Supervisors: Support Peskin Amendment; Oppose McGoldrick Amendment and Parking Initiative
The following letter (also in pdf) went out to the Supervisors tonight, who are tomorrow considering proposals to further reform Muni. Rescue Muni supports the Peskin amendment (Re-Reform) and opposes the McGoldrick amendment (Un-Reform).
July 23, 2007
Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 282
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Re: Peskin Muni Reform Measure – SUPPORT
Sandoval/McGoldrick Muni Measure – OPPOSE
Dear Supervisors,
Rescue Muni urges you to support Supervisor Peskin’s proposed charter amendment to improve Muni service by dedicating additional funding to mass transit and improving the MTA’s ability to manage the system and negotiate more effective labor contracts. Muni riders would hugely benefit from this measure, which would allow the MTA to hold employees accountable while providing the MTA much needed funds in future years.
We also urge you to oppose Supervisor McGoldrick and Supervisor Sandoval’s measure to undo the critical reforms from Proposition E (1999) by allowing the Board of Supervisors to amend any portion of the MTA’s budget. This did not work at all in the Muni Metro Meltdown days, when political micromanagement kept Muni from making smart decisions to improve transit service. (We also oppose any amendment of the Peskin measure to change the makeup of the MTA board, for similar reasons.)
Finally we urge all Supervisors to join us in opposition to the so-called “Parking for Neighborhoods Initiative†which would lead to big increases in traffic and massive Muni delays as parking spaces are added all throughout the city, particularly in existing bus stops where it is vitally important that service not be delayed. This measure if passed would be terrible for transit riders and would fly in the face of the Transit-First Policy. We strongly urge you to oppose it.
Thanks very much for your continued support for Muni riders!
Sincerely,
Andrew Sullivan, Chair
cc: Mayor Gavin Newsom, MTA Board of Directors
I wholeheartedly support any measure that will improve MUNI. Making MUNI more attractive should provide a reasonable alternative to automobiles. However, if there is an anti-parking provision inserted into this amendment it is a poison pill. You may lose my vote on a measure I would otherwise support.
Can you provide any evidence to support the argument that the parking for the neighborhood initiate will lead to a big increases in traffic and massive Muni delays? Those kinds of exaggerated hysterical claims without supporting evidence are not to be believed and will negatively affect Rescue Muni’s credibility. Taking a position against cars to improve MUNI is a flawed strategy.