Top bidder offers $452 million for parking lease (Pittsburgh, Industry: fit in, neighborhood)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

Also, are the pensions a thing of the past? or are workers still receiving them? In other words, is this an actual fix, or just a band-aid while the pension demands continue to grow?

More the latter, due to state law. Under Act 111, the City can't just end the pension system as we know it. Instead, the unions are entitled to binding arbitration on contract issues, which they typically win. Meanwhile, under Act 205, the state's contribution to local pensions is tied to the number of active employees, not the number of pensioners. That means if the City tries to save on future pensions by cutting employees, it actually loses state funding for the existing pensioners. Finally, to trim its prior pension obligations, the state would have to authorize the City to do so, which it has not done.

So basically, state law has stuck the City in a box, and the only permanent solution will require reform of these state laws.

[pman]

Originally Posted by grimacista

Obviously you have to study other options to see if this is the best deal possible. However, if it is, all of the money should go to fixing the pension disaster and paying down the city's long-term debt. While street paving and snowplowing in the city seem relatively nonexistent, I think it would be a mistake to use this prospective 'windfall' on any kind of short-term expenses. This city has been killed by mountains of debt and onerous retiree benefit plans for decades and this may represent an opportunity to really make a dent in that. Hopefully they don't squander it on neighborhood themed trash cans at $700 a piece but after hearing Doug Shields on the radio say that bids for the garages on the open market do not reflect the market value of the asset, I wouldn't be surprised if the money was blown.

bingo, IMO. the only other use that should be considered, IMO, is paying down the city's debt. the city has too much debt and this is a real opportunity to decrease that. when you talk about spending, you've got politics and then whatever assumptions made about the ROI. with debt or pension, you know you're gonna have to pay them so even if the ROI is lower, it's safer. the freed up city revenue can be ploughed back into tax cuts or BRT or whatever as the city can afford.

[tranceFusion]

So has there been any attempt or progress on getting the laws changed?

Certainly government workers shouldn't continue to enjoy the same benefits they have had during this economic downturn, on the backs of private workers that have already suffered layoffs, pay deductions, mandatory furloughs, loss of benefits, etc.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

So has there been any attempt or progress on getting the laws changed?

Yes to the first and basically no to the second. The police and fire lobbies are very powerful, and Act 205 is basically sucking money out of a few jurisdictions, like Pittsburgh, and spreading that out over a bunch of other jurisdictions. So there have been too many vested interests protecting the current mess.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

with debt or pension, you know you're gonna have to pay them so even if the ROI is lower, it's safer. the freed up city revenue can be ploughed back into tax cuts or BRT or whatever as the city can afford.

Taken to the extreme, though, this would mean you had no way of financing projects with long-term returns, which doesn't make much sense for any entity, including cities.

I think it is likely the case that under the current circumstances, it will make sense for the City to further reduce its pre-existing long-term liabilities. But I wouldn't be upset if they were also able to restructure some of their pre-existing liabilities and then put some additional funds into legitimate capital projects.

[Tirade]

Is there any truth to this story, or is it just more fearmongering from the local media?

The mayor's plan to lease the city's parking garages and meters to a private company has raised some concerns for some small businesses.

About a year ago, Carol Conroy moved her hair salon from her hometown of Knoxville to Brookline.

Parking for a dye job will cost you about $0.50 an hour.

But if Mayor Ravenstahl's plan to sell off the parking system to a private group takes a step forward, that $0.50 will become $1 then $2 an hour in Brookline.

[edited for brevity]

Right now, Lefkowitz will pay $1 an hour to park in a lot off Walnut Street, but come 2014, people like her and Elissa Ashwood would pay $3.

"Well, you know I have to already carry this whole roll of quarters in my bag just to be able to park, but if we're talking $3 an hour, you're going to have the reverse effect and not going to have anyone able to pay for parking," Ashwood said.

Some Small Businesses Concerned About Pittsburgh's Plan To Privatize Parking Garages, Meters - kdka.com (http://kdka.com/business/privatize.Pittsburgh.parking.2.1924421.html - broken link)

I admittedly haven't been following the parking debate, but I thought it was over garages and lots, and (naively) didn't realize that meters were affected as well.

Speaking as a Sq. Hill resident, this has me concerned, because it's going to make it even more difficult to rebuild our struggling business district. We already lost Barnes & Noble and Panera because more convenient locations (read: locations that have easier/free parking!) were sapping away business. Higher parking rates are just going to drive people away.

[grimacista]

Originally Posted by Tirade

Speaking as a Sq. Hill resident, this has me concerned, because it's going to make it even more difficult to rebuild our struggling business district. We already lost Barnes & Noble and Panera because more convenient locations (read: locations that have easier/free parking!) were sapping away business. Higher parking rates are just going to drive people away.

I don't mean to go off-topic but I don't think Panera and Barnes & Noble moving out of Squirrel Hill was a result of it being a struggling business district. Barnes & Noble is not in great financial shape and the Panera was one of the worst run stores on earth.

[BrianTH]

Meter rates will in fact go up. But keep in mind, no one has an interest in charging so much for parking that no one uses it. Rather, again the idea is to price it so that parking is more convenient and that it goes to people who value a little bit of convenience over saving a small amount of money.

Meanwhile, these areas simply can't provide the same acres and acres of free parking as other places where land is cheap (although no one is stopping a business from providing free parking if it thinks that makes sense). And that is just as true at $0.50/hour as at $2.00/hour--it can't be free because land is too scarce, and the rest is just about setting an optimal price.

[caroline2]

Originally Posted by Tirade

Speaking as a Sq. Hill resident, this has me concerned, because it's going to make it even more difficult to rebuild our struggling business district. We already lost Barnes & Noble and Panera because more convenient locations (read: locations that have easier/free parking!) were sapping away business. Higher parking rates are just going to drive people away.

Like BrianTH said, there's a tradeoff between people who camp out in a spot and people who want to actually patronize businesses. I am a non-Squill resident who used to go to that B&N all the time after work, but then gave up because I was so frustrated at the lack of convenient parking. Higher rates wouldn't have driven me away, but in fact might have freed up enough room to allow me to park and shop there! We are a lazy people , and I believe in most places there is still plenty of excess demand for curbside parking. I would happily pay $1 more/hour rather than have to park four long blocks up off of Murray. The only people who would object would be those who park there all day long, which is not who meters are supposed to serve anyway.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by caroline2

The only people who would object would be those who park there all day long, which is not who meters are supposed to serve anyway.

Yep. At rates like $0.50/hour, you can get employees and such street-parking, which isn't really what you want for the sake of local businesses.

Edit: Oh, and I might note the lease deal would require the operator to upgrade the street system to take credit cards. I know I for one will be happy not to have to deal with change, and again that sort of convenience could mean more to many people than a $1.50 difference.