This November, San Francisco voters will weigh in on an important measure that could raise $22 million a year for the city while simultaneously improving its environment and encouraging the use of public transit. The ten percent increase in the tax on parking spaces in every parking station in the city, in addition to the expansion of the tax to valet services, comes at a time when the city – particularly Muni – could desperately use new sources of revenue. The measure, which should discourage car use and help nudge people onto public transit, also comes at a time when traffic congestion consistently ranks as a top concern of Bay Area residents. But on a ballot with a long list of bond measures and tax hikes, it will take a strong campaign to convince city residents that it’s worth supporting.

Put on the ballot by Supervisors Chris Daly, Aaron Peskin, Tom Ammiano and Ross Mirkarimi earlier this month, the parking tax increase couldn’t come at a better time. The money would go directly in the city’s General Fund, and could help pay for a wide array of city services. Muni sits deep in structural budget deficit and desperately needs new sources of funding, homelessness continues to plague large numbers of city residents, and San Francisco’s lack of affordable housing keeps forcing more and more low-income and middle class people beyond its borders, just to name a few.

The parking tax also represents a perfect fit with the city’s ‘transit-first’ policy. By placing a greater burden on car drivers, who the city already heavily subsidizes through the millions spent on street repair and upkeep, the city would be making a statement that it values sustainable modes of transportation over unsustainable modes.

In addition, approval of the measure could lead to concrete changes in the city’s streetscapes. As parking costs increase, drivers may be more willing to get out of their cars and onto bikes, buses and sidewalks. The result: calmer, safer streets, increased revenue for Muni and Bart, and cleaner air.

All the puzzle pieces seem in place for a strong, progressive ballot measure that environmentalists, transportation advocates, and those consistently fighting for increased funding from the city’s General Fund would love to see passed. The questions remains, however – will there be a strong campaign to achieve victory?

As I’ve argued before, (ERIC – LINK BEFORE TO http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3552) San Franciscans will be approving a tremendous amount of government spending on Election Day. At the state level, five bond measures totaling more than $42 billion and four tax increases could give votes pause. Add to that a $450 million local school bond measure, and the often surprisingly fiscally conservative voters of San Francisco may start to get skeptical of how much money they’re sending to their government.

While it remains to be seen where downtown interests will send their money this November, the parking tax seems like a good target. Well-heeled opponents to the measure will trot out the usual arguments that the tax will adversely affect downtown business and that it unfairly demonizes car owners, and given their staunch opposition to downtown parking reform, they could spend a bundle to get those arguments out to city residents.

The fact that Daly sponsored the ordinance also provides an opportunity for Daly opponents to attack both the measure and the candidate, while only filing campaign finance information for the former.

All this means a strong campaign is necessary to ensure the parking tax crosses the line. And it has to coalesce fast.

The measure originated with Howard Strassner, chair of the Sierra Club’s Executive Committee. Strassner is currently trying to get Club resources for the campaign, including both funds and a paid organizer, but remains unsure if he’ll be successful. He says that the campaign will probably end up relying almost entirely on grassroots, volunteer support, in particular because Strassner – who is serving as the interim campaign chair - says he will not pursue any other funding for the campaign than the Sierra Club’s.

Unfortunately, the measure is written so that it might alienate one constituency that could potentially fight for it – seniors. Revenue from the current parking tax gets split between senior services and housing and the General Fund, while all of the revenue from this November’s tax increase would go straight to the General Fund. The measure had to be written this way to ensure it made it on the ballot, since a measure that designates the designation of revenue from a new tax sparks an entirely different – and more difficult - political process.

Seniors could still support the measure, as it could potentially send money to a variety of causes they care about. Youth, anti-violence, immigrant, and health advocates also seem likely allies in the fight for the tax, as they’d all benefit from the extra $22 million headed to the city as a result. This would be in addition to the transportation and environmental advocates who will obviously support it.

But pointing out why all these groups should support the parking tax increase and getting them into one room to plot out a strategy for victory are two very different things. It will take strong leadership and hard work, in addition to a willingness to recognize the measure will be very difficult to win if it relies solely on the usual suspects in the environmentalist/transportation advocate realm.