Anger over city fees underscores how small quality-of-life issues can pile up, eventually fomenting frustration, which Mayor London Breed’s political opponents are using against her.
Befuddlement and frustration with San Francisco’s parking permit process runs deep.
That was the main takeaway from the avalanche of reader emails I received in response to my recent column on the city’s costly, confusing and time-consuming procedure to get a temporary parking permit for a moving van.
Before my move to San Francisco, I had been astonished to discover that the city’s Municipal Transportation Agency charges a minimum of $320 for the permit and requires a processing time of at least five business days. I wanted to comply with the city’s rules, but the timeline and cost were prohibitive, effectively leaving me with no choice but to double-park my moving truck.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Based on your responses, I’m far from the only one who’s calculated that it’s easier — and cheaper — to bypass the permitting process than it is to follow it.
As numerous readers and X users pointed out, the fine for double parking is $108, or about one-third the cost of getting a temporary parking permit.
“The moving company I hired a few years ago told me not to bother getting a permit because it’s cheaper to just pay the ticket if you get one,” San Francisco resident Max Dubler posted on X (formerly Twitter).
“Why do the right thing and get the permit? Makes no sense,” one reader wrote. Another noted that San Francisco’s yearly residential parking permit costs just $170, about half the cost of a temporary permit. “What a joke!” the reader wrote.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Michael Roccaforte, a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency deputy spokesperson, told me in a statement that the double-parking fee is largely set by state vehicle code. He also noted that fee differences reflect the “different amount of labor and materials involved” for each permit.
Nevertheless, the system’s perverse incentives can make residents who do pay for the temporary parking permit feel ripped off.
“I found the permit info early enough to purchase it but was shocked by the $320 cost. I was expecting more like $50,” a reader named Paul told me. “I paid it and then later when I put up the signs and told the landlords, they said, ‘Oh, tenants usually just double park.’ ”
He added ruefully, “Now I know what I’ll be doing when I move out.”
A reader named Dru told me that when he moved from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco, “I wanted to do the right thing, so I shelled out the $320 and put up my signs.”
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
But his efforts were brushed aside by the moving van driver, who said, “ ‘Nah, I’m gonna park over here, closer to your door. Cops don’t ticket moving vans.’ And he was right,” Dru said.
Another reader, who asked that I not share her name, recounted how she paid $320 to reserve a parking spot in front of her Nob Hill building for her moving van. But on the day of the move, she discovered that the signs had been torn down and cars were parked in the space reserved for her van.
She said that she called the Municipal Transportation Agency, which referred her to a parking control officer, who, in a Kafkaesque twist, told her the cars couldn’t be towed because there were no signs indicating the spot was reserved. Two hours later, she said, the transit agency finally sent a worker to post new signs — but by then she’d already been forced to park the van elsewhere.
“I was charged $320 to park in front of my own apartment building for a product, curb space, that SF could not actually deliver!” the resident told me.
These stories — which represent just a sliver of the responses I received — underscore how small quality-of-life issues can pile up, eventually fomenting frustration deep enough that nearly 75% of residents said in a recent survey they feel San Francisco is on the wrong track.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
They’re also a source of ammunition for candidates seeking to unseat Mayor London Breed in the November election.
Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie blasted the $320 fee and lengthy permit process on X, declaring, “This isn’t just a headache, it’s a barrier to entry for new residents and yet another example of a system that favors process over outcomes. As mayor, I will streamline the permitting process so the government works for the people.”
Former San Francisco Mayor Mark Farrell told me in a statement, “Skyrocketing parking fees, lengthy processing times and unclear guidance are more stark reminders of the unnecessary bureaucracy plaguing the lives of San Franciscans on a daily basis. … I will do everything in my power to ensure we’re not nickeling and diming residents and businesses.”
Breed has taken important steps to, as she put it in her recent State of the City speech, help San Francisco go from “a city of ‘no’ to a city of ‘yes’ ” — including slashing red tape and cost-prohibitive fees for housing developments and small businesses (although hurdles remain).
Following my column, the mayor also directed the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to clarify the parking permit website and to improve the application process, Breed spokesperson Jeff Cretan told me.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Such changes are sorely needed. But they likely won’t make much difference for San Franciscans unless those efficiencies are translated into significant cost reductions.
Roccaforte, the transit agency spokesperson, said that while “free or reduced permits would be nice,” the agency’s budget is limited and “resources need to be used strategically.”
Yet the $320 price point is undermining the agency’s strategy. The reader emails I received make clear that the majority of people are willing to pay for permits. They just don’t want to feel like they’re being swindled.
Reach Emily Hoeven: emily.hoeven@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @emily_hoeven
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
