Fail: 73,922 / 32.77% Yes votes ...... 151,628 / 67.23% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

This parking tax does not apply to fees for valet parking services when the valet parking company does not pay for the use of the property where it parks the cars.

THE PROPOSAL: Proposition E is an ordinance that would increase from 25 percent to 35 percent the total tax paid for most paid parking spaces located in San Francisco. This additional revenue would be deposited in the City's General Fund.

Proposition E would also apply this 35 percent parking tax to fees for valet parking services even if the valet company did not pay for use of the property where it parked the cars.

A "YES" VOTE MEANS: If you vote "yes," you want to increase the parking tax from 25 percent to 35 percent and you want the 35 percent parking tax to apply to valet parking services even if the valet company did not pay for use of the property where it parked the cars.

A "NO" VOTE MEANS: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would generate parking tax revenues for the City of about $26 million each year, starting January 1, 2007.

The ordinance increases the parking tax from the current 25% to 35% as of January 1, 2007, and extends the parking tax to include parking valet services.

Revenue generated by the proposed tax could be spent by the City for any public purpose.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote on this measure means:

If you vote "yes," you want to increase the parking tax from 25 percent to 35 percent and you want the 35 percent parking tax to apply to valet parking services even if the valet company did not pay for use of the property where it parked the cars.

A NO vote on this measure means:

If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Despite being rich in public transit options, San Francisco's downtown streets remain clogged with excessive commuter traffic, making daily hazards for pedestrians, worsening air pollution and contributing to global warming.

Recent traffic surveys have shown more than 60% of downtown's commuter parking lots are filled with out-of-town cars. Prop E will increase the parking tax on downtown garages, encouraging commuters to use BART and Muni.

Studies have found that traffic congestion is the largest cost to Muni of downtown development and that increasing the parking tax discourages drive-alone commuting, which frees parking spaces for shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. Less traffic makes our streets safer for pedestrians and more attractive to shoppers and visitors.

Prop E will add about $22 million to fund City services, with minimal impact to our pocket books. The new revenue will support essential City services and cover unexpected increases in Muni's operating costs, such as the cost of diesel, which has tripled in the past six years.

Unlike other taxes, Prop E is not regressive, does not reduce jobs nor increase costs for employers.

Prop E is fair. It asks out-of-town commuters to pay a fair share of maintaining our roads, public transit and other city services we all rely upon.

Prop E will not increase neighborhood parking permit fees or parking meter rates.

VOTE YES ON E AND IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LIVABLE CITY Howard Strassner, Chair Sierra Club SF Group Transportation Committee*

• For identification purposes only

Current parking fees are sufficient to accomplish present and future improvements if voters and taxpayers would be more aggressive in demanding fiscal integrity and competence. Most present and past Parking and Traffic commissioners, politically appointed, leave much to be desired as ethical, competent, caring fiscal overseers. Competitive businesses earn consumer patronage before hiking up prices. City Hall bureaucrats do not see us as consumers, but as hostages.

It is odd that super liberal San Francisco City Hall still needs to deal with labor unions, also sources for superfluous inflation of government budgets. Sweetheart deals have no impact on improving the quality of government services. It is apparent that politically rigged pay and benefit increases are not synonymous with fiscal accountability and efficiency.

It is detrimental to the city's economy to choke auto drivers for refusing to use public transportation. Outside the safety net of government jobs, there are a myriad of professions, responsibilities, time-crucial schedules, transportation of goods or sensitive materials, and/or personal safety that would be jeopardized if forced to use unstable public transportation.

San Francisco's longtime resident taxpayers subsidize everyone else's access to our city's services. Resident property owners and small business owners carry the burden for San Francisco, yet benefit the least. At least, they deserve special considerations.

Vote No on E.

Gail E. Neira, the only community-diverse skillful and savvy woman elected to the San Francisco Republican Central Committee, San Francisco Republican Alliance president*, 415-820-1430

• For identification purposes only

We pay enough parking fees to support present and future maintenance costs. It is not the increase in parking fees that will alleviate problems, it is replacing the current fiscal administrators of our public funds that is needed + desperately!. We should not pay the unjust consequences for the slugs running our city services and the politicos conspiring with them. We taxpayers and transportation consumers are becoming like mice in a cage with no exit. We are being held hostage by our City Hall bureaucrats. We should not have to be exploited anymore.

These government bureaucratic jokers will, if we are dumb enough to keep them in government posts years from now, graduate down to taxing the homeless with grocery carts once they have chased away their more reliable sources of exploitation. Bicyclists beware for they too will be taxed + eventually.

Unfortunately, too many City Hall bureaucrats and politicos are transplants from elsewhere and bring their personal baggage into this already fragile city. They secure salaried posts with authority at City Hall which explains the goofy legislation and incompetence at fiscal management, especially with other peoples' monies.

All those so-called pro-business and property ownership advocacy groups in this town must be impotent . They are letting selfserving, incompetent managers of public funding resources get away with more incompetence.

Native San Franciscan; San Francisco Republican Alliance president*; the only community-diverse compassionate elected member of S.F. Republican Party*, 415-820-1430

Vote No on E.

Gail E. Neira

• For identification purposes only

Proposition E is one of few revenue measures that asks out-oftown commuters to pay for their fair share of the city services and they use, and for the congestion and wear-and-tear on our roads they create, instead of making San Francisco taxpayers and businesses shoulder the entire burden.

Congestion, air pollution, crumbling streets, traffic accidents, and transit delays cost the region billions of dollars each year. Proposition E encourages commuters to take public transit into downtown. Local businesses benefit from increased parking availability for shopping, restaurants, and entertainment, while reduced traffic congestion attracts customers and eases deliveries.

Prop E is friendly to neighborhood residents and businesses; it will not increase neighborhood parking permit fees or increase the rates at parking meters.

The pessimists want to convince you that San Francisco can't do better. We believe that San Franciscans deserve a better city, and that Proposition E will help move us in the right direction. We also think that our city should lead in addressing problems like global warming. Please join us in working for a better future for San Francisco, and vote yes on Prop E.

Visit http://www.livablecity.org for more information.

VOTE YES ON E FOR A MORE LIVABLE CITY!

The Sierra Club Livable City

Note: Additions are italics; deletions are strikethrough.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: Section 1. Pursuant to Article XIIIC of the Constitution of the State of California, this ordinance shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City and County of San Francisco, at the November 7, 2006 consolidated general election and shall become operative only if approved by the qualified electors at that election. Section 2. Article 9 of the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 602.6 to read as follows:

SEC. 602.6. IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL 10-PERCENT SURCHARGE. There shall be an additional tax of 10 (ten) percent on the rent of every occupancy of a parking space in a parking station in the City and County of San Francisco on and after January 1, 2007. This tax is in addition to: (1) the 15 (fifteen) percent tax imposed by Section 602; and (2) the 10 (ten) percent surcharge imposed by Section 602.5. After the operative date of this Section, the total tax on the rent of every occupancy of a parking space in a parking station shall be 35 (thirty-five) percent. When rent is paid, charged, billed or falls due on either a weekly, monthly or other term basis, the rent so paid, charged, billed or falling due shall be subject to the tax of 25 (twenty-five) percent to the extent that it covers any portion of the period prior to January 1, 2007, and to the tax of 35 (thirty-five) percent to the extent that it covers any portion of the period on and after January 1, 2007, and such payment, charge, bill or rent due shall be apportioned on the basis of the ratio of the number of days falling within said periods to the total number of days covered thereby. Where any tax has been paid hereunder upon any rent without any right of occupancy therefor, the Tax Collector may by regulation provide for credit or refund of the amount of such tax upon application therefor as provided in this Code.

The surcharge tax so collected shall be deposited in the General Fund and subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the Charter may be expended for any City purpose.

Section 3. The San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code Article 9 is hereby amended by amending Sections 601 and 602A, to read as follows: SEC. 601. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS. When used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include: (a) "Operator." Any person operating a parking station in the City and County of San Francisco, including but not limited to, the owner or proprietor of such premises, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, a valet parking service, or any other person otherwise operating such parking station. A person who otherwise qualifies as an operator as herein defined shall not, by reason of the fact that he was exempt from the tax herein imposed, be exempted from the obligations of an operator hereunder.

(b) "Occupant." A person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station under any lease, concession, permit, right of access, license to use or other agreement or otherwise, including a person who delivers a motor vehicle to a valet parking service for parking.

(c) "Occupancy." The use or possession or the right to the use or possession of any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station.

(d) "Parking Station." The term "parking station" shall include, but is not limited to:

(1) Any outdoor space or uncovered plot, place, lot, parcel, yard or enclosure, or any portion thereof, where motor vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made;

(2) Any building or structure, or any portion thereof in which motor vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made; and

(3) Any place where a valet parking service parks a motor vehicle, whether or not any charge is made for use of the property for parking.

(e) "Motor Vehicle." The term "motor vehicle" includes every self-propelled vehicle operated or suitable for operation on the highway.

(f) "Rent." The consideration received for occupancy or for valet parking services, from the occupant or any other person, valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property or services of any kind or nature, and also the amount for which credit is allowed by the operator to the occupant or any other person without any deduction therefrom whatsoever.

(g) "Parking Meter." Any device which, when the recording device thereof is set in motion, or immediately following the deposit of any coin, shall register the period of time that any motor vehicle may be parked adjacent thereto. SEC. 602A. CHARGES SUBJECT TO TAX. The term "rent," as defined in Section 601(f), shall be deemed to include the total charges required to be paid by an occupant or any other person (including but not limited to, any separately stated valet or service labor charge) in connection with the use or occupancy of parking space or for valet parking services; provided that nothing herein shall require the payment of parking tax on the sale of petroleum products, automobile parts, or the like, or the rendering of services (including car-wash services) totally unconnected with the use or occupancy of parking space. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares its intent that from its initial enactment, the parking tax was intended to include and exclude the charges set forth in this Section 602A. The Board of Supervisors further declares that the addition of this Section 602A is not intended to make any substantive change in the Parking Tax Ordinance, but is enacted for clarification purposes only. Section 4. The operative date of this Ordinance will be January 1, 2007.