[krooj]

This is basically how I handle it, and we live in the neighborhood mentioned by this article. The disability claim is largely a straw man argument: I've never seen someone in a wheelchair try to navigate SF streets - they're far, far too hilly and para-transport exists. This whole thing comes down to SFMTA being a bunch of crash-grabbing motherfuckers. The amount of revenue the city takes in through ticketing is outrageous, to the point that it's less and less about bylaw enforcement and more about making money.

I think last year my total $-amount for SFMTA tickets came to ~$1300? Still cheaper than paying for a garage or wasting my time trying to find street parking.

More on context here: the sidewalks of the outer sunset and outer richmond are extremely wide, to the point were you could easily parallel park 1.5 cars right on the sidewalk, so it's trivial to park a car such that it being partially in the driveway will leave more than enough space for anyone to pass.

[Inconel]

As someone who grew up in the outer sunset where this is also a frequent occurrence, it's surprising to me how so many people engage in such anti social behavior and don't see a problem with it.

If $1300 per year in SFMTA tickets isn't enough to dissuade you, I can only hope that the violations are increased substantially. I wish we would follow the Nordic model of fines being scaled to income.

[maxerickson]

If they are treating it as a cost, an escalating fee schedule might be a good approach. 1x the first ticket, 2x for the second one within 12 months of the first, 4x for the next one within 12 months of the second.

Doesn't hit accidental offenders too hard, but hits the scofflaws pretty good.

[krooj]

You really think that's anti-social behaviour? It's a matter of practicality, my delicate flower.

[asoneth]

> The amount of revenue the city takes in through ticketing is outrageous, to the point that it's less and less about bylaw enforcement and more about making money.

Be that as it may, a society that allows individuals to claim public land for private use without any compensation or penalty also seems outrageous.

I can't speak to SF and personally I'd look the other way if someone is taking less than a couple feet from a sufficiently wide sidewalk in front of their house. But at least in NYC many sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, car lanes, and bus lanes are impassable because the cost of parking there is far too low.

[bifrost]

> Be that as it may, a society that allows individuals to claim public land for private use without any compensation or penalty also seems outrageous.

SF is rife with that and the SF Coalition on Homelessness makes its money on that premise.

SF needs to be ticketing sidewalk parkers while INCREASING the availability of parking in business districts. Right now what we have is just anti-car tyranny.

[alistairSH]

Why should the city provide subsidized parking at all? Car owners should pay the full cost (or the businesses that want to attract them should).

[slifin]

If we were serious about curbing this violations would either be points deducted on your licence or criminal charges

I'm not surprised cities are trying to claw back revenue because car infrastructure and its side effects like enabling massive sprawl are so astonishingly high

Drivers don't even know those costs, consider the roads you have now, they're in the state they are despite absolutely huge political support