Better Government

DeniseD'Anne's picture

DeniseD'Anne's picture


If the city wants to save millions of dollars and reduce our carbon footprint, it needs to take a look at the hundreds of automobiles used by visiting nurses and visiting social workers. Since, these workers need to make prior appointments, at least six could make appointments at one time and be brought to their clients by a van service. This in effect would create jobs which could be paid for by the reduction or elimination of city automobiles.  It might even be cheaper to hire taxis and eliminate maintenance, storage, etc. of all those white automobiles which can be seen as you approach the freeway entrance off of Duboce and South Van Ness.

bobbyh's picture

What's good for the goose....

Well as it seems that the City is on a crusade against residents having cars, as evidenced with the parking meter rates, parking rates, restrictions on garages etc., I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  People complain about Muni because it is unreliable, inefficient and people simply can't trust it to get them to their jobs, appointments, etc.  But, the City doesn't mind telling residents to suck it up and use Muni (or pay through your nose to have a car), so I think that the City should do just as Denise suggested and eliminate that fleet of City cars, and require all of those workers to take Muni to their appointments! 

I can already hear the screams of "that will never work, they won't get to their appointments on time!"  Well, welcome to the world that each and every one of us in San Francisco has to deal with.  If we are expected to do it, than all City workers should also be expected to rely on Muni for their transportation.  I always hear that we have a "transit first" policy, so why isn't the City living by its own rules it enforces on us?

Paid for by Phil Ting for Assembly 2012. FPPC ID# 1343137