Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Politics / Clout City / News Rahm's latest verdict: we're stuck with the meter deal
Posted by Mick Dumke on 12.14.11 at 05:30 PM
He knows Chicagoans hate it, so even though he’s generally open to privatization, whenever the meter agreement comes up he seizes the opportunity to contrast the budgetary “smoke and mirrors” of the past with the new era of “tough choices” and transparency.
In other words, he’s not the mayor who ruled before—the one who got us into this mess.
Earlier this fall Emanuel even raised the specter of selling off additional assets as a way to cow the City Council into letting him double water and sewer rates over the next decade. “Some have suggested that we should privatize Chicago's water system. I oppose privatization," the mayor said. "But just because we don’t want to privatize our water system does not mean we are off the hook.”
It’s safe to say Emanuel’s tactic worked.
Most of us have no trouble agreeing that Mayor Daley deserves the blame for pawning the meters. But that's why Mayor Emanuel hasn't felt any real urgency to act on the issue. When you've got a former mayor to kick around, what’s the cost of not doing anything? A lot less than investing time and resources in a potentially fruitless attempt to figure out if it can be reworked or scotched altogether.
So Emanuel has alternated between declaring he’s mad as hell about the meters and not going to take it anymore—and conceding, much more quietly, that he’s going to have to take it some more because the deal locks us in for another 72 years.
This afternoon Emanuel did both at once after a reporter asked him again if the city could simply nix the deal.
“How much I would love to do that,” the mayor said. “But to deal with that, you have to have a billion bucks.”
And, as Emanuel noted, the city doesn’t have a billion bucks at the moment.
But the mayor also wanted to spell out just how outraged he was by the latest evidence that the city got taken in the meter deal—a bill for $13.5 million that Chicago Parking Meters LLC sent to the city to be reimbursed for providing free parking to the disabled.
“We’re going to go through that bill line by line!” he declared. “As I’ve said before, I do not treat the city taxpayers as an ATM.”
The mayor went on to explain that he wouldn’t authorize paying a dime the city wasn’t obligated to pay. He avoided referring to Chicago Parking Meters by name, as he often does with sore subjects.
Instead, he talked about “the company that manages and owns the meters.” That’s an interesting description. The city officially calls its contract with CPM a “lease,” a “concession agreement,” and a “public-private partnership.”
But every so often the truth comes out: the street parking system was sold.
Comments (4)
Showing 1-4 of 4
One way the City could use to get rid of the Meter Deal would be to LOWER the fine for parking in a metered spot to , let's say $5 in the Loop and $3.00 outside the Loop At that point it would be cheaper to get a ticket and pay the ticket than it would be to pay the LAZ meters. Revenue to LAZ would drop immediately and they might be willing to renegotiate . I would suggest the following terms : The City would take back the meters and the revenue from the meters . the City would agree to pay back the $1.15 billion over the next 72+ years at an interest rate of .25% which is the current Fed rate. In other words the $1.15 billion would be a loan from Morgan Stanley to the City as MS' way of saying thank you for their bailout. As to the improvements to the meter system. let's just call that a gift from Morgan Stanley to the people of Chicago. If LAZ/MS doesn't like the deal , leave the parking fines at the new low rate and let them go BK. Of course there may be provisions in the agreement that preclude this course of action but I wish the Mayor would adopt an attitude like this.
like
dislike
ej, if the contract provides for claw backs when the City allows too much free handicap parking, do you really think it doesn't account for the possibility of the City undercutting CPM's revenue stream with minimal fines?
disputo:
the setting of fines for violations of municipal ordinances is solely the province of the local government. this is a sovereign function that cannot be delegated to a private company or constrained in any way by a private agreement. to allow otherwise is to infringe on the authority of the City over its territory by a private entity that is not elected. If there is such a provision in the contract restricting the fines the city may charge , it may not be constitutional.
As to the claw back provisions for "too much" free HCP parking , that too may not be legal and in any case should be subject to strict proof for each and every alleged violation. It should not be established by a mere subjective survey done by the very private company that stands to benefit from overestimating their own loss.
I think you are probably correct it about the terms of the contract but I don't think we should accept it at face value.
Read the contract. J P Morgan saw what putz's Mayor Daley and his urban planners were. The buyout of this contract for the parking meter rights would bankrupt the city. I am not sure that any of our taxpayer supported legal team at City Hall even read the document. We now live with pay boxes where meters never existed before. The entire street grid is fair game for them. It's in the contract. We probably shouldn't accept it at face value, ejhicky. But, it will cost us more to get out of it. Corruption in government begins and ends with vendors and private companies who see the idiocy of our political leaders and know how to manipulate things in their favor. I'm convinced that we no longer have a sound legal team or competent urban planners working for us at City Hall. As to Mayor Emanuel: He will behave as he has behaved throughout his career. He will take care of himself first and then do what little he can for his constituents. We won't see any significant changes from the last mayor, as I see things.
Related Stories
-
The parking meter deal: still more hosing to come
The street parking sell off continues to eat at Chicagoans' wallets.
- Dec 13, 2011
