| ▲ | aesthesia 11 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Sure, but then it's not about a "fair share" any more; it's about incentivizing specific behaviors. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ProfessorLayton 10 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
It's both. Why should the public 100% subsidize private vehicle storage in vast swaths of the city (And greatly undercharge when it's paid), but not public transit? SF has some of the most valuable private[1] and public land in the US. Why is it so pressing to charge the last 13¢ on the dollar for a Muni rider, but not for drivers to pay for the public space they're storing their property on? [1] Private land owners know this, which is why they charge a lot to use their parking garages/parking lots in SF. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||