(Examiner file photo)
San Francisco Supervisor Ed Jew believes legislation requiring discounts for youths aged 18 to 24 would create a bigger Muni deficit.

Groups such as Urban Habitat urge adoption of this legislation, arguing that it is “unfair” to charge young adults the adult fare, and imploring us to “aid their transition into adulthood” by making it cheaper for them to ride the bus than, say, a working single mother who is 25 years old, instead of 24. Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth argues that 18- to 24-year-olds have “unrecognized needs,” and that they “may still be in school, fraught with financial obligations, work in low-wage or entry-level positions, and are ineligible for support services.” No mention is made of working people with families who may share those same economic circumstances, yet are in their 30s, 40s or 50s.

This legislation was heard in the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors, of which I am a member, on Feb. 8. Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, vice chairwoman of the committee, could not attend, so it was just chairman McGoldrick and myself. Many young people came to support the idea, and who could blame them? I had several questions for Muni about how they would find the money to pay for this gift. Would runs be cut? How would it affect hiring more drivers? How would Muni prevent fraud? Was there a means-testing alternative that might be less expensive, yet help those who needed it most?

Muni promised to answer my questions at the next meeting, so I was satisfied to table the item to the call of the chairman. I was also anxious to have Supervisor Alioto-Pier, our committee’s vice chairwoman, weigh in on the item because it was so costly. But it was not to be.

Supervisor McGoldrick, fearing defeat at the committee level, used an obscure board rule to take the item from committee for a vote before the full board. With the signatures of Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly and Tom Ammiano, the public debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of this item was killed. Is this what my colleagues mean when they talk about sunshine and open government?

Backers of this legislation make the unsupported claim that Muni ridership will increase 7.2 percent, which will help to offset the huge loss of revenue. This assertion presupposes that the 30 percent discount will convince those 18- to 24-year-olds who have cars to stop driving them and take Muni instead. Like most transit advocate projections, it is not grounded in reality. Regardless, no prudent legislative body should gamble a probable city loss of $5.7 million against a hope and a prayer that people will stop driving and take an increasingly unreliable Muni.

What this legislation completely ignores is economic necessity. Working people who are raising families have far less disposable income than do most college-age people. Many 24-year-olds make excellent incomes, some in the six figures. Conversely, many older adults, immigrants in particular, live near the poverty line. Why should we discriminate by basing subsidies solely on age?

The bigger question is why we should be subsidizing anyone at all, given that Muni is facing a huge budget deficit. What kind of cuts will Muni need to make to pay for this idea? If history is an indicator, when the time comes for service cuts, the very people who jam our City Hall meeting rooms asking for transit subsidies will be the same ones complaining about service cuts. Perhaps the Board of Supervisors anticipates revisiting the same well to balance the budget — raising taxes and fees for businesses and property owners.

After only two months in office, I am already tiring of hearing ideas that require a blank check from taxpayers. This Board of Supervisors needs to stop spending money with the irresponsible abandon of children at a shopping mall, confident that Mommy and Daddy will pay the bill no matter how much it is.

Ed Jew is the supervisor of San Francisco’s District 4.

Examiner