7 ms·

Also, normally when you pay for street parking the blow is softened by the belief that - at least in theory - the money might go to infrastructure maintenance o

Also, normally when you pay for street parking the blow is softened by the belief that - at least in theory - the money might go to infrastructure maintenance or some other publicly beneficial cause. Not so in Chicago, it's just going to line the pockets of rent seekers.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
Street parking in the US is almost universally, and massively, subsidized. The money doesn't "go toward" anything except an infinitesimal reduction in that subsidization. To see this in action, stroll into a popular part of town, check the rate for parking on the street for a few hours, then check the rate for doing the same in a private lot on the same block. Metering is purely in the interests of the business owners on the block, who don't want people parking for more than a few hours - ie anyone except their customers.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  That's fine though. If building roads and paying for them with meters, even if not fully, helps cities generate significant economic activity, that could easily be worth it from the taxes and other benefits generated. There's a reason every city does it. There's so much propaganda on all sides when it comes to automobiles in the US that it's hard to tease out reality, but I'd wager anything states and cities have hard numbers behind what they do. When it comes to things like that, where solid data isn't public I just assume the world is not run by idiots who don't know more about their area of expertise than me. I feel reasonably certain that urban parking subsidization is done at least to a large extent because it makes money.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    Cities are soft locked into car dependence in many areas so businesses need cheap street parking to remain viable meaning cities are massively incentivized to continue providing it even if it is a bad local maxima.
  - willdr 3y ago
    The problem is, obviously, the expertise of one field ("maximise car parking to deliver revenue") clashes with the expertise of another ("if we don't work to minimise car parking and dependence thereon, we'll all be breathing sulfur-infused atmosphere and praying we don't break through the wet bulb temperature").
    - thghtihadanacct 3y ago
      As a biker on the central west coast I just had the 'opportunity' to revisit the midwest and can tell you we are screwed.
  - mattnewton 3y ago
    > There's so much propaganda on all sides when it comes to automobiles in the US that it's hard to tease out reality, but I'd wager anything states and cities have hard numbers behind what they do. I would take the opposite side of that bet for most cities in the US. The smaller ones I have been involved in are shockingly captured by a minority of random business owners and retirees that bother to show up to meetings and demand their lifestyles be protected. I think parking subsidization is done largely because it's a visible cost to car owners who will oppose it strongly.
    - briHass 3y ago
      I know in my small city, the pandemic laid bare just how much paid parking meant to the budget. With almost nothing coming in from the city-owned garages and street meters, there was much handwringing about the shortfall.
- dh2022 3y ago
  Subsidy means govt spends more money on parking spaces than it takes out of parking spaces. In the city of Seattle rates for parking spaces are more than $3 / hour from 8:am until 8:pm, including Saturday (Sunday is still free). Most of the parking spaces are used at full capacity. This means that one parking space in Seattle would collect some fraction of $3 x 12 hr x 6 days / week x 52 week / year = $11,232 / year. Believe me - in Seattle these parking space have not been updated in decades. Govt spent no money and instead it got some fraction of $11,232 / year. Parking spaces, in Seattle at least, are not subsidized. They are a massive source of revenue for the local govt.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > Street parking in the US is almost universally, and massively, subsidized So are sidewalks and bike lanes. I'm not aware of a single toll sidewalk or bike lane.
smsm42 3y ago
Well, "the money" already went to the city, and has been spent. Whether it has been on "publicly beneficial cause" or not is for Chicago voters to decide, but the investors already put the money in, and Chicago already spent it. What the parking meters doing now is returning what Chicago has borrowed to the investors. While I'd argue that the model of borrowing massive amounts of money for long terms and hoping the next guy will deal with it is not exactly the healthy financial strategy, it is pretty common for various governments (including the US Federal Government as the most prolific offender) and it's not the investors' fault that Chicago city government chose to do so.
- taylodl 3y ago
  Right? People are "forgetting" that Chicago got $1.16 billion dollars up-front and worked out a scheme where they don't have to pay any interest on it unless they choose to do so. Now they're boo-hooing that they can't cut CPM's income opportunity without making them whole. The fact Chicago already blew that $1.16 billion dollars and apparently has nothing to show for it is neither here nor there.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    I think the genius in this scheme is that it doesn't show up as debt anywhere in the papers, and they can whine that evil capitalists are gouging the poor citizens while enjoying the money that seemingly came out of nowhere. And simultaneously look for ways to maybe get out of it by some trick and then re-sell the same thing again. If they just borrowed it the usual way, the headlines would be "Chicago city is getting deeper and deeper in debt", but now it's "Chicago city has to deal with unmitigated greed of capitalists, aided by heartless courts".
    - mjevans 3y ago
      Liability, including contractual liability, really ethically SHOULD show up among 'debts' (which are just monetary liability). Maybe accounting laws are too focused on money and not enough on value.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

Street parking in the US is almost universally, and massively, subsidized. The money doesn't "go toward" anything except an infinitesimal reduction in that subsidization. To see this in action, stroll into a popular part of town, check the rate for parking on the street for a few hours, then check the rate for doing the same in a private lot on the same block. Metering is purely in the interests of the business owners on the block, who don't want people parking for more than a few hours - ie anyone except their customers.

mattmaroon 3y ago
That's fine though. If building roads and paying for them with meters, even if not fully, helps cities generate significant economic activity, that could easily be worth it from the taxes and other benefits generated. There's a reason every city does it. There's so much propaganda on all sides when it comes to automobiles in the US that it's hard to tease out reality, but I'd wager anything states and cities have hard numbers behind what they do. When it comes to things like that, where solid data isn't public I just assume the world is not run by idiots who don't know more about their area of expertise than me. I feel reasonably certain that urban parking subsidization is done at least to a large extent because it makes money.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  Cities are soft locked into car dependence in many areas so businesses need cheap street parking to remain viable meaning cities are massively incentivized to continue providing it even if it is a bad local maxima.
- willdr 3y ago
  The problem is, obviously, the expertise of one field ("maximise car parking to deliver revenue") clashes with the expertise of another ("if we don't work to minimise car parking and dependence thereon, we'll all be breathing sulfur-infused atmosphere and praying we don't break through the wet bulb temperature").
  - thghtihadanacct 3y ago
    As a biker on the central west coast I just had the 'opportunity' to revisit the midwest and can tell you we are screwed.
- mattnewton 3y ago
  > There's so much propaganda on all sides when it comes to automobiles in the US that it's hard to tease out reality, but I'd wager anything states and cities have hard numbers behind what they do. I would take the opposite side of that bet for most cities in the US. The smaller ones I have been involved in are shockingly captured by a minority of random business owners and retirees that bother to show up to meetings and demand their lifestyles be protected. I think parking subsidization is done largely because it's a visible cost to car owners who will oppose it strongly.
  - briHass 3y ago
    I know in my small city, the pandemic laid bare just how much paid parking meant to the budget. With almost nothing coming in from the city-owned garages and street meters, there was much handwringing about the shortfall.
dh2022 3y ago
Subsidy means govt spends more money on parking spaces than it takes out of parking spaces. In the city of Seattle rates for parking spaces are more than $3 / hour from 8:am until 8:pm, including Saturday (Sunday is still free). Most of the parking spaces are used at full capacity. This means that one parking space in Seattle would collect some fraction of $3 x 12 hr x 6 days / week x 52 week / year = $11,232 / year. Believe me - in Seattle these parking space have not been updated in decades. Govt spent no money and instead it got some fraction of $11,232 / year. Parking spaces, in Seattle at least, are not subsidized. They are a massive source of revenue for the local govt.
cyberax 3y ago
> Street parking in the US is almost universally, and massively, subsidized So are sidewalks and bike lanes. I'm not aware of a single toll sidewalk or bike lane.

smsm42 3y ago

Well, "the money" already went to the city, and has been spent. Whether it has been on "publicly beneficial cause" or not is for Chicago voters to decide, but the investors already put the money in, and Chicago already spent it. What the parking meters doing now is returning what Chicago has borrowed to the investors. While I'd argue that the model of borrowing massive amounts of money for long terms and hoping the next guy will deal with it is not exactly the healthy financial strategy, it is pretty common for various governments (including the US Federal Government as the most prolific offender) and it's not the investors' fault that Chicago city government chose to do so.

taylodl 3y ago
Right? People are "forgetting" that Chicago got $1.16 billion dollars up-front and worked out a scheme where they don't have to pay any interest on it unless they choose to do so. Now they're boo-hooing that they can't cut CPM's income opportunity without making them whole. The fact Chicago already blew that $1.16 billion dollars and apparently has nothing to show for it is neither here nor there.
- smsm42 3y ago
  I think the genius in this scheme is that it doesn't show up as debt anywhere in the papers, and they can whine that evil capitalists are gouging the poor citizens while enjoying the money that seemingly came out of nowhere. And simultaneously look for ways to maybe get out of it by some trick and then re-sell the same thing again. If they just borrowed it the usual way, the headlines would be "Chicago city is getting deeper and deeper in debt", but now it's "Chicago city has to deal with unmitigated greed of capitalists, aided by heartless courts".
  - mjevans 3y ago
    Liability, including contractual liability, really ethically SHOULD show up among 'debts' (which are just monetary liability). Maybe accounting laws are too focused on money and not enough on value.