Sunday, May 16, 2021
Uncategorized Supes won't override mayoral veto on transit funding

Supes won’t override mayoral veto on transit funding

Lee's allies are in lockstep to make sure developers don't pay their fair share for Muni


Pretty much every transit advocacy group supported Sup. John Avalos’ long-shot move to get the supes to override Mayor Lee’s veto of a transit-funding measure, but the normal 6-5 pattern prevailed, and not one of the mayor’s allies broke ranks.

Sup. John Avalos tried to get more funding for Muni, but the interests of developers got in the way

Actually, the vote was 6-4, since Mark Farrell was absent.

Avalos needed eight votes for an override.

There are have some signs that the upcoming election is having an impact on the board’s votes – Sup. London Breed, who is facing a challenge from tenant advocate Dean Preston, has voted with the progressives here and there.

But in this case, it was the same traditional, almost predictable line: Sup. Scott Wiener took the lead in the opposition, and Sups. Breed, Malia Cohen, and Katy Tang followed along.

Wiener tried to downplay the issue, saying that the city was already going to charge developers a whole lot more money for transit impacts. Which is true – but it’s also true that the city left billions of dollars on the table – developers will pay for just a fraction of the costs of the impacts their projects have on Muni. And that’s not me making the argument – it’s a study by Urban Economics that the city paid for.

So when Avalos sought to raise the fee slightly, he was moving to bring in millions of more dollars and close the gap a little bit. His legislation was really pretty mild – you could easily argue that the fee should be double or triple what the mayor agreed to.

I asked the mayor why he accepted a fee that his own studies show would not come close to covering the actual impacts of new development on Muni, and he told me that if the fee was too high, it might discourage development. Think about that for a second: We don’t want to charge developers for the actual costs they impost on the city because then they might not build as much.

Instead, the rest of us – the taxpayers of San Francisco – have to subsidize some of the wealthiest people and investment outfits in the world. I don’t get it: Why do we want more office buildings and luxury condo towers if they cause more problems for the city than they solve?

But that’s where five of the supervisors came down today.

Sup. Jane Kim noted that the board recently approved a plan to cut the towing fees people pay in San Francisco; the fees were outrageous. But that will leave a hole in the Muni budget, and there was much talk about a supplemental budget allocation to make up the difference.

The measure before the board today would have done just that.

Wiener argued that the developers were already paying a lot, but Sup. David Campos compared that discussion to the debate over Airbnb and its taxes. After refusing to pay hotel taxes for years, the company finally acknowledged that it owed the money – and then started bragging about paying those taxes.

It’s tough overriding a mayoral veto. But this could be an issue in the supervisorial races this fall.


Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.


  1. Of course Developers don’t want to pay their fair share for Muni. Developers and Urban Planner created the SFMTA to make sure that their fair share of MUNI costs would be shifted to taxpayers.

    In 2000 the SFMTA took over parking and transit with a starting budget of $350 Million. Sixteen years later the MTA has TRIPLED their budget to over a Billion dollars while the public’s wages have barely gone up. Since Developers created SFTMA they have passed through BILLIONS of
    dollars in property taxes and rent increases to the public through Bond
    measures like Props A, Prop B, Prop C, Prop K and through gasoline
    taxes. Muni Fares have increased, services has decreased and parking meter rates have quadrupled.

    Remember “Pharma Bro” who raised the price of a life-saving drug from
    $13.50 to $750.00. The SFMTA has done the same thing to the public under
    the guise of “managing traffic”. The weapons the SFMTA uses against city residents are same behavioral-finance strategies that Wallstreet uses to manipulate markets. Keep the public in the dark, dependent, irrational, and woefully un-informed, then present a “we care” persona to convince the public to fund their money making machine.

    Hows that “Transit First” policy working out for you San Francisco?

  2. Why do we tax homes to pay for buses? why do we tax homes to pay for police? why do we tax homes to pay for schools? why do we tax homes to pay for parks? why do we tax homes to pay for homeless programs? why do we have a housing shortage? Oh yeah, the more you tax something the less of it you get. Housing will never be a priority in our society until we stop taxing it to pay for other stuff and start taxing people instead.

  3. I actually don’t really have a problem with a higher transit impact fee because MUNI needs all the $$ it can get. However, (and I realize the authors of this blog don’t believe this) this city desperately needs more housing. The cost of not building housing, in increased cost of living expenses, is far more dangerous than a muni shortfall in the immediate future (I say that, as someone who REALLY REALLY wants lots of money for MUNI improvement).

Comments are closed.

More by this author

Can people paying rent for a parking space be evicted for living in cars?

Caltrans is about to try to remove people from a lot under I-80.

Boudin allies speak out at a rally against ‘recall madness’

Elected officials, labor, and community leaders say that the DA has kept his campaign promises.

State Legislature moving to give telecom companies immense power

Bills would block any local control over placement of cell towers and antennas -- and it's passing with almost no opposition.

Is San Francisco a ‘conservative’ city? That’s what the Chron thinks.

But is opposing the Big Business and Big Tech Agenda really 'conservative?' Plus: Free Muni --and a complex new Muni yard. That's The Agenda for May 10-18.

Fate of Bayview facility threatens City College funding chances

The school promised $35 million to the community. Now, a battle over an obscure legal concept has the supes and the College Board at odds.

Most read

What happened to Halston? New doc dives deep into designer’s story

In Halston, the new biopic about the visionary American fashion designer, director Frédéric Tcheng makes every effort to remain objective when portraying the contentious...

Boudin allies speak out at a rally against ‘recall madness’

Elected officials, labor, and community leaders say that the DA has kept his campaign promises.

Not one dollar of state rent-relief money has arrived in SF

Hundreds of millions in federal funding is available -- but tenants aren't getting it.

Can people paying rent for a parking space be evicted for living in cars?

Caltrans is about to try to remove people from a lot under I-80.

You might also likeRELATED