Chicago parking fiasco gets better...LOL

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Did he really cite stinkprogress.org? lol

Attacking the source is what people do when they can't counter the information or the argument... but are compelled by emotion to say something.

Here's your sign!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yes, because the only way to privatize something is to grant a monopoly backed by the force of government. :D

So, uhh, explain how parking meters on public streets could possibly be privatized otherwise. Have at it.

My thought process is plenty sharp - tempered by years of working for the federal government. My only premise is that government is inherently inefficient. Your premise - that privatization = fail - is based on nothing but a government-backed monopoly which will inevitably fail in every case. Privatization which opens up a market to competition will always improve efficiency. I can prove this on an abacus. You previously claimed that I need to propose a detailed plan regarding how parking in Chicago should be implemented to alleviate problems inherent in the current system. I'm glad you've at least backed off that bit of insanity.

Let's review your original statement & my query. I didn't ask for a detailed plan, just a conceptual framework for what you seem to think the way that Chicago parking should have been privatized. You offered nothing but slipping away while attempting to maintain your original premise. Apparently that premise was empty.

Privatization which opens up markets will always improve efficiency? Prove it on an abacus? Mere assertion. It's not like the Chicago parking meter "market" will be open to competition any time rsn, is it? Or that "efficiency" should necessarily be the goal of govt, particularly when such efficiency is merely in terms of creating profit for a few at the expense of the many. Privatizers seek profit through subsidy- nothing else matters. The Chicago parking meter deal obviously involves subsidies, does it not? Otherwise, privatizers would simply have bought or leased the concession, which they never do- they demand guaranteed revenues.

Communities who fall for it may save some money in the short run, but it's a fool's bargain, because the profit inevitably flows out of the community to remote ownership who suppress local wages as part of the bargain. Now the people who used to work for the govt work for privatizers, for less, and the whole community is poorer as a result.

If we achieve near total efficiency, we'll achieve near total unemployment at rock bottom wages in the process, I suspect.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Let's review your original statement & my query. I didn't ask for a detailed plan, just a conceptual framework for what you seem to think the way that Chicago parking should have been privatized. You offered nothing but slipping away while attempting to maintain your original premise. Apparently that premise was empty.

Privatization which opens up markets will always improve efficiency? Prove it on an abacus? Mere assertion. It's not like the Chicago parking meter "market" will be open to competition any time rsn, is it? Or that "efficiency" should necessarily be the goal of govt, particularly when such efficiency is merely in terms of creating profit for a few at the expense of the many. Privatizers seek profit through subsidy- nothing else matters. The Chicago parking meter deal obviously involves subsidies, does it not? Otherwise, privatizers would simply have bought or leased the concession, which they never do- they demand guaranteed revenues.

Communities who fall for it may save some money in the short run, but it's a fool's bargain, because the profit inevitably flows out of the community to remote ownership who suppress local wages as part of the bargain. Now the people who used to work for the govt work for privatizers, for less, and the whole community is poorer as a result.

If we achieve near total efficiency, we'll achieve near total unemployment at rock bottom wages in the process, I suspect.
Based on the amount of foam you're producing from your oral cavity, it must be getting close to an important election. Privatization can only have any part of subsidy if government insists on subsidizing private enterprise - something government has no business doing in the first place. You simply taint any opposing views with your ridiculous predispositions in which case the opposing views are clearly broken. Rid yourself of the ridiculous predispositions and you will readily see how ridiculous your views really are.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Based on the amount of foam you're producing from your oral cavity, it must be getting close to an important election. Privatization can only have any part of subsidy if government insists on subsidizing private enterprise - something government has no business doing in the first place. You simply taint any opposing views with your ridiculous predispositions in which case the opposing views are clearly broken. Rid yourself of the ridiculous predispositions and you will readily see how ridiculous your views really are.

Heh. The denial is strong in this one. Privatization is rent seeking from govt, simply because there's insufficient profit to attract private enterprise to the tasks performed under such a regimen. Privatization exists only because of subsidy. In the case of Chicago parking, there's also no legal basis for private enterprise to collect fees for parking on public property w/o govt sanction to do so.

I'll agree that govt has no business subsidizing privatization in general, that some things fall rightfully within the realm of govt- parking, prisons, sanitation and a lot more. Some vital services simply would not exist if it weren't for govt, and there's no reason to provide gratuitous profit to America's wealthiest to have them.
 
Last edited:

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Heh. The denial is strong in this one. Privatization is rent seeking from govt, simply because there's insufficient profit to attract private enterprise to the tasks performed under such a regimen. Privatization exists only because of subsidy. In the case of Chicago parking, there's also no legal basis for private enterprise to collect fees for parking on public property w/o govt sanction to do so.

I'll agree that govt has no business subsidizing privatization in general, that some things fall rightfully within the realm of govt- parking, prisons, sanitation and a lot more. Some vital services simply would not exist if it weren't for govt, and there's no reason to provide gratuitous profit to America's wealthiest to have them.
Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? If government passes a law that it is the sole proprietor of anything - whether it be the use of military force, parking, or what have you - then companies are NOT free to pursue a profit in that area. You have constructed a false dilemma in which a government-run monopoly (parking in Chicago) has become a government-enforced monopoly. That is not the only possible form of privatization. There are plenty of solutions to the problem: private competitive parking (for example, bidding for rights to place meters on a per-block basis with fares set by each company); unlimited parking (i.e. parking on curbs is free - this is done in plenty of places); no parking; or the two extremes which you have set forth above. It is telling that the only two you can conceive of are only feasible in the instance of horrible corruption.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? If government passes a law that it is the sole proprietor of anything - whether it be the use of military force, parking, or what have you - then companies are NOT free to pursue a profit in that area. You have constructed a false dilemma in which a government-run monopoly (parking in Chicago) has become a government-enforced monopoly. That is not the only possible form of privatization. There are plenty of solutions to the problem: private competitive parking (for example, bidding for rights to place meters on a per-block basis with fares set by each company); unlimited parking (i.e. parking on curbs is free - this is done in plenty of places); no parking; or the two extremes which you have set forth above. It is telling that the only two you can conceive of are only feasible in the instance of horrible corruption.

Why the hell should municipalities provide gratuitous profit to anybody for the use of public property? Getting cash up front obviously isn't enough, regardless of the number of vendors involved, because the city gives up a source of revenue whose price they can adjust to suit their needs, and when they're subject to chargebacks for alleged loss of revenue.

Block by block basis? The book keeping wrt violations is a nightmare, and all on the city, of course. Street torn up for repairs? Jackpot, because the vendor will charge the city as if every space were full all the time. Clear the street for a parade? Pay me.

Unlimited parking? The city just gives up much needed revenue.

No parking? Yeh, that'll work in an enormous & busy urban center like Chicago.

I'll agree that what's been done in Chicago is short sighted & corrupt, but you certainly haven't shown how city run parking is corrupt, at all.

Besides all that I'm confident that there are lots of private parking lots & garages in Chicago, just like Denver, and that their rates are much, much higher than parking on the street, just like Denver. If they actually compete, you'd never know it from the price.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Maybe that's because their last Repub mayor left a very bad stink behind-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hale_Thompson

Yeah, the mayor from 85 years ago, surely he's to blame for all the ills of Chicago. :rolleyes:

Privatization has been a Repub poster child for decades, and an increasing source of revenue for their contributors as a consequence.

Transit. Sanitation. Prisons. You name it, and it's all based on the idea of subsidies rather than actual free enterprise. If free enterprise had wanted those things, they never would have been run by govt in the first place. But they love subsidies, oh yes they do, not to mention the perverse incentives involved-

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/23/251363/cca-geogroup-prison-industry/

Daley? He never was much of a Democrat, certainly never a Progressive, and his leap onto this gravy train just proves it.
I know it hurts when reality conflicts with your ideology, but Chicago has been run by democrats for 50 years. It's a complete mess, and no matter what pretzel twisting logic you try to apply, everything that is done in Chicago is because the democrats chose to do it.

Sadly, if it had been run by Republicans for last 50 years it probably would not look any better. Corruption and incompetence is not unique to either party.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Why the hell should municipalities provide gratuitous profit to anybody for the use of public property? Getting cash up front obviously isn't enough, regardless of the number of vendors involved, because the city gives up a source of revenue whose price they can adjust to suit their needs, and when they're subject to chargebacks for alleged loss of revenue.

Block by block basis? The book keeping wrt violations is a nightmare, and all on the city, of course. Street torn up for repairs? Jackpot, because the vendor will charge the city as if every space were full all the time. Clear the street for a parade? Pay me.

Unlimited parking? The city just gives up much needed revenue.

No parking? Yeh, that'll work in an enormous & busy urban center like Chicago.

I'll agree that what's been done in Chicago is short sighted & corrupt, but you certainly haven't shown how city run parking is corrupt, at all.

Besides all that I'm confident that there are lots of private parking lots & garages in Chicago, just like Denver, and that their rates are much, much higher than parking on the street, just like Denver. If they actually compete, you'd never know it from the price.
I never proposed that leasing city streets was the solution - only one possible solution. You seem to think that we exist to feed government's coffers. I find that to be a very disturbing proposition. If we the people are government, why should we be paying government to park? That's logically circular. I will pose you the opposite question: what right does government have to demand my money to park on a public street? Where does said authority come from?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I never proposed that leasing city streets was the solution - only one possible solution. You seem to think that we exist to feed government's coffers. I find that to be a very disturbing proposition. If we the people are government, why should we be paying government to park? That's logically circular. I will pose you the opposite question: what right does government have to demand my money to park on a public street? Where does said authority come from?

From us, the people, expressed through legislation passed by our representatives, so that public spaces can be supported in part by people who actually use them rather than by taxpayers who may not.

Why should I have to pay for license plates to drive on public roads? pay to use state parks for boating, fishing & camping? Pay for building permits & the inspections that come with them? Because I'm the one using those things.

What's more objectionable to me is paying privatizers to beat down wages, provide worse services, suck subsidies out of local govt so they can take money out of my community & pay off more of officialdom to do even more of the same.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Jhnn, as a union electrical worker, or something to that effect. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the bidding process and the concept of unforeseen conditions, and changes of scope.

Chances are the lease was a unit price bid and the company paid them per parking spot that was able to be utilized.

Considering the company pays the the city to administer the parking in the city, changes of scope would result in the city keeping money based on false as-built unit prices.

You wouldn't expect to be paid as a contractor when work is eliminated from your scope of work would you?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
From us, the people, expressed through legislation passed by our representatives, so that public spaces can be supported in part by people who actually use them rather than by taxpayers who may not.

Why should I have to pay for license plates to drive on public roads? pay to use state parks for boating, fishing & camping? Pay for building permits & the inspections that come with them? Because I'm the one using those things.

What's more objectionable to me is paying privatizers to beat down wages, provide worse services, suck subsidies out of local govt so they can take money out of my community & pay off more of officialdom to do even more of the same.
I reject your premise. Parking fares and tickets are inversely correlated with the number of easily accessible spots. That is the law of supply and demand. Thus, we recover to my previous argument that the city itself has incentives to restrict parking to increase revenues which are then spent on anything but increasing the amount of parking.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
While former Mayor Richard Daley was in office, Chicago was paid about $1.2 billion for a 99-year lease of the meters. Daley last year landed a job with the firm that helped negotiate the parking meter deal.

errrr, the man's got a high paying job on top of his $180k/year pension...

Gotta love Illinois politics!
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Parking enforcement and red light traffic cameras are just so ridiculous. Idiots keep voting slimy characters into office though.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Jhnn, as a union electrical worker, or something to that effect. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the bidding process and the concept of unforeseen conditions, and changes of scope.

Chances are the lease was a unit price bid and the company paid them per parking spot that was able to be utilized.

Considering the company pays the the city to administer the parking in the city, changes of scope would result in the city keeping money based on false as-built unit prices.

You wouldn't expect to be paid as a contractor when work is eliminated from your scope of work would you?

I understnd that, but I also understand that all of the things that the privatizer says they should be paid extra for were basically known qualities of the original deal. They want an additional $14M, with revenues of $80M, basically claiming that their revenues would have been ~17.5% higher if not for disabled meters. That's a helluva lot of disabled meters, if we think about it at all, which makes Rahm's pov seem quite reasonable.

I'm also keenly aware that contractors, particularly govt contractors, are infamous in their practices of gouging wrt "extras". We had a thread recently where the govt paid something like $250K for the relocation of a single endangered in the wild tree...

Govt cripples itself when it transfers money making assets to privatizers in the first place, and the practice of subsidy & chargeback just adds insult to injury.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I reject your premise. Parking fares and tickets are inversely correlated with the number of easily accessible spots. That is the law of supply and demand. Thus, we recover to my previous argument that the city itself has incentives to restrict parking to increase revenues which are then spent on anything but increasing the amount of parking.

Those same incentives apply to privatized operators.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-parking-meter-rates-to-rise-again-in-2013-20121226,0,3777027.story

Loop rates will go up 75 cents to $6.50 an hour as part of scheduled fee increases included in Mayor Richard Daley’s much-criticized 2008 lease of the city’s meters to Chicago Parking Meters LLC.

Paid street parking in neighborhoods near the Loop will rise 25 cents and reach $4 an hour. Metered spaces in the rest of Chicago also will increase by a quarter per hour, to $2, according to the company


The city's unpaid tab for lost parking meter revenue now tops $61 million as Emanuel disputes bills the company has sent. It’s unclear how much the city will be able to knock off that total.

/lol

bwhahah this story keeps getting better. 5th year in a row its gone up and so has the amount of the "disputed" amount. At this rate the amount of "lost" revenue the company gets is going to be more over the lifetime of the contract then they paid. fucking GENIUS!
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,056
136
Actually, nothing he said is 'partisan' - you're the ideologue here.

What this is, is corruption. It's political expediency - robbing from citizens to pay for the political benefit today of money for programs/balancing the budget.

Imagine a CEO could spend billions by taking them from future CEOs of the company?

So it's two things - a lack of regulation preventing this political corruption, and too much concentrated wealth running around in things like 'sovereign wealth funds' pushing and driving corrupt deals like this (a fund with billions to put into schemes can influence elections if needed to get people who will do them).

Two things that would help:

Stronger government regulation against corrupt privatization.

Which party is the champion of "privatize everything"? Oh ya, the Republicans.

Stronger government regulation of these sorts of massive wealth funds who push and buy these things.

Which party is the champion of concentrating wealth at the top and having no rule? Oh ya, the Republicans.

A third thing, how democracy is supposed to prevent this - an informed electorate.

Which party opposes education making the public easier to manipulate? Which party supports the consolidation of media owenrship in a few mega corporations killing the press?

Oh ya, the Republicans.

The corrupt situaion in this case led to the corrupt Democrats doing the wrong thing. It could be either party - we need to pass measures to prevent this corrupt crap.

It's happening in many places - states selling public property and leasing it back in schemes that raise a little money but cost the taxpayers after the current year.

I remember it happened under Schwarzeneggar here in California (not sure about Brown); it happens under both parties.

Politicians have four choices:

- huge deficits: politically a disaster
- slash programs: hurt the people and the economy, politically a disaster
- raise taxes: big barriers, politically bad
- corrupt but legal scheme: pretty attractive to them.

We need public education why these schemes are bad - which partly means supporting investigative journalism and difersying media ownership, so we get the news industry telling the public how bad this is instead of serving corporate profit interests before any obligation to the news and public except as consumers.

We need money out of our elections, forcing the schemes, killing democracy.

There's a lot more coming otherwise - leaving the public further stolen from.

By the way, which political faction is against this? Not Republicans, not the corporatist Democrats like Daley who passed it - the progressives are against it.


This is without doubt the most insane post I've seen all month, possibly all year.

You're laying all the political problems at the feet of republicans because they didn't enact enough regulation to control the crooked democrats? Hello?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-parking-meter-rates-to-rise-again-in-2013-20121226,0,3777027.story

Loop rates will go up 75 cents to $6.50 an hour as part of scheduled fee increases included in Mayor Richard Daley’s much-criticized 2008 lease of the city’s meters to Chicago Parking Meters LLC.

Paid street parking in neighborhoods near the Loop will rise 25 cents and reach $4 an hour. Metered spaces in the rest of Chicago also will increase by a quarter per hour, to $2, according to the company


The city's unpaid tab for lost parking meter revenue now tops $61 million as Emanuel disputes bills the company has sent. It’s unclear how much the city will be able to knock off that total.

/lol

bwhahah this story keeps getting better. 5th year in a row its gone up and so has the amount of the "disputed" amount. At this rate the amount of "lost" revenue the company gets is going to be more over the lifetime of the contract then they paid. fucking GENIUS!

The increases where the plan all along - to unlock the potential revenue from all the city parking. Have you ever parked around manhattan? $6-7/hr for prime downtown parking is still cheap in comparison; financial district essentially only has parking garages.
 
Last edited:

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...o-rise-again-in-2013-20121226,0,3777027.story

Loop rates will go up 75 cents to $6.50 an hour

bwhahah this story keeps getting better.

5th year in a row its gone up

The company said they will raise rates every year on Jan 1st for all 75 years of the lease so no surprise.

Chicago has now passed San Fransisco and has the highest rates in the country.

12-27-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-parking-meters-uss-most-expensive-025032387.html

Chicago parking meters will be US's most expensive



Chicago soon will have the nation's most expensive downtown parking meters.
On New Year's Day, meters in the city's downtown Loop area will begin charging $6.50 an hour — up from $5.75.


A report from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency says the rate change will make Chicago the city with the most expensive metered parking.
 
Last edited: