San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
S.F.’s red tape turns many into scofflaws
My first run-in with San Francisco’s infamous bureaucracy happened before I even arrived here.
About a week before my move from Sacramento to San Francisco, I realized that I might need a temporary permit to park and unload my moving van in front of my new building. I assumed, naively, that this would be a relatively easy and inexpensive process.
I was wrong.
After Googling around for a bit, I ended up on the Temporary Signage page of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s website. This appeared to be the right location — it outlined the process for reserving parking spaces for commercial and residential moves, corporate events, funerals and “other similar needs.” But the page itself was a confusing tangle of charts, caveats and costs, and I had a difficult time deciphering which permit I was supposed to apply for, let alone how much time was needed to process the application.
I had the choice of applying for “permits for events filed 14 days before an event approved by ISCOTT,” “permits for events filed 13 days or fewer before an event approved by ISCOTT” or “temporary 311 signs (up to 3 days).” (When I called 311 to ask what ISCOTT was, the operator responded that he had no idea. I later learned that it stands for the Interdepartmental Committee on Traffic and Transportation and approves street closures for large events.)
The website also noted that I should allow a minimum processing time of five business days between the date of application and the date of enforcement. If my application were approved, signs alerting the public would need to be posted at least 72 hours in advance for unmetered spots and at least 24 hours in advance for metered spots.
I wasn’t sure which permit timeline applied to me, but one thing was clear: It was too late for me to meet any of the application deadlines.
It was also wildly expensive. The cheapest permit listed was for a temporary 311 sign, which was $320. But, the site cheerfully noted, if you were
reserving a metered parking space, you would also have to pay an additional $16 per meter per day.
I stared at the webpage in disbelief. How was it possible that a temporary parking permit could cost nearly four times more than it did to rent a moving van?
And why would San Francisco, which is desperately trying to lure back residents amid a post-pandemic exodus, charge newcomers such an exorbitant sum just to park their moving truck? The policy stands in stark contrast to recent efforts to lower costs for renters, including a law authored by Assembly
Member Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, to cap the size of apartment security deposits.
I didn’t have five business days to spare for the city to process my parking permit application, but even if I did, the $350-plus in fees was out of the question. So, I did what I now see any number of other movers do: double-park.
This was, of course, far from an ideal solution. Not only does it create less safe street conditions, but it also clogs traffic, irritates drivers and forces you to constantly be on the lookout for a parking enforcement officer who might ticket or tow your car.
But the city had effectively left me with no choice. I had wanted to do the right thing and get a parking permit, but the lengthy application process, confusing guidelines and prohibitively steep cost made that next to impossible.
My experience was a microcosm of a much bigger problem: San Francisco’s absurdly complicated and expensive regulations incentivize even the most wellintentioned people to skirt the rules. This, in turn, breeds corruption. Why go to the trouble of obtaining 87 permits to build a single housing development when you could just pay off a few government employees?
This lack of credibility can also make it difficult to take San Francisco’s rules seriously. How could the transportation agency, with a straight face, charge me $350 to park my moving van for a few hours when it spent years ticketing stolen cars and leaving victims with the bill?
A San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency official told me the temporary parking permit price merely allows the agency to recoup program costs, including labor, materials and enforcement.
But even a few small improvements could help bring costs down and improve efficiency. The official noted that workers have to wade through piles of invalid or incomplete permit applications and go back and forth with confused customers. This is a waste of time and resources that could easily be addressed by clarifying key details and instructions on the website.
That would also help cut down on the lengthy processing time. Although the state sets certain time restrictions — the 72-hour notice to reserve an unmetered parking spot, for example, is in the California Vehicle Code — San Francisco could streamline things within its control.
“There are a couple of things that could be updated,” the official acknowledged.
Whether the transit agency will actually slash fees, however, is another matter. It’s facing a projected $12.7 million budget deficit over the next two years while the city stares down a nearly $800 million shortfall.
But by charging such high rates, the agency may ironically be collecting less money than it would at a lower price point. Given the choice between paying $320 and double-parking, many people are going to double-park. But that calculation would likely shift dramatically if permits were priced far lower.
San Francisco needs to make it easier to follow the rules than to break them. Doing the right thing shouldn’t cost hundreds of dollars more than doing the wrong thing.