Chicago handed huge bill from Parking Meter Company

[DominionSeraph]

I consider your laughter a badge of honor.

>looks at poster

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Doppel]

And gas is $8/gallon there, many they just can't get a break.

 

[Craig234]

Chicagoins should revolt and bash every fucking parking meter.

Which will leave the city liable for all the damage plus the lost revenue, which will be paid by the Chicagoans. Sorry, the pooch has been screwed. Pass a ban against doing this.

 

[Howard]

Which will leave the city liable for all the damage plus the lost revenue, which will be paid by the Chicagoans. Sorry, the pooch has been screwed. Pass a ban against doing this.

Against what exactly? Vandalism?

 

[Craig234]

Against what exactly? Vandalism?

Yes, vandalism plus any lost revenue, I assume the contract covers this. If not...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Chicagoins should revolt and bash every fucking parking meter.

The meters are no longer owned by the city; therefore it is not destruction of government property.

Now if a meter was "jammed" then it would have to be removed and that is lost revenue to the vendor.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Which will leave the city liable for all the damage plus the lost revenue, which will be paid by the Chicagoans. Sorry, the pooch has been screwed. Pass a ban against doing this.

the city is liable for lsot revenue due to actions by the city government.

they have no way of controlling a private citizen.

If people refused to park at a given meter; the city would not be held responsible for that lost revenue.

Just have some anti-government people sit outside a given block of meters with a flyer trying to convince people to use a different meter down the block.

If the meter is used only 25% of the time; the revenue loss will be noticed; but the city is not responsible. Free speech will protect the protester.

After all this is a Democratic city.:whiste:

 

[palehorse]

Simple solution: the city should set aside X dollars of their own meter revenue every year to cover the average annual cost of meter downtime.

Then -- and here's the real kicker -- they simply *gasp* reduce annual spending by X dollars to balance it out.

But, I suspect they don't want to let a little fiscal responsibility (aka fiscal conservatism) get in the way of all the drama; so, they'll likely just create a new "tax," or raise an existing tax, to cover the losses!

SNAFU.

 

[Greenman]

Simple solution: the city should set aside X dollars of their own meter revenue every year to cover the average annual cost of meter downtime.

Then -- and here's the real kicker -- they simply *gasp* reduce annual spending by X dollars to balance it out.

But, I suspect they don't want to let a little fiscal responsibility (aka fiscal conservatism) get in the way of all the drama; so, they'll likely just create a new "tax," or raise an existing tax, to cover the losses!

SNAFU.

If there was any fiscal responsibility, they wouldn't have signed the contract.

 

[K1052]

Simple solution: the city should set aside X dollars of their own meter revenue every year to cover the average annual cost of meter downtime.

Then -- and here's the real kicker -- they simply *gasp* reduce annual spending by X dollars to balance it out.

But, I suspect they don't want to let a little fiscal responsibility (aka fiscal conservatism) get in the way of all the drama; so, they'll likely just create a new "tax," or raise an existing tax, to cover the losses!

SNAFU.

The city collects fees to cover that. This dispute concerned parking for the disabled which CPM considers a revenue loss, the argument is what the actual extent of that loss is. Rahm already said that it's less than CPM billed the city and that he was not going to pay the full 13M.

 

[Craig234]

I called to check on my assumption to the city and the company.

Turns out apparently vandalism costs appear to be eaten by the company rather than the city. Neither knew about the lost revenue (!). I declined to get a supervisor call.

The contract had the company well protected by other losses of revenue, but apparently not vandalism. Of course, any large scale vandalism could get jail time...

 

[BoberFett]

>looks at poster

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It must be difficult to laugh like that with a horse cock in your mouth. How do you do it?

 

[Zargon]

I called to check on my assumption to the city and the company.

Turns out apparently vandalism costs appear to be eaten by the company rather than the city. Neither knew about the lost revenue (!). I declined to get a supervisor call.

The contract had the company well protected by other losses of revenue, but apparently not vandalism. Of course, any large scale vandalism could get jail time...

so I should take a baseball bat with me to my inlaws?

sweet.........

 

[EagleKeeper]

The city collects fees to cover that. This dispute concerned parking for the disabled which CPM considers a revenue loss, the argument is what the actual extent of that loss is. Rahm already said that it's less than CPM billed the city and that he was not going to pay the full 13M.

The city is going to do an audit. How is the 13M question:

I suspect that the company has records on the plate/meter/time for a disabled placard or plate.

Will the city run its own sampling for a few weeks and compare, or will they request the disabled list and make phone calls to see if the vehicle was there when stated?

"This is the City of Chicago. we have a report of vehicle with plate abc123 being parked in front of the "xyz building" at 2PM on March 29 of this year. Can you confirm that the vehicle was there at that time"

or

"This is the City of Chicago. In order to reduce your tax bill, we are doing a survey of parking meter usage throughout the city. Do you have knowledge of a vehicle with plate abc123 being parked in front of the "xyz building" at 2PM on March 29 of this year. Can you confirm that you are disabled and were parking there.

 

[palehorse]

If there was any fiscal responsibility, they wouldn't have signed the contract.

It's not too late to start... but, globally, it might be "too late" soon enough.

 

[chucky2]

Simple solution: the city should set aside X dollars of their own meter revenue every year to cover the average annual cost of meter downtime.

Then -- and here's the real kicker -- they simply *gasp* reduce annual spending by X dollars to balance it out.

But, I suspect they don't want to let a little fiscal responsibility (aka fiscal conservatism) get in the way of all the drama; so, they'll likely just create a new "tax," or raise an existing tax, to cover the losses!

SNAFU.

You're talking about IL here, and Chicago specifically. You don't actually think they're going to <evil snicker> reduce spending do you? Just told my dad that, an almost retired lifelong union Democrat...he LOL'd (which is good, he doesn't get many laughs lately). Then he said, Yeah, they'll reduce spending..."reduce" it by saying it, then spend even more.

Sorta harsh reality when even a union Democrat knows how F'd up Chicago is....

Chuck

 

[waggy]

Yup.

Another favorite is selling government buildings to raise cash then leasing them back.

that's another thing daley loves to do. he sold a building to a friend for like $1 (it was a old building that needed work) and then the city leased it for a lot. Sad part is it happens frequently.

You're talking about IL here, and Chicago specifically. You don't actually think they're going to <evil snicker> reduce spending do you? Just told my dad that, an almost retired lifelong union Democrat...he LOL'd (which is good, he doesn't get many laughs lately). Then he said, Yeah, they'll reduce spending..."reduce" it by saying it, then spend even more.

Sorta harsh reality when even a union Democrat knows how F'd up Chicago is....

Chuck

people really have no clue how bad Chicago politics are or the amount of corruption that is in Chicago and around it. Hell Cicero has to be the most currupt place in the US.

 

[chucky2]

Corrupt? Why, how ever could that be?!!? It's longtime Dem controlled...this should be a F'ing Utopia! No crime, no poverty, no shitty neighborhoods (well, Daley saw to that somewhat, he just shipped them out of Chicago proper to run down a bunch of other neighborhoods - Thanks!), perfect infrastructure, no debt, best schools (Dem's will tell you, they're the smartest mofo's on Earth, everyone else is just dumb and an idiot)......goddamn, I love living in this longtime Dem controlled area. It's F'ing awesome! :biggrin::thumbsup:

 

[K1052]

The city is going to do an audit. How is the 13M question:

I suspect that the company has records on the plate/meter/time for a disabled placard or plate.

Will the city run its own sampling for a few weeks and compare, or will they request the disabled list and make phone calls to see if the vehicle was there when stated?

"This is the City of Chicago. we have a report of vehicle with plate abc123 being parked in front of the "xyz building" at 2PM on March 29 of this year. Can you confirm that the vehicle was there at that time"

or

"This is the City of Chicago. In order to reduce your tax bill, we are doing a survey of parking meter usage throughout the city. Do you have knowledge of a vehicle with plate abc123 being parked in front of the "xyz building" at 2PM on March 29 of this year. Can you confirm that you are disabled and were parking there.

A 3rd party company contracted by the city and CPM handle enforcement. Both the city and CPM have access to the raw data. The city makes it's own projections on what they're going to have to pay back to CPM for revenue loss. Now the department of revenue will have to audit CPM's claims against the data they have.

 

[K1052]

people really have no clue how bad Chicago politics are or the amount of corruption that is in Chicago and around it. Hell Cicero has to be the most currupt place in the US.

Actually in our experience NJ is the worst, by far. We've owned stores in 25 states. (including one in Cicero, IL)

 

[EagleKeeper]

A 3rd party company contracted by the city and CPM handle enforcement. Both the city and CPM have access to the raw data. The city makes it's own projections on what they're going to have to pay back to CPM for revenue loss. Now the department of revenue will have to audit CPM's claims against the data they have.

Where does enforcement come into play?

CPM says that there were 5000 handicap uses in a month period.
Chicago says no - we believe that there are only 2000 used in a month.

Unless both are keeping records; (CPM because of billing; why Chicago would spend the money to do such?) then a separate record needs to be made/kept.

Someone independent either has to

• shadow CPM for a month (because their #s are higher) and then have Chicago provide their estimates and see how close the numbers are.

or

• Perform some verification of CPM data by sampling reported vehicles against the DMV records
  
  
  If sampling the DMV proves valid vehicles
  then sample the owners that the vehicles were actually in location.
  ​

This will be an interesting soap opera next year.:biggrin:

 

[waggy]

Where does enforcement come into play?

CPM says that there were 5000 handicap uses in a month period.
Chicago says no - we believe that there are only 2000 used in a month.

Unless both are keeping records; (CPM because of billing; why Chicago would spend the money to do such?) then a separate record needs to be made/kept.

Someone independent either has to

• shadow CPM for a month (because their #s are higher) and then have Chicago provide their estimates and see how close the numbers are.

or

• Perform some verification of CPM data by sampling reported vehicles against the DMV records
  
  
  If sampling the DMV proves valid vehicles
  then sample the owners that the vehicles were actually in location.
  ​

This will be an interesting soap opera next year.:biggrin:

you are mistaken in thinking Chicago politicians really give a fuck. here is what is going to happen.

they give Chicago a bill and the bill i paid without to many questions. Though there will be a lot of things happening in "donations" and jobs.

 

[K1052]

Where does enforcement come into play?

CPM says that there were 5000 handicap uses in a month period.
Chicago says no - we believe that there are only 2000 used in a month.

Unless both are keeping records; (CPM because of billing; why Chicago would spend the money to do such?) then a separate record needs to be made/kept.

Someone independent either has to

• shadow CPM for a month (because their #s are higher) and then have Chicago provide their estimates and see how close the numbers are.

or

• Perform some verification of CPM data by sampling reported vehicles against the DMV records
  
  
  If sampling the DMV proves valid vehicles
  then sample the owners that the vehicles were actually in location.
  ​

This will be an interesting soap opera next year.:biggrin:

The city looks at the same data because they have to project what will be owed. Something is going on with the interpretation of the data provided by the 3rd party. Either they will settle on a mutually agreeable figure or they'll have someone else audit actual average usage to narrow down the ballpark.

 

[K1052]

you are mistaken in thinking Chicago politicians really give a fuck. here is what is going to happen.

they give Chicago a bill and the bill i paid without to many questions. Though there will be a lot of things happening in "donations" and jobs.

Just an FYI but Daley is gone and a lot of the city council turned over in the last election. Things are less the "Chicago way" than ever before.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I did not understand that there is a third party that comes into play - hence the confusion about your use of enforcement.

So it is a third party that acts like a meter maid (recording the meter information w/ respect to vehicles and violations.)

I would suspect that each pass(max allowed meter time) is considered a violation by CPM; the city may want to argue that only one violation per vehicle at the meter.

Similar to getting a parking ticket by multiple officers and complaining that you already have one ticket, another is unfair.

Given the statements by the mayor that he will dispute; it seems as if it is the actual 13M number was so large it came as a shock. Yet he has not said how he will dispute it.

If the city challenges the scenario of multiple violations; they better be able to show that they did not multi-ticket a vehicle previously.