & State Law, fees are simply a measure of payment for a service. Fines are a measure of payment for penalization, but to also cover the costs associated with enforcing the fine. Increase either, the Charter & law require it has to be in conjunction with an increase in costs for the service or cost to enforce the fine. Neither of these are the case for SF. You said it yourself; “help save programs in danger of being eliminated.” No fee and no Fine is suppose to go to anything other than the service for the fee or the enforcement costs of the fine. Period. This is the flaw in SF Gov’s use of funds.

      MTA/DPT & Harvey Rose conducted multiple reports regarding parking meters for instance. Per the reports, the City on realizes 13% of meter revenue. This is because approx. 71% of those using meters, do not pay. And, because the City laid off 21 DPT Officers, DPT does not issue citations as much as they could. Go to any major street on any given day; market for instance. You can watch a DPT Officer issue one ticket for a car at an expired meter, then skip the 10 next cars which also expired. Why? Because the City Gov, has a mandate not to ruffle the feathers of the citizens.

  4. G. B. Larney says:

    SF thinks that drivers in the City are a big cash cow, is all…to pay $3.50 an hour at a meter in order to avoid a $75. ticket seems a small price to pay, until you try and carry all those quarters in your pocket! Look for these types of costs to just go up and up and up…without San Francisco EVER taking a serious look at how to cut costs with their administrative salaries. Politicos in this town are all just in it for their own gain. Greed drives their directives, not need.

  5. funkytown says:

    I am sick and tired of people blaming some “liberal/progressive agenda” here.

    WAKE UP, PEOPLE! It is not about “liberals” or “conservatives”. It is not about “‘left” versus “right”.

    It is about Public Sector employees lining their pockets by taxing the rest of us.


    1. Big G says:

      Sorry but your mistaken. there is no right here. So it is about the liberal agenda, mostly from people who transplanted here & are not native citizens of SF. So quit yelling at us in our caps. I will blame who I want too, not who you think is a t fault!! It’s my right too!!!

      1. Dennis Nichols says:

        So right Big G…so DEAD on right. As a native born and raised San Franciscan, 4th generation, I am appalled by the lack of reasoning the city has shown over the past 2 decades at least.

  6. Terry says:

    I have no sympathy for motorists who insist on breaking the laws. Remember that the purpose of a fine is to discourage a particular activity such as parking in a disabled parking space. Frankly, any able bodied person abusing a disabled parking permit or parking illegally in a disabled parking space deserves a big fat ticket. I’ve driven in the City for years and have NEVER gotten a ticket. My secret? Simply obey the laws. For those unwilling to comply, then let them fund essential City services. No one is obligated to pay these increased fines. Just obey the laws.

  7. Slap Stick says:

    What gets me is the # of cars I see with Handicapped Placards in this town. I don’t understand why those with HC placards don’t have to pay at meters. Since when did “Disabled” mean “Unemployed?”

    I worked with lawyers downtown, making over $200K/yr who had HC placards and parked on the street. I’ve worked in other businesses where employees made good income also with HC placards. How about nurses all around SFGH use HC placards, yet they make $100K – $120K per year.

    I understand elderly & those disabled who cannot work, but for those working & driving, they have $$ to pay for car insurance, gasoline, car maintenance, etc.

    Change the HC placard system. To get one, you must present your Tax Return for 2 years. If you’re working, then fine you get an HC Card, something like the MTA Meter Card, and you pay a day rate of some many dollars, and you can park at the meter all day, just not for free.

  8. Zag says:

    You talk about fees and left vs. right. Here’s food for thought, if you don’t think the Progressives are out of control. Has anyone paid attention to Board meetings where they are discussing options to raise revenues?

    1) Increase VLF for cars. The state dropped this, the county added. There’s a proposal to raise it $150-$200 per car registered in SF. Last update there were 437,000 reg’d cars in SF. That would be over $60 Mil. Great some say, but for those driving older used cars or those not buying cars because of reg costs, why does the BOS assume everyone has the $$ to do this?

    2) $200 – $300 fee, per year, per parking stall, on all merchants with off-street parking. So, they are saying Safeway will be charged $200-$300 per stall for cars parking on it’s own property. Who do you think will end up paying that? The customers of course: Safeway will simply pass the cost

    3) Increase ticket fees – this was discussed in other posts. What’s interesting is since the BOS moved DPT out from the SFPD, under MUNI, the revenue in tickets has dropped over 65% (per SFPD Traffic Div, which is also now under MUNI). So, we moved an effective ticket/fine system out from law enforcement to MUNI. That MUNI!!

    4) Driver’s License Fee – one idea floating at City Hall is to charge a $10 fee when residents renew their driver’s license

    The overall issue is all revenues the City gets or adds goes to the General Fund. From there, they use it as they like. For instance, the new SFGH. This is being constructed using Gen Obligation Bonds (increase in prop taxes). Yet, do they put the $$ into the SFGH Rebuild Fund, where it could gain interest to help pay the interest gain to the bond buyers? NO, it goes to the Gen Fund. The City can & does pull the $$, then speculates new funds will be deposited when SFGH contractor checks have to be cut. The sad thing? not even 1/2 of the SFGH Bonds have sold, and wont as bonds are the riskiest investment yet. So, either the rebuild will freeze, or the City will have to borrow $$. That was poor planning

    I have to agree with Aerial View’s point. Fee/Fine increases, the $$ is mandated to be earmarked for specific action(s), NOT to be used to fund other programs. Several Municipalities have been sued over this and lost.

    The City’s largest financial crisis is simple; the way our BOS spends and continues to fund programs first, and City infrastructure 2nd. Even the reports show, most large cities only spend $120/person per capita for social programs. SF spends $285.

    My contacts in City Hall & the Controller’s Office tell me, we could have 100% fantastic Pension Reform & Medical Reform tomorrow, and it won’t save SF (or CA) from the devastating blow that is coming. SF is holding over $6 Billion in bond indebtedness; that is NOT a Pension or Health Care cause or problem. It is Not a Taxation issue. It’s a simple issue of conducting projects with bonds, which have been selling poorly over the past 7 years.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

More From CBS San Francisco

Get The New CBS SF Bay Area Local App
LIVE: Monday through Friday from 3am – 3pm PST

Watch & Listen LIVE