U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2013, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Cincy
252 posts, read 860,506 times
Reputation: 104
Hopefully this isnt a duplicate thread. What do you all think of this idea? I think its a bad idea, based on the companys prior records in other cities. I really think it will stifle business downtown. I see that a lawsuit has been filed, so that it can become a ballot measure, I hope they win. Unfortunately, sometimes with those ballot measures, the language is so convoluted, voters really dont know if they are voting yes or no.

Cincinnati, is not like Chicago, or NY and cannot sustain exorbitant parking prices downtown. I cannot vote in city elections, but am curious of your thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,831,178 times
Reputation: 924
I support it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,015,740 times
Reputation: 2334
Hi cincylifer--

There hasn't been a duplicate thread, although I'm pretty sure I or someone else mentioned it elsewhere.

Here's the article on the matter:

Company That Would Oversee Parking Meters Had Trouble in Other Cities, Also Target of Federal Probe
Quote:
A company on track to assume control of Cincinnatiís parking meters was the subject of a blistering audit in 2007 for its performance managing meters in Washington, D.C. Among the auditís findings, more than 6,800 parking tickets were improperly issued to motorists parked at broken meters. Also, complaints from residents increased 903 percent after Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) took control of meters from a district department.

Additionally, the audit found ACS routinely failed to repair parking meters within the 72-hour period specified in its contract. ACS issued 6,888 tickets to vehicles parked at broken meters during the seven-year period. That resulted in $159,975 in improper fines charged to motorists, the audit added. Citizen complaints about meters increased from about 3,700 in 1997 to nearly 89,900 in 2005.

The audit also stated that the district could have managed the meters for $17.6 million over the seven-year period Ė $8.8 million less than the $26.4 million it paid to ACS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Westwood
213 posts, read 539,268 times
Reputation: 116
It's a terrible idea in my opinion. Unfortunately it is now in the hands of the federal courts from what I heard on WLW today. They said Susan Dlott is the federal judge on the case, which is not good at all if you are hoping to see it become a ballot measure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 10:13 AM
 
2,492 posts, read 3,655,718 times
Reputation: 1385
I support the plan. I'd potentially tweak some of the details, but I still think something along the lines of what's proposed is needed. It amazes me that people think Cincinnati is somehow exempt to what just about every other city its size is doing. We're throwing a fit because parking meters downtown will now be enforced until 9 p.m. when that is the reality virtually everywhere else. This isn't 1955 anymore. And the city, in conjunction with the local Port Authority, will retain a lot more control than Chicago does.

And a quick thought on running to court to try to somehow force a referendum: Isn't it ironic that the same tired cast of anti-city clowns (Smitherman, Cranley, TOAST) clamoring for a public vote on this matter are the exact same people who are quick to dismiss the results of two separate referendums and the public's vote in support of the streetcar?

Last edited by abr7rmj; 03-08-2013 at 10:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati near
2,509 posts, read 3,356,048 times
Reputation: 5611
The devil is in the details. I am not opposed to the plan in principle but I could see how it could be quite a mess. The operating company wants to make a profit, and there is quite a bit of language that they could use to make sure that they get their money at our expense. I have not read the proposal, but I would not be surprised if the company's lawyers are better than the city's lawyers. For example, if metered spaces are lost by a road development, will the company get to add meters somewhere else where they didn't exist previously? Will the company seize the opportunity to gouge UC commuter students by raising the rates on the meters on Jefferson and MLK? I would love to see more ticketing and towing of vehicles that park illegally and impede traffic, but I don't like the idea of having a company that can profit by tricking people to park in a place where they will get ticketed or towed due to confusing or inadequate signage.

Overall, I guess you could say I am against the plan because I don't have confidence that the city will take the necessary steps to protect people from a state sponsored monopoly. I might feel more strongly if I had a dog in the fight other than a lot of friends and colleagues at UC, but I can't say I'll be heartbroken if it passes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Cincy
252 posts, read 860,506 times
Reputation: 104
I dont have a problem with the meters being in force until 9, but I do think that UC commuters could be gouged. If Chicago/DC is any indication, the rates are going to rise drastically. Cincinnati, is just not that type of city, and I dont think it will support high parking, especially when we are in the midst of trying to revitalize downtown. I know how hard it is to find parking on campus. I also dont trust the city council to negotiate a good contract, they are amateurs in my opinion. The city is poorly run. I understand the budget shortfall, but they just dont have good financial folks in the mix and advising them. They seem to always be looking for the quick fix. They have already started spending casino money, yet if the casino is like the others that opened in Ohio, it will not meet projections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
31,223 posts, read 57,353,566 times
Reputation: 52083
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincylifer View Post
If Chicago/DC is any indication, the rates are going to rise drastically. Cincinnati, is just not that type of city, and I dont think it will support high parking, especially when we are in the midst of trying to revitalize downtown. I know how hard it is to find parking on campus. I also dont trust the city council to negotiate a good contract, they are amateurs in my opinion. The city is poorly run. I understand the budget shortfall, but they just dont have good financial folks in the mix and advising them. They seem to always be looking for the quick fix. They have already started spending casino money, yet if the casino is like the others that opened in Ohio, it will not meet projections.
What s/he said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati(Silverton)
1,577 posts, read 2,304,412 times
Reputation: 651
What do you mean not supporting? If people don't park because of high prices. The company will lower the price. That's universal. They are limited to increase the rates .25 cents every 3 years. If that breaks your bank you should not even be driving at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Westwood
213 posts, read 539,268 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincylifer View Post
I dont have a problem with the meters being in force until 9, but I do think that UC commuters could be gouged. If Chicago/DC is any indication, the rates are going to rise drastically. Cincinnati, is just not that type of city, and I dont think it will support high parking, especially when we are in the midst of trying to revitalize downtown. I know how hard it is to find parking on campus. I also dont trust the city council to negotiate a good contract, they are amateurs in my opinion. The city is poorly run. I understand the budget shortfall, but they just dont have good financial folks in the mix and advising them. They seem to always be looking for the quick fix. They have already started spending casino money, yet if the casino is like the others that opened in Ohio, it will not meet projections.
Great post. I agree with everything you said, especially your comment about City Council and how poorly run this city is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top