Privatizing city of cincinnati parking (Washington, Cambridge: 2015, how much, buying)

[natininja]

Data shows there are cities getting smarter about parking. San Francisco has a new parking program which most definitely has brought prices down at times and places, as well as up in other times and places. But I guess you only want to look at data that supports your biases.

I won't get into the city's enormously successful public-private development partnerships in this thread. Nor the fact that the primary budget problems the city faces are structurally innate fossils from the past, common in cities across the country, and not the product of policy decisions made by current or recent government officials.

[natininja]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

I would go on a limb and say that natininja is being sarcastic towards those who usually slam city management as being inept at everything, all the while lauding the private sector's efficiency in all things. Just a guess.

Me, sarcastic? I would never.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by cincylifer

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?

I think it's a bad idea but for a different reason than you reference.

My understanding is the city is under the temptation to sell the claim on the future parking revenue stream for an up-front cash payment now to primarily be used to plug a hole in the Cincinnati public employees pension. Sadly, this is a temporary fix. Ergo, Cincinnati leadership is considering giving away a revenue stream for a one-time cash payment that won't permanently solve the pension fund problems only to see the entitlement issue rear its head again in the future as growth in pension entitlements outpaces tax revenue. Problem is the next time around the city will be lacking the parking revenue to not only fund the pension but other city operations as well.

Until the city gets the runaway growth in pension costs under control they should not be looking to sell city assets to plug any existing gaps.

[CinciFan]

Just to clarify Zen_Master, the city will be getting a $92 million lump sum up front, and $3 million annually which will increase over time.

I read the plan, and here's my understanding:

1. A maximum of $.25 per hour increase every three years, and the rates are capped. So over the course of the 30 year lease, people could be paying $2.50 more.

2. The company has no power to increase rates, install meters in new locations, remove meters, or change hours of operation. The city has to approve all of these things.

3. There are only 7 city owned parking garages/surface lots downtown. So if people choose to, they can park in the numerous other garages and lots not covered by this deal.

4. Sundays and holidays remain free


The only thing that has me a little concered is the complaints about the company.

[ohioaninsc]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

I think it's a bad idea but for a different reason than you reference.

My understanding is the city is under the temptation to sell the claim on the future parking revenue stream for an up-front cash payment now to primarily be used to plug a hole in the Cincinnati public employees pension. Sadly, this is a temporary fix. Ergo, Cincinnati leadership is considering giving away a revenue stream for a one-time cash payment that won't permanently solve the pension fund problems only to see the entitlement issue rear its head again in the future as growth in pension entitlements outpaces tax revenue. Problem is the next time around the city will be lacking the parking revenue to not only fund the pension but other city operations as well.

Until the city gets the runaway growth in pension costs under control they should not be looking to sell city assets to plug any existing gaps.

This is the reason I'm against it...not because it may cost me a little more to park...and that fact that this company has had so many complaints against them...couldn't they have found a more ethical company to work with? Why not bid it out to several companies to compete against each other instead of giving one company a monopoly.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

This is the reason I'm against it...not because it may cost me a little more to park...and that fact that this company has had so many complaints against them...couldn't they have found a more ethical company to work with? Why not bid it out to several companies to compete against each other instead of giving one company a monopoly.

Hi ohioaninsc--

It's the way the likes of Mark Mallory and Roxanne Qualls work - ram something through as quickly as possible so there's no debate or discussion. Find out what they signed after they've signed it. Probably because most of the $92 million lump sum payment will wind up funding the streetcar.

Sell one asset to pay for another.

[CuriouserGeorge]

And what would happen if the company goes bankrupt or revenues don't cover the expense of maintaining the operation?

I think the comment made earlier about this being seen as an easy fix to pay for pensions is the most correct. As stated, that problem will not go away and future city governments will have to devise some other way of addressing it.

At this point, I would not be inclined to give the operation to a private company as I don't think it's motive will be to give the city the best deal. It's motive will be to give itself the best deal.

Originally Posted by CinciFan

Just to clarify Zen_Master, the city will be getting a $92 million lump sum up front, and $3 million annually which will increase over time.

I read the plan, and here's my understanding:

1. A maximum of $.25 per hour increase every three years, and the rates are capped. So over the course of the 30 year lease, people could be paying $2.50 more.

2. The company has no power to increase rates, install meters in new locations, remove meters, or change hours of operation. The city has to approve all of these things.

3. There are only 7 city owned parking garages/surface lots downtown. So if people choose to, they can park in the numerous other garages and lots not covered by this deal.

4. Sundays and holidays remain free


The only thing that has me a little concered is the complaints about the company.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

Hi ohioaninsc--

It's the way the likes of Mark Mallory and Roxanne Qualls work - ram something through as quickly as possible so there's no debate or discussion. Find out what they signed after they've signed it. Probably because most of the $92 million lump sum payment will wind up funding the streetcar.

Sell one asset to pay for another.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[WILWRadio]

I'll take a bus and then walk when I need to go downtown. Don't be surprised if a rise in ridership on city buses heading into downtown is a result of higher parking fees at downtown meters.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

I'll take a bus and then walk when I need to go downtown. Don't be surprised if a rise in ridership on city buses heading into downtown is a result of higher parking fees at downtown meters.

The city already stated if the kept control of the meters and lots they would raise rates, so either way rates will go up. At least this way the rate increases are capped and stated in the agreement. I usually take the bus downtown anyway, or walk.

The potential lease will affect the entire city, not just downtown.