Chicago parking fiasco! let's hear one for Rahm!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
a fallowup to a old thread
old anandtech thread

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-rahm-emanuel-chicago-parking,0,2620793.story


Drivers will need to pay for parking longer at the majority of Chicago meters every day but Sunday under a settlement deal Mayor Rahm Emanuel cut to reduce the amount the city owes the private operator for lost parking revenue.

As part of the deal, the city agreed to pay Chicago Parking Meters LLC $8.9 million for lost revenue for spots taken out of commission and for handicapped parking for the two years ending March 31 of this year. The company had billed the city $49 million for that period.

/snip


wooo! score one for Rahm! they wanted nearly $49 million rahm said fuck you. they settled for $8.9

still a majorly fucked up situation.
 
V

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,535
4
0
I don't like Rahm, I think he's a sleaze bag, though I think Chicago is far sleazier. I think he wasn't "on the level" with this contract like the previous admin. My bet is the CPM approached him to see if they could continue the same deal they've had for years, which is the city overpays by leaps and bounds and the admin gets a kickback. It sounds like Rahm said no and so the parking company started sending bills.

I am happy in how Rahm handled the situation, but in typical Democrat fashion he is trying to spin this into a city ordinance when all it really took was the city playing hardball and operating honestly.
 
xBiffx

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
When "some" of the parking is out of commission and the total cost comes to $49M you have to wonder. How in the hell does it cost this much just to park a car?!? What honestly is the upkeep on a piece of pavement and a meter? Also I wonder how much all of the parking, not just some, would total in 2 years in the city of Chicago if $49M was only a small portion of it.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
xBiffx said:
When "some" of the parking is out of commission and the total cost comes to $49M you have to wonder. How in the hell does it cost this much just to park a car?!? What honestly is the upkeep on a piece of pavement and a meter? Also I wonder how much all of the parking, not just some, would total in 2 years in the city of Chicago if $49M was only a small portion of it.
Click to expand...

I read a report that the company made the 1 billion they paid to Chicago in the first year (remember they raised the cost by a ton the first year).

so the next 70 odd years is pure profit.
 
Doppel

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
hahaha bobberfett's avatar and vic vega and xbiff all together posting in the same thread
 
kranky

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,019
156
106
xBiffx said:
When "some" of the parking is out of commission and the total cost comes to $49M you have to wonder. How in the hell does it cost this much just to park a car?!? What honestly is the upkeep on a piece of pavement and a meter? Also I wonder how much all of the parking, not just some, would total in 2 years in the city of Chicago if $49M was only a small portion of it.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they calculate it like rental car companies do for "loss of use". Every parking spot that is out of commission is calculated as though it had been occupied for every possible moment someone would have to pay to park there.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,443
45,924
136
kranky said:
I wonder if they calculate it like rental car companies do for "loss of use". Every parking spot that is out of commission is calculated as though it had been occupied for every possible moment someone would have to pay to park there.
Click to expand...

I think that is at the heart of the issue...how to decide when a space is out of revenue service for whatever reason and how is it charged and is all that done accurately. They went from $60M in lost revenue claims to accepting less than $9M. The city audit turned up some embarrassing shenanigans on CPM's part to run up the tab so they had to give Rahm something.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
K1052 said:
I think that is at the heart of the issue...how to decide when a space is out of revenue service for whatever reason and how is it charged and is all that done accurately. They went from $60M in lost revenue claims to accepting less than $9M. The city audit turned up some embarrassing shenanigans on CPM's part to run up the tab so they had to give Rahm something.
Click to expand...

a huge difference in how it has been in Chicago. It usually was get bill and pay bill. no need to look into it.

diffrence is Rahm is not looking for a private sector job after this. so he don't give a fuck.
 
C

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
The difference is Rahm needs to make a name for himself and get his Boss status indoctrinated into The System. Not like it's not already happening, but, give it a few years. It will be same old same old before long (and, given this is Crook Co. and Chi, you know it's still happening, regardless who's mayor)...

Chuck
 
BurnItDwn

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,351
1,860
126
Chicago fvcked up when they sold the rights for the parking meters to a private enterprise.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
C

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Privatization isn't necessairily bad. It's corrupt privatization that is the problem. I don't have a problem paying to drive on the roads. I have a problem paying to drive on roads that resemble a B-52 training ground. Before the roads were privatized, that's exactly what they were. Now, I dare say (I'm actually get a sick feeling as I type this, because inately I know I'm likely wrong given all that is Chi/Crook/IL) the highways are getting better since they're not state run.

We'll see how things work out long term. Ozinga will make sure they get their $$$ each year...

Chuck
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
chucky2 said:
Privatization isn't necessairily bad. It's corrupt privatization that is the problem. I don't have a problem paying to drive on the roads. I have a problem paying to drive on roads that resemble a B-52 training ground. Before the roads were privatized, that's exactly what they were. Now, I dare say (I'm actually get a sick feeling as I type this, because inately I know I'm likely wrong given all that is Chi/Crook/IL) the highways are getting better since they're not state run.

We'll see how things work out long term. Ozinga will make sure they get their $$$ each year...

Chuck
Click to expand...

Privatization is good when it opens up a new free market. Privatization as a way to shift a government monopoly over to a government enforced private monopoly is crony capitalism at it's worst.

If Chicago had let multiple vendors come in and bid on owning different city blocks worth of parking spaces, that might have been good privatization. Some companies might choose to create EV parking spaces, others may have chosen to go with subcompact spaces at lower rates, or large vehicle parking at higher rates. Maybe some use hourly charges, while others choose different fee structures. They could all see what generates the most efficient (read: profitable) solution and in the end the best idea wins.

Instead, they sold everything to a single company, until the end of time, for far less than it was worth to solve a short term budget problem. Typical solution from a politician. Short sighted and stupid.
 
C

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Sorry, should have said I was just replying in general about privatization. I agree, Daley selling this off was just another awesome Dem monopoly move in "give'em a chance" Chi/Crook Co. Basically: Business as usual.

Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom