If the public is so opposed to privatizing the parking meters why don't they just go through the public interest group that already represents them...the government.

@shoelace414: The meters aren't supposed to make money - they're supposed to make parking downtown more efficient by limiting how long you can use a spot - so that more people can conduct business downtown. Just because some cities use them as a way to increase revenue doesn't mean that's what they're for. IIRC, merchants were super-pissed about the Chicago meter rate increases because it decreased traffic to their businesses.

I have to agree with the angle that says the Police should not have to enforce tickets issued by a private company nor can the DMV suspend licenses for failure to pay tickets issued at private meters.

On the surface, the private company's tickets are worthless and can't be enforced. Are they going to staff their own "police force" (which would have no legal power) to track down people?

Sounds like the deal will be void shortly.

Chicago. You could be nuked and I won't even miss you.

Welcome to Chicago.

There are just so many things that Daley has done that have pissed people off over the years, but the parking meter sale is the item that gets the most outrage. The city auditor said the city got a billion less than the meters were worth. The meters didn't work, they don't print out receipts, we are supposed to tape them to our windshields if we ride a motorcycle, but there is no way to do that. They sold off the Skyway, and blew through all that money already. They tried to sell off Midway airport, but the sale fell through because of the lack of available financing. The sales taxes have been raised to over 10%. The property taxes have been continually raised, meanwhile services still suck. They didn't salt streets last winter just to save a few bucks. The red light cameras are being used to rack up millions in fines. The city nickels and dimes the people on everything, meanwhile all the connected people and family members in the city and county government are racking up huge paydays and pensions by getting government contracts and jobs.

@Sudonum:
The speeding tickets they're issuing here are $150. I might take your suggestion and try it, but I'll probably never get one. I drive like Miss Daisy is in the backseat.

I don't see this story as a privatization versus government-run institution issue. The focus should be on Daley, and why he sold an asset of the city. Why is the city in a position where this needs to happen?

My wife got one from a speed camera for 41 in a 35, (they give you 5 MPH at anything posted 45 MPH or less and 10 MPH at anything posted above 45) she paid it. It was only something like $25. For that kind of money I'd go ahead and pay it rather than go through all the hassle described above.

The high price of low taxes is that we end up getting nickel'ed and dimed to death in a manner that is arguably less consistent and more ripe for abuse than simply assessing taxes at the end of the year.

Either that, or he has a super-secret plan to live forever.

That's the same problem with having privatized healthcare. Can't vote out scummy insurance companies, but you can vote out politicians. Socialized medicine!

We purposely took the train into Chicago last time we were in town to avoid this parking mess. Not driving a vehicle into town meant we didn't spend near the money we would have. Without a car we are not going to buy anything we can not easily carry for blocks upon blocks of walking. I wonder if anyone is monitoring how this parking fiasco is impacting sales in the city.

Check your local laws. Most of them will (painstakingly) describe what a legal sign looks like. Last time I found mine it would easily print out to a dozen or more pages. If it isn't part of those laws, it is likely not a legal sign.

There's an sign I love pointing out isn't legally enforceable on a road near me--the "60" in the speed section is stretched vertically, which makes the proportions incorrect according to the schedules.

I think the fines would still go to the city, so that's probably actually profitable.

Because you can re-elect the mayor, but you can't elect the CEO (unless you're on the board/a shareholder).

Does he think he'll be mayor for the next 75 years? That's the length of the lease.

One city (swindon, iirc) is actually saying it'll REMOVE cameras to make things safer. This is in a country (my homeland) that loves cameras. There are average speed cameras on the motorways (and have been for 10 years) and a substantial percentage of police cars can drive through a crowded parking lot at 30-40mph, and check every car it passes against a bunch of different databases - tax (tag), insurance, registered keeper, any markers, lost/stolen, MOT (roadworthyness test). Some of the councils in london have clamping units with the cameras too, and drive around to spot someone with overdue parking notices, and clamp/seize them.

Cameras never prevented anything. They only might help in apportioning blame later on.

Now a public interest group is suing the city, claiming that Daley didn't have the right...

Heh. How quaintly naive.

Almost as if Daley was a small-town mayor in Ohio..

What they don't think about is the fact that if a business can make money off of it, maybe the government could figure out how to do the same.

Now since so many people bring up "wow, and we want the government to run health care!" when stupid government posts are made, I'm going to say this: wow, and we want private corporations to run the Postal Service. See, it goes both ways.

On a slightly related note, Virginia is currently having a private company build high-occupancy tolls lanes on the Beltway. Basically, if you're in a single-passenger car, you pay a toll. If you're in a carpool, you don't. Oh, and if more than 24% of the cars are carpools, Virginia is required to pay the company to make up for lost revenue.

Yup, privatization. It's good.

@kepler11:

I never understood the desire of some in government to outsource the implementation and enforcement of some public safety initiative.

In Maryland, the state legislature is slowwwwly rolling out planse for speeding cameras to be added to "work-zones" and "school-zones", under the guise of public safety. What part of 495/295/I95/270 is NOT a work-zone? The legislature has contracted out for a third party to install, maintain, and bill drivers for their tickets.

Instead of using the DPW in concert with the various PDs to procure and maintain this technology, the state will allow some company to take millions off the top before the state gets their revenue from it. It's crazy.

@shoelace414: People "grin and bear it" when a private company raises rates. If the city did the same the citizens would revolt.

@Eviltechie: No, they just needed to raise the rates on the meters (unless you consider that akin to raising taxes). Taxes don't really have anything to do with it.

Chicagoans pay some of the highest sales and related taxes in the country (related being taxes on rental movies, beer and wine, ciggie's, take out food, etc.)

I'm sure that a high-priced lawyer could make a case against it, but that is far more expensive than the $50 ticket.

And for the record, I didn't intentionally run the red light. An oversized truck changed lanes in front of me right before the light and I didn't have enough time to change lanes or back off far enough to where I could see the lights prior to passing under them. Technically, still my fault...but still.

@bornonbord: What you say is true: As much I'd love the Olympics in Chicago, I don't think it will only hurt the city. We'll spend far more than we take in and there will be little to show for it when its done. The plan calls for few infrastructure improvements (they're going to use extra busses to somehow manage rush hour and an olympics crowd). Most of the contractors and developers are Daley cronies. I'm sure they won't go over budget. I'd actually like to see us win the Olympics, but then vote Daley out.

BOT- I hope they win this suit. The economics make no sense. Yes, I know saying the economics are bad is not a viable claim in a case.

That being said, doesn't seem like the gov't or the company knew what they were getting into. I can see this escalating to the point where police are told they can't issue tickets and the meter company starts to tow cars where meters aren't being fed. Could get ugly

More money and public good could be gotten out of whatever infrastructure is being sold off, by bringing in talented people to run it properly on the government's dime. But perhaps that is an oxymoron -- talented people in government.

If a private company is so willing to pay that much for a utility, is it not obvious that there is a public benefit in not selling it off? How can the govt. just pass up all that excess benefit to private hands (the difference between what the private entity values it at and the price the govt accepted)? Name me one venture like this that has come out in favor of the taxpayer?

@Cant_stop_the_rock:
It's my understanding that a lot of the red-light and speeding cameras that have been put up in my town are by a private company. My attorney has told me only to pay the ticket if it's actually from the city.

I haven't received such a ticket yet, but I don't know if I'd risk not paying it. Do the crime, pay the fine.

But I'm interested to know if that's really true - that you don't have to pay fines that come from anyone other than the municipality.

IF Chicago loses the Olympics, I could very well see Daley finally going down.

I know there are people who are against the olympics and how the tax payers are going to have to foot the bill, but in the end it's rich business owners who will win with the Olympics. And they are the ones with the clout to change the power.

You know I thought about that the other day when I made a U-turn in front of a no U-turn sign. It was on a public road through a neighborhood, but it wasn't the standard DOT no U-turn sign. I figured the HOA put it up, and that it wasn't enforceable.

This is what has always bugged me about that deal - he sacrificed long term income for some fast money. It's easy to do that when you're not going to be mayor anymore when the impact of that decision is felt.