Court Rules To Uphold Chicago’s Parking Meter Deal
Unfortunately, a court ruled against Attorney Clint Krislov’s lawsuit (on behalf `of the IVI-IPO) challenging the legality of Chicago’s parking meter privatization deal on Tuesday according to the Chicago Reader.
The lawsuit, filed in 2009, argued the privatization of Chicago’s metered parking was illegal by giving away the city’s ability to set traffic policy and handcuffed future city leaders in this regard.
But the judge ruled that the plaintiffs, being individual citizens, did not prove they were personally harmed by the lease deal. In other words, these individuals claimed all city taxpayers and citizens were adversely impacted by the deal, but because these individuals don’t represent all taxpayers, this handful of plaintiffs don’t have a case.
Perhaps the most revealing thing through out this process, is how the Emanuel administration teamed up with Chicago Parking Meters, LLC to defend the deal against this lawsuit.
Isn’t this the same Mayor Rahm Emanuel who campaigned against the meter deal, refuses to pay CPM the tens of millions of dollars it’s owed for overuse of disabled parking placards and for street closures and more recently called for an audit of CPM’s performance as a vendor?
Yes, that same mayor who has proven he’s very adept at talking out three sides of his mouth.
Here’s how the Reader’s Mick Dumke spells it out.
But the city teamed with Chicago Parking Meters LLC, the company that controls the parking system, to contest the suit, even after Mayor Emanuel publicly vowed to pursue every avenue he could to get out of the agreement.
The city’s position proved to be pivotal. Judge Richard J. Billik Jr. ruled that the citizens who brought the suit couldn’t show they were personally harmed by the meter deal. If anyone was hurt by it, Billik said, it would be the city. Yet city attorneys agreed with CPM that the government and its constituents were benefiting, primarily through new meter pay boxes and the $1.2 billion in cash paid into city coffers up front.
“Defendants have shown that the city intended for the agreement to achieve certain public purposes,” Billik said in granting their motions for summary judgment. Plus, “the city has worked to defend the deal against the plaintiff’s complaints.”
Krislov is contemplating an appeal.
Here’s the Reader’s report, “Mayor Emanuel ensures parking meters remain in private hand.”