Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
Assault cases against parking control officers, who are overseen by Muni, rose from 17 in 2005 to 28 in 2006. The numbers for 2007 have not yet been totaled, according to Muni officials.
Last month, when the department’s board of directors approved a plan to add $10 to all parking violations less than $90, parking-control officers attended the public meeting to express concern that the higher prices could increase acts of violence against them.
The department’s new training program — established this year before the rate increases were finalized — trains parking-control officers to detect early signs of aggression, avoid conflict and protect themselves in case of assault, according to Antonio Parra, director of enforcement and security for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
Employees are taught the kind of person they can deal with verbally, and signs that a person is too irrational to control and must be contained with police enforcement, Parra said. If assaulted, parking-control officers are trained to use their pepper spray, which can be used only in a defensive manner, he said.
“We stress that our employees should never give up the right to self-defense,” Parra said.
The five-hour session has already trained 58 parking-control officers, all of whom were recently hired by the SFMTA. In June, 50 veteran parking-control officers will undergo the training in a modified version of the program that will incorporate the employees’ previous experience, Parra said. The department has 276 parking-control officers.
Next month, the Board of Supervisors will also vote on the SFMTA’s proposed budget. If approved, the increased ticket prices will go into effect by July.
Lawmakers have also sought ways to protect ticketing officers from the threats of angry citizens. Assemblymember Mark Leno, whose district includes San Francisco, successfully passed a bill that doubles fines — increasing them to $2,000 — for assaults against parking-control officers. The bill took effect in January.
Two cases are currently being pursued under the new law, according to Para.



Comments from Examiner Readers
8:36 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 20, 2008 re: "A bowl soars in the Richmond"
Report as inappropriate
1:14 PM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008
re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"
Report as inappropriate
8:12 AM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008
re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Asketh The City: ‘Where art thou, Shakespeare plaques?'"
Report as inappropriate
7:21 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 30, 2008
re: "Cost of home-improvement permits to soar"
Report as inappropriate
10:43 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:39 PM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:08 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 4, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
3:04 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Anonymous wrote: Having actually seen and experienced this building, I can tell you that it is an extremely poor building conceptually, tactically and technically. A more "honest" photograph of it in context would clearly show this. Conceptually, its scaleless "Minimalism Uber Alles" aesthetic seems perversely inappropriate. Tactically, the essential positioning of its reductive elements (i.e. the concrete "bowl" and metal "block") should at least be inverted -- with the "bowl" marking the street corner and the "block" set into adjacent alignment with the neighboring fabric of row houses. Lastly, in terms of the most basic technique it is a failure. A minimalist architect should, at least, master the integration of building services. Highly visible from the street is a mess of rooftop mechanical equipment--in the photos that I have seen published of the building this reality has been conveniently "photoshopped" out.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
People should leave the parking officers alone and assault city hall. The mayor and the planning department keep approving more and more development without adequate parking in a city with very limited parking as it is. People aren't likely to get out of their cars and use transit for their needs until the transit performs at an acceptable level. I don't believe anyone can honestly claim SFMTA operations in SF are acceptable.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
bee said:
There is no excuse for assaulting a parking officer. There is also no excuse for the rudeness of some parking officers, nor their double parking and blocking traffic with impugnity. Just the other day I saw three parking "officers" taking a break together in a North Beach bakery... Also, why are they called "officers" now that they are no longer under the Police department?
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
this article was a exsotic amazement someone so selfish would take away the only wonderful time being art of william shakespeare he is a amazing designer and who ever shou take the art of an amazing person has a holed heart
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Dadee said:
They should reduce the number of employees. Most of them are incompetent and make it more difficult and expensive to get the project done.
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
That sucking sound we here is the Mayor playing to his friends and collegues at LENNAR CORP with the solar offer. The same people who are going to rebuild the Bayview for no cost to taxpayers. Really?
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Eric Brooks - SF Green Party said:
One very important fact that your report fails to note, is that the Mayor's solar plan lets the SFPUC wave caps and allow an unlimited public subsidy to private corporations for building solar on their property. So under the Mayor's plan, if Lennar Corporation builds us a new stadium, it could also deck out that stadium with millions of dollars of solar panels and stick San Franciscans for the bill! Let's make sure that public money goes to public solar, not private corporations. We should scrap the Mayor's plan.
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The city should not pay for these small, inefficient, expensive residential installations. They are poorly monitored and maintained, the actual output is unknown, it's like buying a pig in a poke. If the SFPUC can convince a private company to operate a large installation at Pier 96 and sell the electricity back to the city at a guaranteed reasonable rate, that would be a better deal. However, it's questionable whether or not the SFPUC can make such a deal.
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Let me see, the supes find time to debate and pass a pointless bill on China, but didn't have time to look at and pass a useful bill actually pertaining to San Francisco.
1 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree