Now, as far as the meters are concerned, what the city has done is effectively give away a public asset and in particular, a public right-of-way. It is a contract that, by legal precedent, should not stand, because by the terms of the contract, the city will literally have given away the meters and then some once the terms of the lease with all its penalty clauses are fully exercised. The last time Chicago did something this unfavorable to taxpayers with a public right of way was the grant of right-of-way to the Illinois Central railroad on what is now the Metra Electric route on the lakefront in the 1860s. And that one got overturned by the US Supreme Court. It’s time for a similar legal effort today.

In the meantime, there should be an effort by the public to boycott the meters and force the concessionaire to actually adapt rates to market conditions rather than just sitting on sky-high rates in struggling neighborhoods. This is an economic development disaster for the city, foisted on us by people whose only sense of city geography is the Loop and Lincoln Park and Lakeview and who therefore don’t know that the other 74 neighborhood areas in the city have a problem with struggling businesses rather than a problem with lack of parking. One-size-fits-all policy is going to take out every neighborhood business district in the city except for those that have strip mall parking.

And why should a private concessionaire be making money on a public right of way? In most other cities, parking meters are actively managed by the city to ensure maximum return for the taxpayer. Here, we’re handing over $100 million a year to a Middle Eastern sovereign investment fund, with a few crumbs to their US advisers.

Sure, the city set the meter rates. However, there is no doubt the rates were negotiated with CPM/Morgan Stanley BEFORE they were passed by the City Council. The deal would never have been signed if we kept the rates at 25 cents an hour. The rates had to be dramatically higher for CPM to rationalize doing the meter deal.

I think the thesis you put forth regarding meter rates is an interesting one. If true, the contract is even more insidious that even I thought. And if so, the city REALLY got screwed.

We’d have to run some mathematical models to see if would hold water.

My theory is this. Meter rates need to reflect the true market value of that particular spaces or block of spaces for two reasons.

1-To effectively control parking/traffic congestion.

2-To allow efficient turnover of vehicles to maximize commerce.

3-To maximize revenue for the concessionaire.

Generally, I like it when companies generate revenue and profits. If the contract was awarded in a more transparent, and fair way, where the city got top value for the meters and the financial penalties were more reasonable, I would strongly hope CPM made lots of money. However, because the city did such an ultra crappy job of due diligence when negotiating the contract, I’m not too excited about the idea of promoting profits for CPM.

Let me be clear, it’s not CPM’s fault they worked to get the best deal for themselves. That’s what companies do. They look out for their self interest. If the city screwed up, it’s not CPM’s fault.

I still believe the 3 goals listed would be best accomplished by using a more flexible, scaled pricing system tied to supply and demand.

But, David has me thinking.

Anyone who thinks it is racist to point this out has their mind so far open that their brain has fallen out.

Supporting a gangbanger for Alderman is a terrible idea, regardless of any otherwise redeeming factors.

The rates are set by the City.

Take it for what that’s worth.

In contrast, in the heavily zoned areas, the prices are too low for the demand (assuming that you are going to use demand based pricing).

The “real” reason that the Lincoln Avenue, Pilsen, Little Village, Edison Park, and so forth rates are set high is to allow LAZ to collect “full rates” from the City whenever the city engages in any Construction. These are rates not set for actual use, these are rates set to exploit bad terms in the contract.

Thanks for the kind note, and I appreciate your understanding of our policy.

I will try to ask people to temper comments that may push the envelope in this regard in the future.

Just to be clear, my posting of the story on Little Village was not to stir up racial tensions. It was to point out the impact of high meter rates on some neighborhoods. Businesses CAN be affected by meter rates set too high because shoppers just go where parking is free.

I think the 3 tier rate system is too restrictive. Meter rates should be able to be adjusted based on supply and demand.

Look at it this way. I am confident the cost of renting an apartment in Lincoln Park is more than renting a comparable apartment in Little Village.

But, parking meter rates are the same for both neighborhoods. Why? What the hell?!?

Meter rates need to be higher in Lincoln Park and/or lower in neighborhoods like Little Village.

Thanks again for the kind thoughts. I agree with you we need to do more Ask the Geek columns. I will try to do more soon.

Pete, you had a point? I was somehow confirming your bigoted views somehow? how so?

Capt M, yes Munoz has (had?) ties to the Latin Kings but I don’t really care as long as he does his job. Anytime I’ve called his office, I’ve had whatever I was asking for accomplished. That’s what the job of the alderman is. It’s ridiculous that they get paid 100k to do that, but that’s a city problem and not just my ward.

I’ve never seen gangbangers “actively pimp” for votes.

The immigration issue is a completely different beast. It’s not as easy as most make it out to be. I really have no answer for you other than to say that I don’t fault people for seeking a better life for themselves.