Please share this letter with your readers.
To: Laura Joss Superintendent GGNRA,
The Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR) opposes the NPS proposal to create paid parking for Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s (GGNRA) spaces in San Francisco. This proposal would be especially detrimental to the Richmond District. PAR stands forefront in seeking to protect the quality of life in the Richmond neighborhood. Our members place a high value on our close proximity to the GGNRA and are very familiar with its use. Here are some of our comments and concerns:
1. On a practical level, PAR advocates for signage and enforcement for a 4-hour parking limit. That said, a $3/hour parking fee will simply force parking onto the streets, which do not have capacity. It would set neighbors in conflict with park-goers, which is contrary to GGNRA’s “good-neighbor” policies. We represent the neighbors who will face a significant burden, the China Beach, Lands End and Baker Beach area.
2. On an equity level, this added cost will diminish the opportunity for some to afford to enjoy the GGNRA. Yes, preservation is a goal of the parks, but they are owned by U.S. citizens. These charges discourage visitors.
3. On a fairness level, PAR objects to the GGNRA collecting any monies that are not immediately put back into the GGNRA, especially because of the numerous visitors it has: it deserves and needs 100% of all of its generated monies.
4. On a national level, the GGNRA should be actively seeking a greater portion of national park monies rather than seek to monetize everything it can. Richmond neighbors are passionate supporters of the Park and would actively support any requests to Congress or other U.S. agencies for visitor-friendly upkeep and improvement.
5. On a long-term level, these proposed fees take the pleasure out of living in the San Francisco Bay Area.
6. On an economic level, this is poor decision-making. The email states that GGNRA is “the second most-visited national park in 2020 … park visitors spent $684 million in nearby communities which supported 6,862 jobs in the local economy.” Since we San Franciscans do not wish to harm this economic and employment benefit to our community, we must oppose steps such as these that will diminish the aspirations of travelers to come to our city.
Nicholas C Belloni
President, Planning Association for the Richmond
Categories: letter to the editor
I cars. agree with the Feds charging to Park their cars.Parking fees discourage driving and compel people to find alternative modes of transportation and engage in new behaviors. Walk. Run. Cycle. Public transit. Uber. Lyft. Taxis. There are plenty of options for the car addicted.
I cars. agree with the Feds charging to Park cars.Parking fees discourage driving and compel people to find alternative modes of transportation and engage in new behaviors. Walk. Run. Cycle. Public transit. Uber. Lyft. Taxis. There are plenty of options for the car addicted.
Excellent article! We should be able to enjoy the City we live in and pay for. Time limits are reasonable but parking cost are getting ridiculous. Not everyone can bike and MUNI doesn’t always work for everyone. Tourist bring in money and appreciation. Thanks.