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.
remember dan the tax man said the drink tax would solve all of pat bus's woes, well lets see if mayor luke's parking lease will solve the pension problem. ill come back to this thread a year from now and see that the city need more money for pensions and pat bus needs more money for whatever. and dan and luke can raise some more taxes and sell some more parking lots or whatever they got left
The immediate purpose of the parking lease is to generate enough money to pay down a little over $100 million in debt, and put a little over $200 million in the pension fund, which will be (barely) sufficient to prevent a state takeover of the pension this year. The claimed benefit is a large and immediate improvement in the City's cash flow, and also a substantial reduction in the City's long-term liabilities.
And it looks like the pension lease would accomplish that. This, however, does not fit with your preferred political narratives. So what should you do?
In a word: lie! Claim the purpose of the lease is to permanently fix all the pension issues, which in truth would actually require not just a lot more money, but also reform of the various state laws which together have helped create this problem and prevent permanent solutions.
That way, when the pension lease alone doesn't accomplish all that, you can claim it failed! And who cares if it is all a big lie?
That was a pretty silly column--to be blunt, there is no particular reason to believe that Mr. Berger knows what he is talking about.
There was a brief discussion about selling the assets, which I would have been fine with at least in the case of the garages, but the lease lets them set a lot more conditions and reserve a lot more control in the future, which the City preferred.
the question is, what cost did that control come with? would an absolute sale of the garages brought more? it would seem the city will always control parking rates somehow, given there's a 40% tax and the ability to approve/disapprove new parking. I think the column brings up some interesting questions, it's not silly, but it doesn't introduce enough additional information. it still remains, the city has some tough choices to make. and can we really expect the parking authority to introduce new payment kiosks and step up enforcement if they were to retain control of metered spaces?
as a side note, lancaster city installed parking kiosks that allow you to refill the time from any kiosk in its downtown, rather than having to return to the original meter. "meter maids" also receive alerts of expiring meters on computers instead of using labor intensive sweeps. it's seems like a nice balance between ease of use for the customer and enforcement.
the question is, what cost did that control come with? would an absolute sale of the garages brought more?
Probably you could get more with a sale, but the City also made some covenants regarding new garages and such, so you would have to determine whether or not you would also include those covenants. Personally, with respect to the garages, I would have liked to see a flat sale, no strings attached on either side, and see what the City could have gotten.
The meters are more complex, since you are talking about a more exclusive right, and I think there is a decent reason to believe that the City isn't going to get full value for this right after 25-30 years or so. Plus, with meters the City at least arguably has more of an interest in regulating the franchise, sort of like with a utility, including not just with respect to rates but also things like mandatory investments in technology.
So if it was up to me, I would have just sold the garages, no strings attached either way, and leased the meters for like 30 years. Knowing what we know now, I think that would probably have resulted in enough money.
Quote:
it would seem the city will always control parking rates somehow, given there's a 40% tax and the ability to approve/disapprove new parking.
I think you are right. Personally, I also don't care, since I would be happy to see parking market-priced anyway. But as noted above, I think a case can be made for being able to do things like require certain investments in the street meters specifically.
Quote:
I think the column brings up some interesting questions, it's not silly, but it doesn't introduce enough additional information.
It was really just the part extensively talking about what this one random guy thinks that struck me as silly. I hate columns like that.
Quote:
it still remains, the city has some tough choices to make. and can we really expect the parking authority to introduce new payment kiosks and step up enforcement if they were to retain control of metered spaces?
I am absolutely sure we will get a more rational parking system with a lot more investment in technology and other upgrades if we do this deal. I know some parkers and local businesses are freaked by the rate increases, but a private operators has no incentive to completely kill off business, and in fact they have an incentive to use some of those increased revenues to invest in making parking more convenient (some of which they will be required to do anyway).
The column really didn't consider any of this, and so in my view didn't help advance the discussion.
Quote:
as a side note, lancaster city installed parking kiosks that allow you to refill the time from any kiosk in its downtown, rather than having to return to the original meter. "meter maids" also receive alerts of expiring meters on computers instead of using labor intensive sweeps. it's seems like a nice balance between ease of use for the customer and enforcement.
That's a good idea. I know they have also designed the lease to eventually accomodate the idea of using your cellphone to buy time.
I'd imagine any private operator would be quick to eliminate the cost intensive meter system even without the specific agreement with the city requiring it. I'm guess that's especially the case with JP Morgan who probably already has back office infrastructure in place to handle this type of thing. If the city wants to really improve things, require an open system where the cards also work on PAT buses. I generally agree that some kind of market pricing for on street parking makes sense (though I'm not sure going as far as SF has is a good idea, since it seems complicated). A couple years ago Philadelphia raised it's parking rates substantially on street. there was a lot of complaining BUT the fact is on street parking is much easier to find since it no longer pays for, say, a starbucks employee to feed the meter all day. that's not good for the city or the businesses. on the flip side, they found that the increases did hurt the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown and were forced to take back some of the increase (of course, that responsiveness is important).
(on the downside, most of the extra revenue disappeared into the massive patronage machine).
I'd imagine any private operator would be quick to eliminate the cost intensive meter system even without the specific agreement with the city requiring it. I'm guess that's especially the case with JP Morgan who probably already has back office infrastructure in place to handle this type of thing. If the city wants to really improve things, require an open system where the cards also work on PAT buses.
You may be right about credit card payment, but I'd note that increasing the functionality of PAT's cards may or may not be in the interests of the parking operator. So I agree that's the sort of thing where, at least arguably, the City could play a productive role. Same with requiring bike racks, another part of the lease deal.
Quote:
I generally agree that some kind of market pricing for on street parking makes sense (though I'm not sure going as far as SF has is a good idea, since it seems complicated).
If rolling the technology out full-scale isn't too costly, I think a complex scheme can work. Of course these days most people don't know what their parking will cost in advance anyway, so people would have to get used to the idea of checking the price. But that is what they do with most goods--check the price at the time of potential purchase.
Quote:
A couple years ago Philadelphia raised it's parking rates substantially on street. there was a lot of complaining BUT the fact is on street parking is much easier to find since it no longer pays for, say, a starbucks employee to feed the meter all day. that's not good for the city or the businesses. on the flip side, they found that the increases did hurt the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown and were forced to take back some of the increase (of course, that responsiveness is important).
I think your conclusion is correct, and I think it is important to note a private parking operator doesn't have an interest in killing off neighborhoods either, so there is no reason to assume a system incorporating a private operator is going to be unable or unwilling to adjust rates to ensure a good balance between usage and convenience.
Again? Jeez. You two are REALLY into the parking story.
It is easy enough to avoid these conversations if you don't want to participate--this thread's title is not exactly hiding the ball.
It is also a huge deal--hundreds of millions worth of assets involved, a very significant amount of city land involved, all sorts of public policy implications . . . and it is all coming to a head right now. I'm fine if other people don't care, but I also don't think there is any reason to apologize for thinking it is important enough to discuss at length.
You may be right about credit card payment, but note that increasing the functionality of PAT's cards may or may not be in the interests of the parking operator. So that's the sort of thing where, at least arguably, the City could play a productive role.
that's what I was trying to say, sorry if I wasn't clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
If rolling the technology out full-scale isn't too costly, I think a complex scheme can work. Of course these days most people don't know what their parking will cost in advance anyway, so people would have to get used to the idea of checking the price. But that is what they do with most goods.
people wouldn't be too happy if a cup of coffee cost $1 on Monday, $3 Wed, and $2.50 friday..& the next week it cost $3 Monday, $2.5 Wed, and $1 Friday. consumers don't mind checking prices but they also appreciate simplicity (see southwest). If market pricing isn't fluid, then it could work...otherwise I'd wager it wouldn't work. I don't see a private company going with fluid pricing. OTOH, if you could go online and reserve a space in a garage 3 days in advance for, say, 40% less, would you do it? what if it were non-refundable?
that's what I was trying to say, sorry if I wasn't clear.
I thought you were--so call that me agreeing with you and elaborating a bit.
Quote:
people wouldn't be too happy if a cup of coffee cost $1 on Monday, $3 Wed, and $2.50 friday..& the next week it cost $3 Monday, $2.5 Wed, and $1 Friday. consumers don't mind checking prices but they also appreciate simplicity (see southwest). If market pricing isn't fluid, then it could work...otherwise I'd wager it wouldn't work.
I understand your point about too much unintuitive variations, but on the other hand, people don't know exactly what a DVD is going to cost before checking the price on Amazon. That sort of on-demand pricing information goes together with a cashless system that can be priced and even paid for remotely. And I think ideally, things would mostly settle into certain predictable patterns. A certain amount of daily variation should be expected, but maybe less variation between equivalent times on weekdays. Special events might be an exception. And you could try to smooth out variability somewhat in whatever system you install.
In the end, the goal for neither the City nor the operator would be to excessively annoy commuters, because that would hamper underlying demand. But I do think potential parkers could get used to the idea of checking prices in advance, particularly if that was tied into a system where they could identify open spots, and maybe even reserve and pay for them in advance. Speaking of which . . .
Quote:
OTOH, if you could go online and reserve a space in a garage 3 days in advance for, say, 40% less, would you do it? what if it were non-refundable?
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.
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.
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.
