NYT Covers Chicago’s Parking Meter Mishap

The NYT has an interesting article about the Chicago parking meter privatization deal that I was none-too-happy about last year.

Chicago leases parking meters for 75 years

Earlier this week Mayor Daley announced a plan to privatize the city’s metered parking.  The preliminary announcement was made on Monday.  The deal, which is for 75 years and from which the city will earn 1.1 billion dollars, was put to vote today–only three days after it was announced–and was approved by the city council.

I question the decision for several reasons, and earlier this morning I emailed my alderman’s office to ask them to reconsider voting for this measure so hastily.  Regrettably, it seems that my alderman Tom Tunney was one of the supporters of this measure.

There seems to be no reason why the city should rush to a vote on something that will impact the cost of visiting and living in Chicago for nearly a century.  As part of the new deal, rates will incrementally increase over the next four years.  The first price hikes will occur Jan. 1 2009 and some neighborhood parking costs will triple:

QWhat will it cost to park at a downtown meter?

AThe $3 an hour fee to park at prime Loop spots increases to $3.50. After that, the price goes up 75 cents a year through 2013, when it hits $6.50 an hour. Elsewhere downtown, the $1 an hour will double to $2 next year and hit $4 an hour in 2013.

QWhat will it cost to park at meters in city neighborhoods?

AMeters that now cost a quarter for an hour will increase to $1, with an extra quarter tacked on each year through 2013, when the price reaches $2 an hour. (source)

As I know from painful personal experience, parking and parking violations are a considerable source of revenue for the city.  With only 3 days to consider the measure, did Aldermans have the adequate time to consider whether the revenue received from parking meters for 75 years is worth the sacrifice in order to plug the $150 million hole in the budget we have at this moment?

What’s more, the private group’s lobbyist that had the winning bid for the meters is the mayor’s nephew.  The mayor made a statement that the group won because it had the highest bid, but to my knowledge has not provided any further evidence to substantiate the claim.  Yet another detail that will likely escape necessary criticism.

This entire proposal has aggravated me since it came to light this week.  I am not comfortable when government at any level operates in a rubber-stamp fashion, where legislative bodies do not fulfill their function to check overreaching executive offices.  And I am not comfortable when major long-term decisions are rushed to vote and poorly implemented.  Illinois for too long has put up with stop-gap legislation regarding budget decisions.  It is time that our elected officials at every level of state government to give budget concerns the adequate attention they deserve, and to come up with economically sustainable solutions.

In Indiana, there was a similar decision to lease the toll roads for a long term, which off the top of my head I believe was 90 years.  Their decision was even more controversial at the time because the roads have been leased to a foreign entity.  Yet Indiana is one of the few states with a balanced budget.  How is this decision sitting with Hoosiers now?  Are the two connected at all?  Has privatizing part of the infrastructure of Indiana led to a more stable government budget?   And will it remain sustainable and profitable for Indiana for the remainder of the lease?  These are the types of questions I imagine should have been considered in Indiana as well as in Chicago, and that were certainly not addressed by my city.  [At this point I am speculating re: Indiana's tolls.  My computer is having trouble  and it is getting late.  If any errors have been made, please address them in the comments.]

(This post on the Tribune website does a good job of identifying the key supporters and opponents on the vote and was the key source for my post here.  I highly recommend reading it.)