4 ms·

But the city also has to guarantee the company lost revenue if the city removes meters. So any efforts to redesign streets with less cars and parking can't proc

But the city also has to guarantee the company lost revenue if the city removes meters. So any efforts to redesign streets with less cars and parking can't proceed.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mortenjorck 3y ago
It is, in a word, awful. A perfect example of this is on Chicago Avenue, where the city added dedicated bus lanes… except they aren’t really, because even though you can’t drive in them unless you’re a bus, you can still park in them. Absolute Kafkaesque urban planning.
- idbehold 3y ago
  I'm sure there's something in the contract to prevent this, but couldn't they keep the meters and then post a "No Parking" or "Bus Parking Only" or even "Parking from 11:59PM-12:00AM"?
  - matthewowen 3y ago
    Keep the parking, but make the entire street bus only. Good luck getting to that parking spot!
    - User23 3y ago
      Or put cowcatchers on the busses and drive right on through the bus lane. Sure you can legally park there, and you can get your car legally demolished in a bus collision.
    - dh2022 3y ago
      The city would then have to pay out of their pocket for the revenue miss due to not collecting parking on that "entire street bus only". the guaranteed payments are the crux of the matter. (Not that I feel sorry for the city of Chicago or its citizens. Why did they keep electing the same corrupt people over and over again?)
  - justrealist 3y ago
    The thing about the contract law is that it is adjudicated by humans who are enthusiastic about shooting down BS attempts to wiggle out of binding terms.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Nice try but the contract has revenue guarantees. The city has to pay whether or not the parking spaces get used.
    - idbehold 3y ago
      I mean, if they're allowed to remove the parking (even if the city still has to pay) that means they could get rid of the Kafkaesque bus lane situation, no?
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        Yeah, they just can’t get out without paying.
- pgwhalen 3y ago
  Where are you thinking of? I live in West Town right along Chicago Ave and nobody parks in the bus lanes there.
gok 3y ago
The city itself would be losing that revenue if it retained control, and even with the deal they still need to budget the loss in parking ticket revenue. The primary reason the parking deal never goes away is that it allows the city to blame "investors" for doing something it was already wants to do (keep lots of street parking).
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  > The city itself would be losing that revenue if it retained control Ok but as an urban planner it's a whole lot easier to tell your boss "hey we're removing 5 parking, spaces we'll lose x dollars per year in parking fees" than it is to say "hey we're removing 5 parking spaces and we need to come up with $5 million to pay the parking company"
gota 3y ago
What does the contract say about costs to replacing broken meters? Or broken windows at the company' C level suites houses? The "answer" here is either to suck it up (which will happen) or, if you allow room for it, it starts with little acts of violence and ends with effective change or full blown riots Just to clarify - I'm not advocating for anything like that. I'm just saying - try to picture the people from Paris in this situation and tell me what would happen (and if the contract would stand) The courts absolutely fold versus popular pressure
sandworm101 3y ago
>> any efforts to redesign streets with less cars and parking can't proceed. Why? Is "parking" limited to cars? The city can apply the meters to bicycle/scooter/ebike/skateboard parking. Once upon a time many bicycles were regulated and some even required license plates. Chicago seems free to switch people other modes of transport and simply continue the parking fee system accordingly.
- acdha 3y ago
  It’s a revenue guarantee: they can’t put in a streatery or bus/bike lane without paying the company what they would have made if it remained normal street parking. It’s so fabulously corrupt that they should have a team working full time trying to find grounds to invalidate the contract.
tomschlick 3y ago
> But the city also has to guarantee the company lost revenue if the city removes meters This makes complete sense though. The company and the city signed a deal for X amount of meters for Y amount of years. That no doubt went into the financial planning for Profit/Loss. If the city were to remove meters they would be breaking the contract as there are no longer X meters and that much less revenue that the company paid upfront for.
- dharmab 3y ago
  Most people's complaint about this is that Y is an excessively high number.
  - spullara 3y ago
    You might be able to negotiate a shorter term with increased rates.

But the city also has to guarantee the company lost revenue if the city removes meters. So any efforts to redesign streets with less cars and parking can't proceed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mortenjorck 3y ago

It is, in a word, awful. A perfect example of this is on Chicago Avenue, where the city added dedicated bus lanes… except they aren’t really, because even though you can’t drive in them unless you’re a bus, you can still park in them. Absolute Kafkaesque urban planning.

idbehold 3y ago
I'm sure there's something in the contract to prevent this, but couldn't they keep the meters and then post a "No Parking" or "Bus Parking Only" or even "Parking from 11:59PM-12:00AM"?
- matthewowen 3y ago
  Keep the parking, but make the entire street bus only. Good luck getting to that parking spot!
  - User23 3y ago
    Or put cowcatchers on the busses and drive right on through the bus lane. Sure you can legally park there, and you can get your car legally demolished in a bus collision.
  - dh2022 3y ago
    The city would then have to pay out of their pocket for the revenue miss due to not collecting parking on that "entire street bus only". the guaranteed payments are the crux of the matter. (Not that I feel sorry for the city of Chicago or its citizens. Why did they keep electing the same corrupt people over and over again?)
- justrealist 3y ago
  The thing about the contract law is that it is adjudicated by humans who are enthusiastic about shooting down BS attempts to wiggle out of binding terms.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Nice try but the contract has revenue guarantees. The city has to pay whether or not the parking spaces get used.
  - idbehold 3y ago
    I mean, if they're allowed to remove the parking (even if the city still has to pay) that means they could get rid of the Kafkaesque bus lane situation, no?
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      Yeah, they just can’t get out without paying.
pgwhalen 3y ago
Where are you thinking of? I live in West Town right along Chicago Ave and nobody parks in the bus lanes there.

gok 3y ago

The city itself would be losing that revenue if it retained control, and even with the deal they still need to budget the loss in parking ticket revenue. The primary reason the parking deal never goes away is that it allows the city to blame "investors" for doing something it was already wants to do (keep lots of street parking).

HDThoreaun 3y ago
> The city itself would be losing that revenue if it retained control Ok but as an urban planner it's a whole lot easier to tell your boss "hey we're removing 5 parking, spaces we'll lose x dollars per year in parking fees" than it is to say "hey we're removing 5 parking spaces and we need to come up with $5 million to pay the parking company"

gota 3y ago

What does the contract say about costs to replacing broken meters? Or broken windows at the company' C level suites houses? The "answer" here is either to suck it up (which will happen) or, if you allow room for it, it starts with little acts of violence and ends with effective change or full blown riots Just to clarify - I'm not advocating for anything like that. I'm just saying - try to picture the people from Paris in this situation and tell me what would happen (and if the contract would stand) The courts absolutely fold versus popular pressure

sandworm101 3y ago

>> any efforts to redesign streets with less cars and parking can't proceed. Why? Is "parking" limited to cars? The city can apply the meters to bicycle/scooter/ebike/skateboard parking. Once upon a time many bicycles were regulated and some even required license plates. Chicago seems free to switch people other modes of transport and simply continue the parking fee system accordingly.

acdha 3y ago
It’s a revenue guarantee: they can’t put in a streatery or bus/bike lane without paying the company what they would have made if it remained normal street parking. It’s so fabulously corrupt that they should have a team working full time trying to find grounds to invalidate the contract.

tomschlick 3y ago

> But the city also has to guarantee the company lost revenue if the city removes meters This makes complete sense though. The company and the city signed a deal for X amount of meters for Y amount of years. That no doubt went into the financial planning for Profit/Loss. If the city were to remove meters they would be breaking the contract as there are no longer X meters and that much less revenue that the company paid upfront for.

dharmab 3y ago
Most people's complaint about this is that Y is an excessively high number.
- spullara 3y ago
  You might be able to negotiate a shorter term with increased rates.