In the case of San Francisco it is a state law that limits cities to charging only as much as it costs to administer the program. San Francisco cannot have responsive residential parking under state law.
California loves kneecapping itself.
I guess the solution would be to make these spots 2/4 hr parking, instead of permanent overnight parking for all. Or remove parking all together and make it easy to build private parking lots.
SF's lack of grade separated transport outside the narrow BART corridor also makes it hard to convince people out of driving. Buses and trams aren't acceptable alternatives for a city as rich and dynamic as SF.
I think they can be more creative. Hire an administrator of residential parking and pay them $100 million. Also have a special 100% marginal income tax for city employees earning over a million.
No, according to this article by Chris Elmendorf and Darien Shanske https://www.spur.org/news/2020-12-18/how-solve-transit-budge..., Proposition 218, 26, and the California Vehicle Code probably do not prohibit market pricing of residential parking permits as endorsed by Donald Shoup, since street parking is not just a fee-based service, but city-owned land that the city has the right to rent at market rate. San Francisco just hasn’t tried.
Speaking of having not tried, that legal theory could be right but it's novel. On the one hand you have Elmendorf's hypothesis, and on the other you have every city attorney in the state.
What does administer the program mean in this case? Does it include the maintenance? It could also include the property tax the city pays itself for the valuable land that is being kept available.
Raise prices even slightly, and people's behaviors will adjust accordingly. I have a friend who street parked two cars until he moved to a different neighborhood and had to start paying for permits. Now he just keeps his commuter and leaves his overlander in the suburbs.