• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chicago handed huge bill from Parking Meter Company

D

dmcowen674

No Lifer
If you don't know the history of Chicago you may not understand this whole parking meter thing but Chicagoans deserved to be shafted up the butt.

They sold their souls to the devil and wonder why they keep getting burned.

12-20-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/chicago...go-lost-revenue-122057391.html?bouchon=602,il

Parking meter firm bills Chicago for lost revenue



Another week, another embarrassing detail concerning the city's parking meter monopoly; Chicago Parking Meters LLC has sent City Hall another bill for lost revenue from the city's parking meters.

The company is billing the city $2.2 million for lost parking revenue due to various street closures, everything from broken water mains to film shoots blocked off streets where drivers would normally park at meters.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel left for a two-week vacation, he is disputing the $13 million bill for lost revenue from disabled parking and he plans an investigation.
 
Yes, this is a terrible example I've discussed before of a city government behaving utterly irresponsibly for short-term cash selling out the city's interest.

To the point I think something should be done at a higher government level to prevent this sort of thing.

Some 'wealth fund' made up of Wall Street crooks or Middle East oil tycoons can make a fortune draining the wealth of a city this way. It's wrong.

The information I saw said the city of Chicago didn't even get to know who was buying the revenue. Could be anyone.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, this is a terrible example I've discussed before of a city government behaving utterly irresponsibly for short-term cash selling out the city's interest.

To the point I think something should be done at a higher government level to prevent this sort of thing.

Some 'wealth fund' made up of Wall Street crooks or Middle East oil tycoons can make a fortune draining the wealth of a city this way. It's wrong.

The information I saw said the city of Chicago didn't even get to know who was buying the revenue. Could be anyone.
Click to expand...

Craig's solution for terrible government: Even more powerful government.

At least he doesn't hide his idiocy.
 
what do you expect from privatizing something that should never have been privatized. Short term gain, long term headache. And I suppose it'll cost the city a bundle to get out of the contract.
 
dawp said:
what do you expect from privatizing something that should never have been privatized. Short term gain, long term headache. And I suppose it'll cost the city a bundle to get out of the contract.
Click to expand...

A bundle? I doubt there any provisions to do so or that it's at all feasible to come up with the money to buy out the next 75 years of meter income.
 
I think they should put a big parking meter in front of City Hall and name it the 'Richard Daley Parking Meter' as his only 'honor', so his disaster is correctly credited.
 
I'm surprised by this thread. After all Chicago is Democrat territory and that means they are the lesser of two evils. Rejoice, you have the system you asked for.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm surprised by this thread. After all Chicago is Democrat territory and that means they are the lesser of two evils. Rejoice, you have the system you asked for.
Click to expand...


Dave is an equal opportunity poker. Republican or Government

Revels in the misery of others when they will not feel sorry for him.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm surprised by this thread. After all Chicago is Democrat territory and that means they are the lesser of two evils. Rejoice, you have the system you asked for.
Click to expand...

Interestingly conservatives were also very supportive ofthe lease, after all it's privatization and all privatization is good See the link below for the Reason Foundation slobbering all over what a good idea it was.

http://reason.org/news/show/setting-the-record-straight-on-1

While there is likely no way out of the lease I think we can count on Rahm not to pay one cent more than we absolutely have to. There also is the possibility that the city can build garages on city owned land in the central area and undercut CPM rates.
 
Meanwhile, Indiana sold an entire tollway is what is probably the best business deal in the state's history.

Jus comes down to leadership I guess.
 
PeshakJang said:
Meanwhile, Indiana sold an entire tollway is what is probably the best business deal in the state's history.

Jus comes down to leadership I guess.
Click to expand...

Timing helps too, they got them to way overpay for it then the economy tanked reducing the value of the assets sold.
 
K1052 said:
Interestingly conservatives were also very supportive ofthe lease, after all it's privatization and all privatization is good See the link below for the Reason Foundation slobbering all over what a good idea it was.

http://reason.org/news/show/setting-the-record-straight-on-1

While there is likely no way out of the lease I think we can count on Rahm not to pay one cent more than we absolutely have to. There also is the possibility that the city can build garages on city owned land in the central area and undercut CPM rates.
Click to expand...
Will the costs of the garages compensate for the additional revenue from the public?

The issue is that the city reduced/closed off the revenue stream and is obligated to cover some portion of the reduction.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, this is a terrible example I've discussed before of a city government behaving utterly irresponsibly for short-term cash selling out the city's interest.

To the point I think something should be done at a higher government level to prevent this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Because as we all know, the higher in government we go, the less corrupt and prone to bad decisions politicians are...


Yet another epic fail by the poster child for progressive stupidity.
 
BoberFett said:
Craig234 said:
Yes, this is a terrible example I've discussed before of a city government behaving utterly irresponsibly for short-term cash selling out the city's interest.

To the point I think something should be done at a higher government level to prevent this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Because as we all know, the higher in government we go, the less corrupt and prone to bad decisions politicians are...


Yet another epic fail by the poster child for progressive stupidity.
Click to expand...

Remember that Illinois state government is pure. Look at the quality of politicians that they produce😛
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm surprised by this thread. After all Chicago is Democrat territory and that means they are the lesser of two evils. Rejoice, you have the system you asked for.
Click to expand...

True in most cases up until recent times.

This move by Daley was more of a Republican move to privatize city functions and it certainly was done in the most wrong way possible.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, this is a terrible example I've discussed before of a city government behaving utterly irresponsibly for short-term cash selling out the city's interest.

To the point I think something should be done at a higher government level to prevent this sort of thing.

Some 'wealth fund' made up of Wall Street crooks or Middle East oil tycoons can make a fortune draining the wealth of a city this way. It's wrong.

The information I saw said the city of Chicago didn't even get to know who was buying the revenue. Could be anyone.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who owns the contract, it matters what was in the contract that the government signed. My guess, is much like the Obamacare bill, the libs didn't read the contract when they voted on it and signed it.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Will the costs of the garages compensate for the additional revenue from the public?

The issue is that the city reduced/closed off the revenue stream and is obligated to cover some portion of the reduction.
Click to expand...

Did the contract specifically address these issues? Seems to me that street closures are a risk assumed by the investor. Every investment has risk and it is normal for cities to close streets from time to time.
 
Blackjack200 said:
Did the contract specifically address these issues? Seems to me that street closures are a risk assumed by the investor. Every investment has risk and it is normal for cities to close streets from time to time.
Click to expand...

Reading through the article linked is that the city would cover revenue loss by actions under the city control

According to the company, everything from broken water mains to film shoots blocked off streets where drivers would normally park at meters.
Click to expand...

"Anytime that the city has to do something to the street — let's say, a water main break goes down, or they have to repave, or there's a street festival — the parking meter company has the ability, through the contract, to bill the city for the lost revenue"
Click to expand...
\
As the notes from the independent auditor’s report by accounting firm KPMG LLP to the financial statements explains:

“The Company has an agreement with the City, whereby, the Company receives compensation from the City in accordance with the Agreements in the event that the City implements changes to the System, which reduces the Company’s revenues (True-up Revenue).”
Click to expand...

"It was built right into the contract and, just like any contract, if you sign your name to it, you have to pay up," said Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd), who has slammed the parking meter deal from the beginning as one of only five aldermen to vote against the $1.2 billion, 75-year lease of the city's parking meters.
Click to expand...
The above quotes are from the article, but I suspect that the contract was gone over with a fine tooth comb.

The city saw the $1.2B giveback and blindly got greedy. ignored the rest of the contract.

Change the parking system to the point that it reduces revenue - pay that loss. Simple!:colbert:

It’s All In The Contract

According to the over 500 pages of contract with CPM, these events could include any situation which would require the city to remove a metered space from the system (installing a loading zone, moving a bus stop, etc.), or if a tax on metered parking is imposed by the city, or when metered parking is temporarily out of commission during a closure.

While removing a metered space is usually handled by adding another space or spaces elsewhere in the city to compensate CPM, the most likely culprit for this over $2 million is street closures.

Closure is defined as anytime metered parking is taken out of commission for a prolonged period of time due to any street work, be it to replace a broken water main, for street repairs or resurfacing or even for a street festival.

Under the terms of the lease, any time this occurs above an annual allowance, CPM can file a claim for the loss of potential revenue due to street closure.

Under the contract, the city is given an 8% annual allowance for required meter closures in the Central Business District, and a 4% allowance everywhere else. After the annual allowance is exceeded, any metered space(s) closed for more than six hours in a day or for six total hours over three consecutive days, the city must pay the meter company for the lost revenue from that metered space(s) for that entire day.

In other words, if the metered space is closed for six hours, the city is on the hook for the estimated revenue for the total number of hours the meter is in operation. Most meters are in operation no less than 13 hours a day.

CPM has teams of employees armed with cameras, clipboards and measuring wheels to document closures wherever and whenever metered spaces are involved. In fact, the company spent $273,454 in documenting and administering closure last year.
Click to expand...

Spell out in the contract,

If the company is billing the city for 1M+ on closures and 10M+ for authorized violations; an investment of $300K is well worth it to them
 
Blackjack200 said:
Did the contract specifically address these issues? Seems to me that street closures are a risk assumed by the investor. Every investment has risk and it is normal for cities to close streets from time to time.
Click to expand...

Yes, the contract specifically addresses these issues. Any reason for reduced parking revenue (at least as far as things like the city choosing to have a holiday), the city pays.
 
Hmm contract was 500 pages. If i am an Alderman and they hand me a 500 page contract to read through for this I hand it right back and say until that contract fits on 20 pages I am not reading anything and will just vote no. The only reason for that contract to be 500 pages is to make it impossible to understand and to hide all the really bad stipulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top