Chicago parking fiasco gets better...LOL

[waggy]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8649091

May 4, 2012 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- Mayor Rahm Emanuel has accused the company that leases Chicago's parking meters of failing to document a $14 million bill for parking spaces that the city took out of service.

Emanuel is not convinced that bills sent the city by the company Chicago Parking Meters LLC are either accurate or legal. And he says until they are proven so, the invoices will not be paid.

"Just because you send a bill, I'm not going to ask the taxpayers to pay it," he said. "There's a new day here. I don't know who they think they're dealing with.



LOL great job Chicago! I should mention this is in addition to the$11 million bill the company sent them for disabled parking (wich get to park free). So the company (this year) made $80 million and sent bills for another $24 million. GREAT! at this rate they will make the 1 billion they spent in 10 years..they have another what 65 years to collect profit.

good god this was a terrible fucked of deal that Chicago did. I hope other cities take notice and don't do anything like this and fuck over the taxpayers.

 

[Jhhnn]

Privatization... Ain't it grand!

 

[halik]

Privatization... Ain't it grand!

What's the alternative? Chicago hasn't been able to do shit on its own with the parking for decades. There wasn't the political will nor the capital to even get those electronic pay boxes up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

While profit estimates in the bond-offering documents were “fairly optimistic,” they were also “relatively in line with our projections when we valued the system’s current value of between $700 million and $1.1 billion,” Saffold said.
“The net present value of $11.6 billion in revenue over the life of the 75-year agreement is consistent with $1.15 billion the city received,” he said."

 

[waggy]

What's the alternative? Chicago hasn't been able to do shit on its own with the parking for decades.

they were making money with it.

this is the 1st year of it. it is a 75 year deal that cost the company 1 billion dollars.


While profit estimates in the bond-offering documents were “fairly optimistic,” they were also “relatively in line with our projections when we valued the system’s current value of between $700 million and $1.1 billion,” Saffold said.
“The net present value of $11.6 billion in revenue over the life of the 75-year agreement is consistent with $1.15 billion the city received,” he said.


sheesh again thats 10 billion the city of chicago needs

 

[Jhhnn]

thats 10 billion the city of chicago needs

Yeh, but they got 1 beelyon dollars up front, and now they're getting billed for money that the privatizer thinks they should be getting.

Such a Deal! Oh, Baby! Bend over, cuz Daddy's gonna drive you home!

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Privatization... Ain't it grand!

Because the incompetent individuals who brokered this contract at tax payer expense are not to blame right?

 

[monovillage]

Privatization... Ain't it grand!

Lol, corrupt Democrat politics 101.

When you fuck up so badly even the dumb shit assholes that vote Democrat get pissed, it's time to blame big business.

 

[CycloWizard]

Privatization... Ain't it grand!

Yes, because the only way to privatize something is to grant a monopoly backed by the force of government.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because the incompetent individuals who brokered this contract at tax payer expense are not to blame right?

It's a shame that Democrats sometimes act like Republicans, yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, because the only way to privatize something is to grant a monopoly backed by the force of government.

So, uhh, explain how parking meters on public streets could possibly be privatized otherwise. Have at it.

 

[Zebo]

All cities will go broke/declare bankruptcy and many already have. This is just precursor to that for Chicago.

 

[halik]

they were making money with it.

this is the 1st year of it. it is a 75 year deal that cost the company 1 billion dollars.


While profit estimates in the bond-offering documents were “fairly optimistic,” they were also “relatively in line with our projections when we valued the system’s current value of between $700 million and $1.1 billion,” Saffold said.
“The net present value of $11.6 billion in revenue over the life of the 75-year agreement is consistent with $1.15 billion the city received,” he said.


sheesh again thats 10 billion the city of chicago needs

You do understand that's 10 billion over 75 years or roughly 115M per year, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

You do understand that's 10 billion over 75 years or roughly 115M per year, right?

More like $155M/yr- not bad for a zero risk investment.

 

[waggy]

You do understand that's 10 billion over 75 years or roughly 115M per year, right?

i made a slight mistake. its not 75 years its 99. so figure 100-140million a year for 99 years?

i don't see the point of t he deal. it was a VERY bad one for the chicago. get 1 billion now but lose 90 years worth of revenue. oh yeah and the fact Daley got a job with the company that negotiated it..


While former Mayor Richard Daley was in office, Chicago was paid about $1.2 billion for a 99-year lease of the meters. Daley last year landed a job with the firm that helped negotiate the parking meter deal.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Parking-Meter-Chicago-150143885.html#ixzz1u2eWcq3w

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's a shame that Democrats sometimes act like Republicans, yes.

Its a shame how you're so politically partisan that you cannot see the failures caused by bloated and inept government.

 

[K1052]

Rahm is never going to pay.

 

[Craig234]

Its a shame how you're so politically partisan that you cannot see the failures caused by bloated and inept government.

Actually, nothing he said is 'partisan' - you're the ideologue here.

What this is, is corruption. It's political expediency - robbing from citizens to pay for the political benefit today of money for programs/balancing the budget.

Imagine a CEO could spend billions by taking them from future CEOs of the company?

So it's two things - a lack of regulation preventing this political corruption, and too much concentrated wealth running around in things like 'sovereign wealth funds' pushing and driving corrupt deals like this (a fund with billions to put into schemes can influence elections if needed to get people who will do them).

Two things that would help:

Stronger government regulation against corrupt privatization.

Which party is the champion of "privatize everything"? Oh ya, the Republicans.

Stronger government regulation of these sorts of massive wealth funds who push and buy these things.

Which party is the champion of concentrating wealth at the top and having no rule? Oh ya, the Republicans.

A third thing, how democracy is supposed to prevent this - an informed electorate.

Which party opposes education making the public easier to manipulate? Which party supports the consolidation of media owenrship in a few mega corporations killing the press?

Oh ya, the Republicans.

The corrupt situaion in this case led to the corrupt Democrats doing the wrong thing. It could be either party - we need to pass measures to prevent this corrupt crap.

It's happening in many places - states selling public property and leasing it back in schemes that raise a little money but cost the taxpayers after the current year.

I remember it happened under Schwarzeneggar here in California (not sure about Brown); it happens under both parties.

Politicians have four choices:

- huge deficits: politically a disaster
- slash programs: hurt the people and the economy, politically a disaster
- raise taxes: big barriers, politically bad
- corrupt but legal scheme: pretty attractive to them.

We need public education why these schemes are bad - which partly means supporting investigative journalism and difersying media ownership, so we get the news industry telling the public how bad this is instead of serving corporate profit interests before any obligation to the news and public except as consumers.

We need money out of our elections, forcing the schemes, killing democracy.

There's a lot more coming otherwise - leaving the public further stolen from.

By the way, which political faction is against this? Not Republicans, not the corporatist Democrats like Daley who passed it - the progressives are against it.

 

[glenn1]

Actually, nothing he said is 'partisan' - you're the ideologue here.

What this is, is corruption. It's political expediency - robbing from citizens to pay for the political benefit today of money for programs/balancing the budget.

Imagine a CEO could spend billions by taking them from future CEOs of the company?

So it's two things - a lack of regulation preventing this political corruption, and too much concentrated wealth running around in things like 'sovereign wealth funds' pushing and driving corrupt deals like this (a fund with billions to put into schemes can influence elections if needed to get people who will do them).

Two things that would help:

Stronger government regulation against corrupt privatization.

Which party is the champion of "privatize everything"? Oh ya, the Republicans.

Stronger government regulation of these sorts of massive wealth funds who push and buy these things.

Which party is the champion of concentrating wealth at the top and having no rule? Oh ya, the Republicans.

A third thing, how democracy is supposed to prevent this - an informed electorate.

Which party opposes education making the public easier to manipulate? Which party supports the consolidation of media owenrship in a few mega corporations killing the press?

Oh ya, the Republicans.

The corrupt situaion in this case led to the corrupt Democrats doing the wrong thing. It could be either party - we need to pass measures to prevent this corrupt crap.

It's happening in many places - states selling public property and leasing it back in schemes that raise a little money but cost the taxpayers after the current year.

I remember it happened under Schwarzeneggar here in California (not sure about Brown); it happens under both parties.

Politicians have four choices:

- huge deficits: politically a disaster
- slash programs: hurt the people and the economy, politically a disaster
- raise taxes: big barriers, politically bad
- corrupt but legal scheme: pretty attractive to them.

We need public education why these schemes are bad - which partly means supporting investigative journalism and difersying media ownership, so we get the news industry telling the public how bad this is instead of serving corporate profit interests before any obligation to the news and public except as consumers.

We need money out of our elections, forcing the schemes, killing democracy.

There's a lot more coming otherwise - leaving the public further stolen from.

By the way, which political faction is against this? Not Republicans, not the corporatist Democrats like Daley who passed it - the progressives are against it.

Shorter version - you can't expect us Democrats to ever cut spending since it "might hurt the poor" so expect us to pawn everything we have to get our next fix, and then bitch about it afterwards.

 

[Craig234]

i made a slight mistake. its not 75 years its 99. so figure 100-140million a year for 99 years?

i don't see the point of t he deal. it was a VERY bad one for the chicago. get 1 billion now but lose 90 years worth of revenue. oh yeah and the fact Daley got a job with the company that negotiated it..


While former Mayor Richard Daley was in office, Chicago was paid about $1.2 billion for a 99-year lease of the meters. Daley last year landed a job with the firm that helped negotiate the parking meter deal.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Parking-Meter-Chicago-150143885.html#ixzz1u2eWcq3w

There's an old saying, "there oughta be a law". Daley belongs in jail for this IMO, except we don't have the laws to put him there.

By the way - a small taste of Libertarian policy. Under Libertarians, some wealthy group like this one would own all the resources - parking spaces, water, etc. - pay up.

Only difference is they wouldn't have a 'government middleman', just the bad policy.

 

[monovillage]

Shorter version - you can't expect us Democrats to ever cut spending since it "might hurt the poor" so expect us to pawn everything we have to get our next fix, and then bitch about it afterwards.

You forgot to add "and it's all those evil Republicans fault!"

 

[BoberFett]

LMAO, Jhhnn and Craig, defending corrupt Democrats until the bitter end.

 

[glenn1]

By the way, which political faction is against this? Not Republicans, not the corporatist Democrats like Daley who passed it - the progressives are against it.

Yes, it's the fault of the evil Republicans, who comprise exactly one person on the 50-person city council. Rather convenient you have him to blame, else you might have to actually *gasp* think for a change rather than just reflexively blaming a fuckup that was exclusively Democratic on the other guys.

Hold on, maybe there's two Republicans if the election turned out for the person mentioned in this story won his alderman seat:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/28/gop-may-increase-numbers-in-city-council/

 

[CycloWizard]

So, uhh, explain how parking meters on public streets could possibly be privatized otherwise. Have at it.

I'm not in the business of selling parking so I have no idea. I do know that the best way to ensure the crap that's going on in Chicago now perpetuates is to give a monopoly to one company backed by the force of law. That might even be worse than having the government run things on its own.

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8649091

May 4, 2012 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- Mayor Rahm Emanuel has accused the company that leases Chicago's parking meters of failing to document a $14 million bill for parking spaces that the city took out of service.

Emanuel is not convinced that bills sent the city by the company Chicago Parking Meters LLC are either accurate or legal. And he says until they are proven so, the invoices will not be paid.

"Just because you send a bill, I'm not going to ask the taxpayers to pay it," he said. "There's a new day here. I don't know who they think they're dealing with.



LOL great job Chicago! I should mention this is in addition to the$11 million bill the company sent them for disabled parking (wich get to park free). So the company (this year) made $80 million and sent bills for another $24 million. GREAT! at this rate they will make the 1 billion they spent in 10 years..they have another what 65 years to collect profit.

good god this was a terrible fucked of deal that Chicago did. I hope other cities take notice and don't do anything like this and fuck over the taxpayers.

Sounds like the uncle who offered the nephew birthday present of a fifty dollar bill now or ten dollars a week for the year and the nephew took the fifty. Bad investment strategy by the city.

 

[Jhhnn]

LMAO, Jhhnn and Craig, defending corrupt Democrats until the bitter end.

Nice bit of false attribution. I haven't defended Daley or the proposition of privatization in the slightest.

Is there some internal mental gymnastics going on in your head, where no matter what is said it gets translated into what you want to believe?

Some sort of cognitive bias, perhaps?