Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [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 09-27-2010, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Philly
10,223 posts, read 16,773,376 times
Reputation: 2972

Advertisements

that's twice today, satan just called and said it's cold...no, not the hockey player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post

Indeed, or how about reserving a street space 30 minutes in advance, as you are heading out the door? That would make the non-refundable part even less of an issue.
I'd think street spaces would be more difficult to reserve in advance since people largely take them as they see them. it's also street spacing where I think variable pricing is trickiest and should probably be predictable (more at peak hours, less off peak, etc). people using a garage would be more likley to check ahead but such a system would work best if all garages were listed at one site, probably a role for the city.

anyways, back to the sale, one last note, I'm interested in the garage sale price because I think the more the deal brings in, the more it makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2010, 01:20 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,942,390 times
Reputation: 2910
Remote-operated tire spikes should do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 06:27 PM
 
26 posts, read 40,224 times
Reputation: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Remote-operated tire spikes should do it.



haha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Philly
10,223 posts, read 16,773,376 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
City Councilman Patrick Dowd today introduced legislation to make law Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's $451.7 million deal to privatize 12 Downtown parking garages and 9,000 metered parking spaces.
"I want to be clear," said Dowd, chair of council's intergovernmental affairs committee, "this is not our legislation. This is the mayor's."
Pittsburgh council introduces legislation to privatize parking - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 01:29 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,942,390 times
Reputation: 2910
Here is the Controller's plan:

City controller proposes parking lease alternative

In a nutshell, the Parking Authority would borrow $150 million and buy some of the parking assets. The $150 million plus $60 million from the City (source not really specified) would go into the pension to get it to 50%. The Parking Authority would raise rates, but not as much as scheduled under the private lease, to pay for the $150 million in debt.

This is basically just a way of issuing new debt to put in the pension fund, and I don't as yet understand the advantage over just issuing a revenue bond. In any event, I'd prefer the debt-reduction, required operator investments, and market rates that would come from the private lease (many might disagree on the last, but the first two factors are pretty compelling on their own).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2010, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Philly
10,223 posts, read 16,773,376 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
have the city dip into reserves and make a $60 million payment into the pension fund by year's end. He said it could then skip a similar payment that would be due next year, and replenish the reserves...the city should sell its parking assets ..to the parking authority for $150 million and pump those proceeds into the pension fund...The authority would float a bond to pay for the city's parking facilities and repay that debt with parking rate increases averaging 3.5 percent annually for the first five years of authority ownership...He said that plan would satisfy mayoral critics who want to keep public assets in public hands ...
Others on council, though, warned that Mr. Lamb's plan was fraught with problems, such as whether the authority could borrow $150 million without raising rates far more than Mr. Lamb proposed, and whether the authority could front the money for the kinds of technological improvements that a private operator could make.
Read more: New plan: Authority buys lots, meters from city

I really don't understand the obsession with "public assets." It's not like they're selling or leasing park land. I think that there's some logic to this, especially considering they are viewing the "extra" money as a windfall. I think, perhaps, that selling the garages and keeping the meters might make some sense, rather than leasing all of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2010, 09:49 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,942,390 times
Reputation: 2910
But here's the thing: the revenues are still the revenues, with an estimated present value of around $450 million (according to the lease bid). In this scenario, $150 million goes to the pension. So what about the other $300 million?

With the lease plan, at least another $180 million of that $300 million would go to debt reduction and pension funding (and maybe more). But with the Comptroller's plan, all $300 million is just left to the City to spend. So if you don't like the $120 million windfall, you should like this $300 million windfall even less.

By the way, I kinda understand treating the street spaces (not the garages) as a public asset. But I also don't understand the problem with contracting with private firms to operate certain public assets (e.g., a cafe in a park).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2010, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Philly
10,223 posts, read 16,773,376 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
But here's the thing: the revenues are still the revenues, with an estimated present value of around $450 million (according to the lease bid). In this scenario, $150 million goes to the pension. So what about the other $300 million? 1
With the lease plan, at least another $180 million of that $300 million would go to debt reduction and pension funding (and maybe more). But with the Comptroller's plan, all $300 million is just left to the City to spend. So if you don't like the $120 million windfall, you should like this $300 million windfall even less. 2
By the way, I kinda understand treating the street spaces (not the garages) as a public asset. 3
But I also don't understand the problem with contracting with private firms to operate certain public assets (e.g., a cafe in a park).4.
1. I'd think it would remain with would be parkers.
2. I don't like it being treated as a windfall, it's not that I don't like it. it makes me skeptical of their intents with it. that money comes from parkers/businesses in the future, it should be used effectively.
3. yep, makes sense, but Mr. Lamb considers them ALL public assets that need to be preserved, don't see his logic there. it's not like it's leasing parkland for surface lots, development, etc....things I'd consider public assets that should definitley remain public
4. me neither, though I woudl be curious what it would look like if the garages were sold off, and the street spaces either run by the parking authority or mgmt thereof contracted out to a separate company.

just trying to come up with alternate ideas that would generate good revenue and address some parts of council's concerns.
Quote:
Council President Darlene Harris said she's not willing to consider a sale of the city's parking assets to the parking authority but would consider leasing them to the authority for the life of the bond. Mrs. Harris said she eventually would want meter revenue to return to the city.
Read more: New plan: Authority buys lots, meters from city
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2010, 10:30 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,942,390 times
Reputation: 2910
1. Maybe, maybe not: 50 years is a long time.

2. I thought your preferred use of the $120 million "windfall" was to pay down debt or other liabilities. Spending that $120 million plus $180 million more on parking subsidies isn't paying down debt. And again, we have no way of knowing if the City will consistently choose over the next 50 years to do that.

3. Agreed. I honestly think there is a lot of status quo bias going on here. If the City had $450 million in cash but didn't have the relevant property rights, I doubt anyone would be advocating that the City use that $450 million in cash to buy up those property rights. But because the City currently has the property rights but not the cash, suddenly people are talking about "public assets".

4. Agreed again. I see no good reason not to just sell the garages/lots with no strings attached, and I'd actually be fine with the parking authority running the meters, provided it would commit to running them with rates based on reasonable occupancy/turnover targets. But practically, I think it may be necessary to privatize operations in order to get that result.

Quote:
just trying to come up with alternate ideas that would generate good revenue and address some parts of council's concerns.
Not an unreasonable task, but in my view most of the opponents of the lease on the Council are either politically motivated, or they have concerns that I simply don't accept as valid (such as wanting to keep parking rates artificially low).

And I am quite serious about the point above--some of these proposals, including this one by the Comptroller, aren't actually doing anything to reduce the City's long-term liabilities, but rather they are just increasing debt to make the required pension payment. Any plan that doesn't result in a very significant total liability reduction is a non-starter in my view.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top