| As expected, the full City Council signed off on Mayor Daley’s plan to lease the city’s parking meters to an assortment of private interests led by Morgan Stanley. Since word of the deal first emerged—a whole three days ago—the dramatic fee hikes that will result have pissed off people around the city.
But as annoying, and potentially burdensome, as they are, they’re not half the story. A few other points worth reiterating:
· This is the second time in two months that the city has leased—for the better part of a century—a revenue-generating, publicly owned asset to a for-profit entity. And before the meters and Midway Airport, the city handed off the Skyway and downtown parking garages. More of these agreements appear to be on the way.
· No hearings were held to gather public input on any of the deals.
· The City Council took less than a week to examine and consider the meter deal—as with the one for Midway.
· The only financial analysis offered to the City Council or to the public was the one provided by the Daley administration.
· City officials told aldermen this week that they haven’t determined the names of individuals behind many of the interests making up the bid-winning partnership, known as Chicago Parking Meters LLC.
· The administration has not released the number or names of any of the meter lease bidders except for the winner, nor the figures they bid.
· Chicago Parking Meters LLC will have “supplemental enforcement” power—that is, the authority to write parking tickets. The city will keep the money from ticket payments.
· The city still has the right to remove meters or even lower rates, but it would have to return some of the money.
· As a matter of sustainable public policy, experts say it’s a wise idea to tax driving—if the money is going to be invested in alternative forms of transportation. This money isn’t.
· Much of the $1.2 billion from the deal will be spent in the next few years:
o City officials say $400 million will be set aside to cover the revenue the city will lose by turning over control of the meters; if this money collects 5 percent interest, it will produce $20 million annually, which is about what the meters now generate. But this assumes a consistent interest rate and doesn’t take into account the gains in revenues the city could reasonably expect by raising meter fees between now and 2084.
o $325 million will go toward balancing city budgets through 2012.
o $100 million will go into a “human infrastructure fund” that will help pay for existing social programs.
o $324 million will be poured into a “budget stabilization fund”—also known as a “rainy day fund.”



Does anyone have details? I assume it's from the contract attached as an exhibit to the ordinance -- any chance of posting that contract? I can't get a copy out of the city clerk's office or my alderman's.
-ALd. Toni Preckwinkle (4th)
wow
that's almost like a, like a flicker of self-awareness
naw, probably a fluke
I suppose the legislative branch proposing once in a while would be too much to ask
"How much for the girl, the women, how much for the women? Your women, I want to buy your women, the little girl, your daughters, sell them to be. Sell me your children"
That is what you will hear from DALEY next.
"The problem is that people stay at a meter too long, and the purpose of the meter is to move traffic, not to have people staying at a meter constantly. ... So basically, we are setting it up for the quick shopper. That's good for the store keeper. ... we haven't raised the cost of meters
in 20 years"
-Ald. Berny Stone (50th)
and of course .. we can't blame the city for jacked up parking rates anymore .. it's privately owned!
richie has his money and he's wiping his hands clean.
From the Second City Cop blog:
"Hey,
A little off track here but, in regard to Mayor Daley continuing to lease/sell off public assets, is anyone
(MEDIA...MEDIA...MEDIA/CITIZEN...CITIZEN...CITIZEN)
noticing that there is no mention that in privatizing these public functions and assets, you have the ability to delete TRANSPARENCY.
Think about it... Can you FOIA a private entity?
Think about it... Who really benefits from this private entity? Layering corporations is just one way to hide who really benefits.
Think about it... Who do private companies answer too? Shareholders?
Think about it... why, if we as taxpayers paid to complete these assets, why are we charged for their use, again?
Think about it... How do you put together a patronage army that can bypass federal mandates (i.e. Shakman)
Think about it... corruption shadows his (Mayor Daley) every step.
Pervasive fraud.
Wide ranging federal investigations into hiring and contracts.
Numerous indictments at city hall including top level senior administrators.
HDO promotions and campaign work, etc...
This is reposted from a Jan 5, 2006 tribune article by Jodi Wilgoren who was addressing, back then, a 48 Million dollar overrun of expense for a O'Hare Terminal renovation.
Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/national/06chica...
Think about it... how can you always not know?
Family members benefiting from city pensions or other assets (truck scandal).
How many times do close personal friends benefit to the tune of millions on our (taxpaying surfs) backs?
THE BIGGEST STORY THAT IS NOT BEING TOLD, IN MY OPINION, IS THAT THE MINIMAL TRANSPARENCY THAT EXISTS NOW FOR PUBLIC FUNDS AND ASSETS, AND HOW THEY ARE MANAGED, IS GOING TO BE WIPED OUT BY THIS NEW PLOY TO 'PRIVATIZE' CITY SERVICES.
Remember... the Mayor has advocated privatization and the quickest way to get there is by selling, or should I say, leasing our infrastructure to private entities.
Think about it... then inform yourself... then inform others.
By the way... maybe our bargaining unit should start to lobby for legal investigation of alderman.
How can we have a law that does not allow scrutiny of our governing body... are we in Russia? Even the police are vigorously investigated.
12/04/2008 09:37:00 PM"
Dear Frank,
On Thursday, the City of Chicago signed a 75 year lease of our citywide parking meters with Morgan Stanley/Chicago Parking Meters LLC for $1.15 billion.
I voted against the sale of this public asset because it was a bad deal for Chicago.
On Monday, we received word from the Mayor's Office that a deal was to be signed with Morgan Stanley. While I did receive the draft ordinance, no financial analysis was forthcoming, so my staff and I put together our own financial analysis to determine if the $1.15 Billion was a good deal or not.
According to our analysis, the city would receive about $1.5 Billion if we sold as is.
If we quadruple the prices of some meters, as Morgan Stanley will do on January 1, 2009, and increase again by 2013, our analysis shows that the actual value over 75 years is closer to $4 Billion.
During the Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday, I argued that the city was not getting a good deal, and that at a minimum the Council should see the City's numbers. They instead argued our numbers were wrong (without having seen them). I was then told I could see some numbers, but not before the vote. That refusal to provide financial data sealed my NO vote.
Morgan Stanley and LAZ Operators will raise meters from $3/hr to $3.50 Jan.1, and to $6.50/hr by 2013. Neighborhood parking rates that are typically $.25/hr increase to $1/hr on Jan. 1 and increase to $2 by 2013. After 2013, the City must raise rates by a yearly inflation rate to meet contract requirements. The City still receives the increased revenue from enforcement, but the parking meter revenue stream is lost for 75 years.
While the City receives a quick shot in the arm of $1.15 Billion, I believe the alternative; a long term revenue stream from well managed City owned meters would have been a better deal for parking meter users and taxpayers. Selling a major asset that is designed as an urban planning traffic tool while providing a positive revenue stream is simply wrongheaded.
Furthermore, the fact that we fail to maintain a decent cash reserve for a city our size is awful, and I argued during budget hearings that the FY 2009 $1.5 Million reserve (one point five million) was further indication of the need for major structural reforms in the city finances. (This week's snowfall cleanup cost us about $500,000 for one day, and it is not yet 2009.)
You really think he supports gay rights? Why not perform marriages if he is so supportive? He has fooled you like he fools every different group in this city. He plays politics to stay in power period.
it's daley's city, we just live in it.
Are we expecting lots of rain during the Chicago Olympics?
Nice work in privatizing another review source for the city.
SECTION 9. SALARIES AND FEES
(a) Compensation of officers and employees and the office expenses of units of local government shall not be
paid from fees collected. Fees may be collected as provided by law and by ordinance and shall be deposited upon receipt with the treasurer of the unit. Fees shall not be based upon
funds disbursed or collected, nor upon the levy or extension of taxes.
All of Daley's deals allow for fees collected to be deposited with the private companies to compensate the salaries of those in the company. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY BARRED BY THIS SECTION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION.