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.
Bluedog: Just to clarify, the city has sent our an RFP to privatize the parking meters, so that is already in the works. And yes, all NYC wants to do is write a check to the management company for managing the parking facilities. Part of the goal of both of these initiatives is major staffing reductions for NYCHA and NYC...they are not only outsourcing the work, they free themselves from all the expense, bureacracy, labor, lifetime benefits of employees, departments, office space, and ancillary expenses to run these operations so the savings are substantial in the short and long term.
I wasn't born yesterday so I completely understand the POTENTIAL financial and logistical benefits of privatizing city owned and operated facilities but that was not my point and doesn't address the issue.
My question is,why are we going to pay them for giving them control of city land and facilities that they will make money on ? Since the plan is obviously to eliminate the headaches and labor expenses why not just fire all the employees and lease the facilities to them? Why not fire all the employees and sell the land as another poster recommended ? Why not just fire all the employees and give the land away ? At least then,the city could still collect taxes on the land they give away.
Under two of the above scenarios the city would actually make money.Under the third scenario at least it would still off load all the employee expenses and get rid of even owning the facilities but at least the city wouldn't be PAYING THEM after giving them the revenue stream.
Hospitals and other private developments do not pay parking companies to manage their garages or lots and give them the revenue stream as well.They lease their facilities to parking companies and collect rent.
Paying to hand someone a probable revenue stream is completely absurd.
Let me clarify what the RFP says, because you are making a different assumption. For the NYCHA parking lots, NYCHA is not giving up its revenue stream, it is simply paying a management fee for an outside party to manage the facilities, including billing, new accounts, collections, etc. NYCHA will still receive all of the revenue, however they will be paying a flat management fee to the company, with an additional revenue sharing portion for whatever new accounts (revenue growth) the management company creates.
For the parking meters in NYC, I believe NYC IS giving up the revenue stream in exchange for a lump sum payment, however I have not seen that RFP yet so I need to confirm. From what I heard it will be like the Chicago parking meter agreement in theory, but details will be different. I will provide more info when I get it.
Let me clarify what the RFP says, because you are making a different assumption. For the NYCHA parking lots, NYCHA is not giving up its revenue stream, it is simply paying a management fee for an outside party to manage the facilities, including billing, new accounts, collections, etc. NYCHA will still receive all of the revenue, however they will be paying a flat management fee to the company, with an additional revenue sharing portion for whatever new accounts (revenue growth) the management company creates.
For the parking meters in NYC, I believe NYC IS giving up the revenue stream in exchange for a lump sum payment, however I have not seen that RFP yet so I need to confirm. From what I heard it will be like the Chicago parking meter agreement in theory, but details will be different. I will provide more info when I get it.
LOL.And we just hope that the city's share of the revenue stream is bigger than what it pays the management company ? Still seems backwards to me.If they are going to offload it they should offload it and sell or collect rent.Why is it the management company that gets a guaranteed payment from the city no matter what instead of the city getting a guaranteed payment ? The scheme sounds like an uncontrollable nightmare.
Thanks for the clarification but it still sounds like a needless giveaway to me.
The only thing worse than a government run enterprise is a hybrid quasi private enterprise where the government assumes all the risk with no guaranteed rewards.This will be a sweet deal for Kinney or one of those parking conglomerates.
Bluedog it's pretty standard...managing companies do just that...they manage typically for a flat fee, whether it is an apt building, parking facility, retail center, etc. It is not a new untested strategy..it is fairly straightforward and common practice, so take a breath and relax. It is not a scheme or an "uncontrollable nightmare"...seriously..chill.
It is never the case that a company enters into an agreement with a management company to lose money..there are protections on BOTH sides for that. The management company typically bears most of the risk, not the owner.
Neil you are right..I thought these were housing projects because they look exactly like housing projects, but they are in fact co-ops. This is very similar to the Rosedale Gardens Coops by White Plains Rd along the Bruckner (East side of the highway)..it looks just like housing projects but they are in fact co-ops.
They were originally going to be NYCHA. Thats why they look like that. Check out the C of O for one of the buildings:
Same thing with Franklin Plaza in East Harlem. They were originally going to be Benjamin Franklin Houses but changed to Mitchell Lama. Check out the C of O for one of those buildings:
Last edited by SeventhFloor; 06-29-2012 at 03:17 PM..
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.