I think your observations on the parking meter thing are very good. I'd go a step farther and say the city is making the mistake of ceding control over a critical aspect of our economic development and our neighborhood quality of life. Parking rates in certain overheated neighborhoods desperately needed to go up simply to make spaces available, but for many areas this will be a huge burden on economic development and also a trigger to crowd residential streets with vehicles that would otherwise be parked overnight or on weekends on the now 24-hour-metered arterials.
I'd also like your opinion on what the city (and public agencies in general) should do about getting more consistent value for money in these deals. It seems to me that the Skyway deal is bringing in a far better ratio of city capital to concessionaire income than the other pending deals, and indeed Cintra-Macquarie paid more than twice the city engineer's estimate on the deal while the other bidders were all close to the estimate. The other extreme would have to be the Indiana Toll Road which I feel was practically given away.
I was reading something Scott Bernstein (the other guest) gave me after the show. It is from Fitch, a bond rating agency. They are concerned about Chicago's financial future because of the sale of these assets mainly to address current budget problems. The Skyway deal is the best from the city's standpoint, and Fitch likes it. But they emphasize that it is often very difficult to calculate how these deals will really work out in the long run.
To respond to your question, in my view, the key is that it should be fully evaluated first by the mayor and his staff and then independently by the council. That would parallel the OMB and CBO budget assessments that are often very different. But that is what is needed, I believe.
However, it may be the case that the Chicago city council today has less staff capacity than in the past to evaluate these deals, independently of the mayor's office and their rosy predictions. Alderman Mell (as I recall) dismissed the significance of their having only 72 hours to consider the meter deal. It seems that the council does not think it has the capacity to be an independent voice on these major deals. I think that is a bit troubling.
2 comments:
I think your observations on the parking meter thing are very good. I'd go a step farther and say the city is making the mistake of ceding control over a critical aspect of our economic development and our neighborhood quality of life. Parking rates in certain overheated neighborhoods desperately needed to go up simply to make spaces available, but for many areas this will be a huge burden on economic development and also a trigger to crowd residential streets with vehicles that would otherwise be parked overnight or on weekends on the now 24-hour-metered arterials.
I'd also like your opinion on what the city (and public agencies in general) should do about getting more consistent value for money in these deals. It seems to me that the Skyway deal is bringing in a far better ratio of city capital to concessionaire income than the other pending deals, and indeed Cintra-Macquarie paid more than twice the city engineer's estimate on the deal while the other bidders were all close to the estimate. The other extreme would have to be the Indiana Toll Road which I feel was practically given away.
I was reading something Scott Bernstein (the other guest) gave me after the show. It is from Fitch, a bond rating agency. They are concerned about Chicago's financial future because of the sale of these assets mainly to address current budget problems. The Skyway deal is the best from the city's standpoint, and Fitch likes it. But they emphasize that it is often very difficult to calculate how these deals will really work out in the long run.
To respond to your question, in my view, the key is that it should be fully evaluated first by the mayor and his staff and then independently by the council. That would parallel the OMB and CBO budget assessments that are often very different. But that is what is needed, I believe.
However, it may be the case that the Chicago city council today has less staff capacity than in the past to evaluate these deals, independently of the mayor's office and their rosy predictions. Alderman Mell (as I recall) dismissed the significance of their having only 72 hours to consider the meter deal. It seems that the council does not think it has the capacity to be an independent voice on these major deals. I think that is a bit troubling.
Post a Comment