US city forced to make U-turn on $100 fee simply for having a driveway on your home – and extra charge for a cut curb

A MAJOR US city was forced into a U-turn over a controversial $100 fee targeting residents – simply for having a driveway.

Officials were seemingly forced to backtrack after plans emerged to use the fee to help fund minibus and rail services, according to records.

Getty

A $100 driveway fee has been scrapped over fears of public outrage, legal battles and a debate over public space privatization[/caption]

Getty

Lawmakers abandoned the plan as opposition mounted and compliance challenges arose[/caption]

Getty

The city struggles with balancing transit funding and homeowner rights[/caption]

The fee, suggested as a revenue-generating measure for the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) in San Francisco, was ultimately scrapped due to a range of issues – including legal and administrative hurdles – as well as public opposition, according to a report by the San Francisco Chronicle.

The driveway fee, compared to New York City’s congestion pricing – which took effect earlier this year and charges drivers to use certain roads to fund public transportation – was intended to encourage greater reliance on public transit.

The ruling would have applied to properties with curb cuts, as these are considered privatizations of public space.

And an economic analysis estimated that the city could collect some $19.6 million annually from 196,000 curb cuts, minus $3 million for administrative costs.

However, problems quickly emerged as lawmakers realized the fee would require approval from the agency’s board and potentially voter approval if classified as a new tax.

The proposal also faced significant opposition, including criticism from former Mayor Willie Brown, who called it “nonsense.”

The Democrat who served as San Francisco’s mayor from 1996 to 2004, added: “If any member of the working group wants to donate $100 a year to fund Muni, they can do that.

“They shouldn’t have the rest of us donate by being penalized for having a driveway.”

Professor Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, viewed the fee as a property tax hike – similar to taxes often used by cities to fund public services – meaning it would require a public vote.

Under California law, new taxes require voter approval, adding a major obstacle, especially since public support for new taxes is often difficult to secure.

Additionally, the fee’s legal justification relied on the idea that curb cuts represent a “privatization of public space.”

This framing could face legal challenges from property owners, who might argue that curb cuts are essential for property use and not a form of privatization.

Homeowners or property rights groups could potentially sue, claiming the fee unfairly penalizes them for infrastructure that has existed for decades without prior charges.

Enforcing compliance would also be extremely challenging, requiring the city to create mechanisms to verify whether homeowners are paying the fee and penalize those who fail to do so.

San Francisco residents – particularly those in areas with limited public transportation options – heavily rely on their cars, which means a fee targeting driveway owners could be perceived as an attack on car ownership.

However, Luke Bornheimer of Streets Forward, a group advocating for cycling, walking, and transit, supported the fee, arguing that it promotes equitable use of public space.

Accordinfg to the Chronicle, a spokesperson for the Municipal Transportation Agency said that charging people for their driveways isn’t an idea that’s “on the table”.

Other staff at the agency admitted such a policy would run into significant legal and administrative issues.