PGH Council's study implies parking lease price is fair (rental, mortgage)

[BrianTH]

I like the new Burgess plan: all the spare money from the lease goes into the pension, and then they voluntarily turn the fund over to the state. It seems to me like that is a solid plan from pretty much every perspective.

[pman]

[LEFT]"This proposal is dead. We need to get his dead alternative off the table," Mr. Dowd said of the mayor's plan.
Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak agreed.
"The plan is dead. I'm not voting for it. Most of my colleagues are not voting for it. It's time to get it off the table," she said.
Their comments came after they joined Council President Darlene Harris in introducing legislation today to sell all of the city's parking assets -- one parking garage, five street lots and about 7,000 meters -- to the parking authority for $220 million in a move to generate revenue for the city pension fund without leasing garages and meters to the public sector.

Read more: Pittsburgh parking lease plan 'dead,' council members say[/LEFT]

the lamb alternative is a good name for this timid piece of legislation

[BrianTH]

It is possible this is just bluster, but unfortunately it is all too plausible that Council will choose the path that maximizes their own power and minimizes controversial change, regardless of what is best for the City in the long run.

[pman]

Mr. Allen said he'd view the change as a partnership with the city, one that would reduce the role of the city pension boards but that would come with certain benefits, such as nonpartisan bidding requirements for bond work

Read more: Official details state takeover of city pensions

Council voted against four bills that would have authorized a 50-year lease of city and parking authority facilities to private investors for nearly $452 million.
A second, final vote on the bills is scheduled for Tuesday. While a change of mind is possible, council members left little doubt about how they -- and their constituents -- feel about the mayor's plan.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10287/1095054-53.stm

[tranceFusion]

I realize the council members said they didn't like it, but what exactly was it they didn't like?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

I realize the council members said they didn't like it, but what exactly was it they didn't like?

Basically they are saying parking rates would go up way too much, and that the City shouldn't be giving up control of public assets (a rather circular argument, but it pushes the right buttons).

Oh, and JP Morgan is the Devil, and the Mayor is his minion.

[trotter_rej]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Oh, and JP Morgan is the Devil, and the Mayor is his minion.

To be fair, both sides of the Council vs. Mayor p***ing contest often show the same disregard for what is best for the city when considering each others' plans. The originator of the plan is more important to them than its content.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by trotter_rej

To be fair, both sides of the Council vs. Mayor p***ing contest often show the same disregard for what is best for the city when considering each others' plans. The originator of the plan is more important to them than its content.

That is certainly true. Personally, I have no dog in that fight--I just happen to think this particular idea is a good one, and (perhaps surprisingly) it has apparently been well-executed. It is always a shame when crass politics kills something like that.

[tranceFusion]

I am still not so sure it would have been great to hand over the parking to a single company, forming a city-wide monopoly on parking. Despite other benefits it may have had, it also would have annoyed me to be to hand over a profit to park somewhere that I have already paid to pave.

If the parking "market" was grown as a private enterprise, without having to compete against subsidized garages and meters, we probably would have had more places to park and more competition among investors to keep prices reasonable... but that wouldn't be the case here, where the government-created mess is just turned over to a private company. This might be the rare occasion where I think political motivation (to maintain reasonable parking prices) is better than the alternative, which is no motivation at all.

Also, it's not like this was even permanently fixing the pension problem. A few years out, we would be back in the same spot, yet with the higher parking rates.

[pman]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

Also, it's not like this was even permanently fixing the pension problem. A few years out, we would be back in the same spot, yet with the higher parking rates.

that's not necessarily true. it would have gotten funding up to 60%. I particularly like the burgess plan which would have pumped the fund up to 60% and still turned it over to the state, thus ensuring it wil be eventually funded. I think the current option being considered is anything but the best option, basically doing little, issuing more debt, and leaving the city on the hook to increase rates and get caught holding the bag. my own alternative would be to sell the garages, not lease them, put 100% of the proceeds into the pension fund, turn it over to the state, and either a) increase meter rates appropriately or 2) lease them to a different company than the one that bought the garages. the lamb plan kind of takes the worst of things, does very little to improve the situation. it seems idiotic to have voted the mayor's plan down BEFORE the city got the payment schedule from the state. at this point, it may yet be the best option to let the state take over, then figure out ways to pay the piper down the line. the garage is a public asset holds no water with me. peopel buy and sell assets all the time, their job isn't to preserve public assets but to make the best decision for taxpayers in this case. I see no reason why assets like garages should be treated like parks.