Sponsored link
Saturday, December 14, 2024

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsA new subway system in SF: Brilliant. Now who...

A new subway system in SF: Brilliant. Now who pays?

Sup. Scott Wiener wants to put the city into a new era of reliable, fast transit. So which developers and speculators will he force to pay for it?

Yes, Scott -- more subways! But who's going to pay?
Yes, Scott — more subways! But who’s going to pay?

By Tim Redmond

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 – Imagine if San Francisco had transportation planning 70 years ago that envisioned a city where cars weren’t the dominant mode of travel. There might still be a train line on the Bay Bridge (and we might still have a vibrant port). And we might have a real subway system, like the major East Coast cities (New York, Philly, DC) do.

Subways make sense in cities – trains that run below the streets don’t have to deal with traffic. That’s why I can take BART (designed not as a city system but as a regional transit system that only serves small parts of SF) from 24th St to downtown in less than ten minutes, while Muni takes at least half an hour to run the same distance.

So I am happy that Sup. Scott Wiener, who is a big transit advocate, is proposing that the city adopt a subway plan and that we think big and look at ways to radically expand the underground transit system.

San Francisco, he wrote recently, should always be building a subway.

Yes. Correct. Problem is, the rich people in San Francisco are unwilling to do what it takes to pay for that – and neither, as far as I can tell, is Wiener.

His argument sounds not only good but ambitious and bold:

Yes, revolutionizing our transit systems will be hard and expensive. Yes, there will be political and funding fights with the forces (both local and beyond) that couldn’t care less about funding good transit. Yes, there will be ups and downs over this lengthy process. Yet, with a forward-thinking, aggressive, can-do attitude — the same attitude that got us the interstate highway system, the Golden Gate Bridge, BART, and the world’s great subway systems — we can get it done.

Yes we can. I agree.

But since the feds and the state (as Wiener admits) aren’t going to put up the money, how is San Francisco going to pay for this? Saying it’s “hard and expensive” isn’t enough; you need to come up with a plan for the cash.

And we can do that. San Francisco is right now among the richest cities in the history of the world. There’s plenty of money to pay for robust transit.

But you have to be willing to ask the people who are making all the money to pay their share.

And that’s where Wiener’s talk becomes empty. He’s already proposing a transit impact fee that lets developers escape vast sums of money they ought to be paying for the impact of their projects.  If the out-of-town speculators who are seeing a modern gold rush, extracting vast sums of capital from this city, can’t be forced to pay for a transit system, who will?

New York has it easier – that city can raise taxes, and San Francisco, thanks to Prop. 13, pretty much can’t. But we can at least say: If you are going to profit off the growth of the city, you need to pay for the costs of that growth.

Or you can say: Unless the developers are willing to pay the costs of adding 100,000 more people to SF, we simply can’t afford to take that population increase.

Because the current residents, who can barely pay the rent, are in no position to fund multiples of billions of dollars in new subways.

By Tim Redmond

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 – Imagine if San Francisco had transportation planning 70 years ago that envisioned a city where cars weren’t the dominant mode of travel. There might still be a train line on the Bay Bridge (and we might still have a vibrant port). And we might have a real subway system, like the major East Coast cities (New York, Philly, DC) do.

Subways make sense in cities – trains that run below the streets don’t have to deal with traffic. That’s why I can take BART (designed not as a city system but as a regional transit system that only serves small parts of SF) from 24th St to downtown in less than ten minutes, while Muni takes at least half an hour to run the same distance.

So I am happy that Sup. Scott Wiener, who is a big transit advocate, is proposing that the city adopt a subway plan and that we think big and look at ways to radically expand the underground transit system.

San Francisco, he wrote recently, should always be building a subway.

Yes. Correct. Problem is, San Francisco is unwilling to do what it takes to pay for that – and neither, as far as I can tell, is Wiener.

His argument sounds not only good but ambitious and bold:

Yes, revolutionizing our transit systems will be hard and expensive. Yes, there will be political and funding fights with the forces (both local and beyond) that couldn’t care less about funding good transit. Yes, there will be ups and downs over this lengthy process. Yet, with a forward-thinking, aggressive, can-do attitude — the same attitude that got us the interstate highway system, the Golden Gate Bridge, BART, and the world’s great subway systems — we can get it done.

Yes we can. I agree.

But since the feds and the state (as Wiener admits) aren’t going to put up the money, how is San Francisco going to pay for this? Saying it’s “hard and expensive” isn’t enough; you need to come up with a plan for the cash.

And we can do that. San Francisco is right now among the richest cities in the history of the world. There’s plenty of money to pay for robust transit.

But you have to be willing to ask the people who are making all the money to pay their share.

And that’s where Wiener’s talk becomes empty. He’s already proposing a transit impact fee that lets developers escape vast sums of money they ought to be paying for the impact of their projects.  If the out-of-town speculators who are seeing a modern gold rush, extracting vast sums of capital from this city, can’t be forced to pay for a transit system, who will?

New York has it easier – that city can raise taxes, and San Francisco, thanks to Prop. 13, pretty much can’t. But we can at least say: If you are going to profit off the growth of the city, you need to pay for the costs of that growth.

Or you can say: Unless the developers are willing to pay the costs of adding 100,000 more people to SF, we simply can’t afford to take that population increase.

Because the current residents, who can barely pay the rent, are in no position to fund multiples of billions of dollars in new subways.

I texted Wiener today to ask about this problem. He almost always gets back to me within a few hours. Today: Nothing.

Sup. Wiener: Please, tell me which rich people you are willing to make pay (here, with local laws and fees) to create what is a very beautiful vision of a better city. Then we can take that dream  and make it real.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond
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.

Sponsored link

Featured

‘Jinkx & DeLa Holiday Show’ keeps it fresh for Christmas

Riotous annual blast brings all-new material: 'We don't shy away from light—or dark!' say beloved queens.

Street Sheet turns 35

Paper by and for the unhoused has become a civic treasure—and its editor looks forward to the day when it's no longer needed.

Get $10 off “Golden Girls Live!” tickets, and wig out for Christmas

We've got a discount code for the Thu/19 and Fri/20 shows at Curran Theatre—CHEESECAKE2024

More by this author

Supes reject Breed policy on towing RVs

Seizing the homes of vulnerable families makes no sense, advocates say—and by a 7-3 vote, board agrees.

Letters we answer: On Luigi and the US healthcare system

Are we looking through a 'single keyhole,' and what does that mean anyway?

The Luigi problem

An alleged murderer has become a folk hero, on all sides of the political spectrum. The Democratic Party remains utterly clueless.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED