Privatized Parking in Chicago

[BlackOp]

Went out to get tobacco....1:45 AM. There are two people in yellow, reflective jackets with flashlights. They are casing my entire block. I ask "why are you out at this time of night"? They reply "some city parking meters have been switched to "all night" and we are looking for people with no city stickers"....meaning you have to feed the meter throughout the course of the AM to avoid getting fined. It used to stop at 9:00 pm universally. This is EXTORTION. Those who dont know, Chicago recently privatized parking meters...which immediately switched to $1.00 an hour (25 cents before) and no free Sundays. Now they have their agents casing neighborhoods to drop tickets at 2:00 am. Corrupt motherfuckers.....great idea, "lets privatize". Cant wait until it's our water supply.

This is new here..I havent seen this in the 15 years I've lived in the city. Welcome to the show...Who the fuck is going to feed a meter @ 4:00 AM? We are already pressed to the limit for parking...and they know it. Fucking vipers amongst us.

Just a side note - I asked if they felt guilty for ticketing unaware people while they sleep. They said " I'm just doing my job..gotta pay the bills". Goddamn brownshirt zombies.

Yes, I'm pissed...it's a big deal if you live in the city. $50.00 a pop...and people have no other options. What do you do..set your alarm?

[zippikay]

...if, let's say, the parking meter is broken, and thus you can't pay up the fee, what would happen? Does that mean that you can't park there?

Just some side thought, if the meters are privatized, then wouldn't that mean we don't have to pay tax for that portion of road that the meter is charged for, and shouldn't the company pay for the tax? hmmmm?

Glad I live in the burb

[Tristan]

Went out to get tobacco....1:45 AM. There are two people in yellow, reflective jackets with flashlights. They are casing my entire block. I ask "why are you out at this time of night"? They reply "some city parking meters have been switched to "all night" and we are looking for people with no city stickers"....meaning you have to feed the meter throughout the course of the AM to avoid getting fined. It used to stop at 9:00 pm universally. This is EXTORTION. Those who dont know, Chicago recently privatized parking meters...which immediately switched to $1.00 an hour (25 cents before) and no free Sundays. Now they have their agents casing neighborhoods to drop tickets at 2:00 am. Corrupt motherfuckers.....great idea, "lets privatize". Cant wait until it's our water supply.

Privatization is something else. This is where the city government gives a crony... a good ol' boy's firm full legal backing to do whatever he wants, as long as the government gets a cut on the action. Yes... extortion comes to mind. Patronage, protection, and racketeering as well.

A couple of years ago, every license plate on two city blocks outside my south Chicago apartment was stolen. The police arrived on the scene, not to investigate, but to ticket every car with not having a license plate. Do you think the kind of government that does that would really hand its power over to someone else? I mean *really* give it up?

[themuzicman]

That's liberal politics. You elect them, they do what they do.

The solution? Don't elect liberals.

[zibber]

I asked if they felt guilty for ticketing unaware people why they sleep. They said " I'm just doing my job..gotta pay the bills". Goddamn brownshirt zombies.

I call that the Eichmann defense.

Privatization is disgusting. (I think it's called "liberalization" here, a nice way to hide its nature.) I'm already paying private, profit-seeking organizations for health care, telephony, internet, electricity, gas and public transportation, and that's already about six things too many.

The classic spiel is that "privatization ensures optimalization of products and customer service and the sharpest prices", but I am NOT seeing that. These people are all primarily out for personal monetary profit, and what I'm seeing is a tendency to blow prices up and cut costs to the point of terrible, impersonal customer service.

I'd go as far as saying that any organization that primarily seeks profit is fundamentally unable truly to serve the public and should not be authorized to fulfill any public service. (Of course, nationalized industries and services are at risk of becoming stagnant, but this is a problem of attitude and interpersonal respect. If we all strive sincerely to cooperate, not simply withdrawing ourselves into our little friend/family bubble and acting without regard for those outside of that, there is no problem.)

[boldbidder]

That's liberal politics. You elect them, they do what they do.

The solution? Don't elect liberals.

You're funny Music, I really coulda swore that the whole privitazation push was started by your man crush Ronny 666? That would actually seem to be a conservative tactic, you know limiting the size of government and all by relying on private industry. So if an elected Dem employs a Repub tactic it suddenly becomes bad, but if it was a Repub it would be OK?

Come on, you're not even trying Music ;)

[themuzicman]

Privatizing roads is libertarian, not conservative.

But I was referring to extending parking meters through the night to generate more revenue.

[rickster]

I call that the Eichmann defense.

Privatization is disgusting.

I call it the Gimme An AK-47 Offense. :furious:

What's the bet oxygen's gonna turn up sooner or later on the energy bill...from the privatized energy provider of course.

[reb]

too many small 'pie eaters', too little pie. when it comes to predation, there is no difference in 'labels'. a wolf is a wolf, and government has become a wolf, along with their kissin' cousin, corporations.

did someone mention economic slavery? hmmmm?

[larkin]

Privatizing roads is libertarian, not conservative.

But I was referring to extending parking meters through the night to generate more revenue.

Any city/county government is going to try to increase revenue - even conservative ones (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Agreed that privatization is more libertarian than conservative per se. But while not everyone who is conservative supports privatization, if you support privatization you're probably conservative.

[themuzicman]

For items whose costs go up, yeah, it's going to happen.

But not generally through creating a problem, changing the law and then fining people for problems they can't resolve, like requiring people to feed a parking meter every two hours when there is no other place to park.

[phej]

Just out of curiosity, other than privatization of running the parking meters, did the rules change? Was there also an opportunity for the community to complain about the rules? Was the 9pm thing an unwritten rule? All of the parking meters that I have ever seen post when you need to pay the parking meter or not. But, then again, this is Chicago with it's renown political corruption.

As for the arguments against privatization, the profit motive is much easier to understand than the amorphous motives of bureaucrats and government officials.

[larkin]

For items whose costs go up, yeah, it's going to happen.

But not generally through creating a problem, changing the law and then fining people for problems they can't resolve, like requiring people to feed a parking meter every two hours when there is no other place to park.

They acknowledge in the article it has nothing to do with the cost of providing the services, and they would have to change a law. And at least people can park somewhere else, even if it's far away, or choose not to drive - there's no "problem that [people] can't resolve" more than wastewater and sewage fees. These are arbitrary distinctions at best.

[themuzicman]

LOL... if you think those are solutions to parking, you're heartless and cruel, and have no clue what parking is like in Chicago.

These are not arbitrary distinctions. They are real. Water and sewer solve real problems in a community. These ahve to be paid for.

Parking meters are nothing more than revenue generation, and the city was bright enough to realize that people needed a place to park overnight, and only metering during the day was the solution

telling people that they have to get up every two hours, or park miles away, or do without a car in Chicago is simply unreasonable and stupid.

[larkin]

As for the arguments against privatization, the profit motive is much easier to understand than the amorphous motives of bureaucrats and government officials.

The motive of elected officials, beyond what they say their motives are during election, is re-election; the motive of a bureaucrat is to keep their job. Sometimes that includes generating revenue. But privatization is the worst of both worlds - it's not an actual free market (there's usually a license to only one provider of the service) and their entire motive is to extract as much money from you as possible, with significantly diminished accountability.

[themuzicman]

The motive of liberal elected officials is more power. They do this by enslaving people economically and socially. This is just one example of changing the rules to get $50 from a bunch of people, and causing them to have to change their lives to be more dependent on government.

[phej]

The motive of elected officials, beyond what they say their motives are during election, is re-election; the motive of a bureaucrat is to keep their job. Sometimes that includes generating revenue. But privatization is the worst of both worlds - it's not an actual free market (there's usually a license to only one provider of the service) and their entire motive is to extract as much money from you as possible, with significantly diminished accountability.

This I get. But how it maps to what they do during the non-election season confuses me. (Or should I just assume it's always election season?)

[larkin]

LOL... if you think those are solutions to parking, you're heartless and cruel, and have no clue what parking is like in Chicago.

These are not arbitrary distinctions. They are real. Water and sewer solve real problems in a community. These ahve to be paid for.

Parking meters are nothing more than revenue generation, and the city was bright enough to realize that people needed a place to park overnight, and only metering during the day was the solution

telling people that they have to get up every two hours, or park miles away, or do without a car in Chicago is simply unreasonable and stupid.

I didn't say they were reasonable solutions. I said they were possible, instead of not using wastewater and sewage services, which is not. Wastewater and sewage fees have to be paid, yes, and they already were - there's no justification for the increase other than the need for greater revenue.

Parking is a limited public commodity in a city. Parking police have to be paid for, just like "real" things do, or else people would park wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The public expects the city to provide this service and provide it fairly. As above, nothing is worse for fairness than a contractor *licensed by the city* to make as much money as possible in as many ways as possible with limited public accountability.





larkin added to this post, 9 minutes and 51 seconds later...

This I get. But how it maps to what they do during the non-election season confuses me. (Or should I just assume it's always election season?)

Ha, yes, I would assume that, unless for whatever reason the politician feels particularly comfortable in their job. Then they may start to make statements showing their utter lack of accountability - things like "they don't live and die by polls" or similar.

[boldbidder]

But I was referring to extending parking meters through the night to generate more revenue.

It was the City that changed the policy, it was the private industry who decided to get more revenue by requiring citizens to pay throughout the night. The city leased the rights to the parking meters to the private firm, the private firm (the great holy wonderful thing that will solve all of societies ills) is responsible for implementing this new gauging policy, as the private sector consistently does.





boldbidder added to this post, 3 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Went out to get tobacco....1:45 AM. There are two people in yellow, reflective jackets with flashlights. They are casing my entire block. I ask "why are you out at this time of night"? They reply "some city parking meters have been switched to "all night" and we are looking for people with no city stickers"....meaning you have to feed the meter throughout the course of the AM to avoid getting fined. It used to stop at 9:00 pm universally. This is EXTORTION. Those who dont know, Chicago recently privatized parking meters...which immediately switched to $1.00 an hour (25 cents before) and no free Sundays. Now they have their agents casing neighborhoods to drop tickets at 2:00 am. Corrupt motherfuckers.....great idea, "lets privatize". Cant wait until it's our water supply.

This is new here..I havent seen this in the 15 years I've lived in the city. Welcome to the show...Who the fuck is going to feed a meter @ 4:00 AM? We are already pressed to the limit for parking...and they know it. Fucking vipers amongst us.

Just a side note - I asked if they felt guilty for ticketing unaware people while they sleep. They said " I'm just doing my job..gotta pay the bills". Goddamn brownshirt zombies.

Yes, I'm pissed...it's a big deal if you live in the city. $50.00 a pop...and people have no other options. What do you do..set your alarm?

Heard a good discussion about the parking meter fiasco this morning on NPR (WBEZ for Chicagoans). Lots of disgruntled callers, perhaps we're at a tipping point where if a viable candidate arises Daley can be ousted. It's a longshot, but after the hired truck thing, Millennium Park, etc... the 'ish' may have piled up to high even for Daley to climb out.

[Synamon]

It was the City that changed the policy, it was the private industry who decided to get more revenue by requiring citizens to pay throughout the night. The city leased the rights to the parking meters to the private firm, the private firm (the great holy wonderful thing that will solve all of societies ills) is responsible for implementing this new gauging policy, as the private sector consistently does.
Which is clearly more liberal because less government involvement is shunned by republicans and more free enterprise is against everything the right wing stands for.... hey wait a second. :thinking:

That's liberal politics. You elect them, they do what they do.

The solution? Don't elect liberals.
What is your definition of liberal? Anything you don't like?

[BlackOp]

Group Sues Over Chicago Parking Meter Privatization

8/24/2009
Group Sues Over Chicago Parking Meter Privatization
Lawsuit challenges ability of Chicago, Illinois to privatize parking meters.

Parking meterMotorists have been hard hit by the increase in the cost of parking in in Chicago, Illinois that began with a deal struck in February. In the central business district, for example, the cost to park for an hour doubled from $1 an hour to $2 and will quadruple to $4 an hour by 2013. Meters must also now be fed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The hikes came after Mayor Richard J. Daley (D) leased the city's 36,000 parking meters to Morgan Stanley for 75 years in return for an up-front payment of $1.15 billion. The Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO), a liberal government reform group, fought back last Wednesday by filing a lawsuit hoping a judge would find the parking meter contract unlawful.

"This is a horrible deal for Chicago taxpayers," IVI-IPO spokesman Owen Brugh said. "But IVI-IPO intends to hold the city accountable. Even the city of Chicago has to follow the law."

The suit claims that the city has no legal right to use public resources to enforce parking regulations and repair the privately owned parking meters for the benefit of a private entity. This arrangement, the suit contends, violates Article 8, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution which that states "public funds, property or credit shall be used only for public purposes."

The group also argues that state law giving Chicago the right to "regulate the use of streets and other municipal property" does not give the city authority to lease those streets until February 29, 2084. The suit claims such long-term contracts are inherently invalid because they deprive future city councils of any control over the way the streets and parking meters are regulated.

IVI-IPO is upset that although Daley's administration will have $1.15 billion to spend now, future generations of motorists could pay more than $3.5 billion in parking charges. If the city makes any improvements to city streets that eliminates a parking space, such as adding a crosswalk or bus stop, taxpayers must pay "damages" to Morgan Stanley.

IVI-IPO asked the Cook County Circuit Court to prohibit the Illinois Secretary of State from suspending the driver's license of anyone who failed to pay a privately issued parking ticket. The group also wants an injunction that prohibits Chicago from spending any public money for the benefit of the parking meter program.

Morgan Stanley operates the meters under the name Chicago Parking Meters, LLC.

[Tocsin]

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
--Benito Mussolini

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.... There is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court Justice from 1939-1975

We've been living under the darkness of fascism in the U.S. for decades, and still people do not, or will not recognize it. People never see what they don't want to see, even if it is right in front of them.


"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

They Thought They Were Free... But Then It Was Too Late (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[loosefanbelt]

Reminds me of the speeding ticket that I just got in North Carolina. Money racket.

[rara avis]

What I find morbidly fascinating is the amount of money a person pays to live and drive in Chicago- all that revenue- juxtaposed with this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[curiousgeorge01]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy per se if it benefits the society as a whole. The problem is they didn't give the residents any time to prepare, which is a big no no and that we're not entirely sure how it benefits the society. Who's the money going to? Schools? Cops? Politicians? Plus the lack of contingency planning screams stupidity, I don't care under which label you put it under.

[boldbidder]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy per se if it benefits the society as a whole. The problem is they didn't give the residents any time to prepare, which is a big no no and that we're not entirely sure how it benefits the society. Who's the money going to? Schools? Cops? Politicians? Plus the lack of contingency planning screams stupidity, I don't care under which label you put it under.

The money isn't going for the benefit of society, it's going directly into the coffers of the private firm. The city negotiated a lease deal, the private paid, any revenue they take in over the course of the lease is theirs and theirs alone.

[curiousgeorge01]

No I understand that. I meant the upfront money they got for leasing it out to Morgan Stanley. I mean if they let's say used the money to build a parking garage or something for residents while tourists have to pay at meters that would benefit the area while solving the problem.

[meanlittlechimp]

The classic spiel is that "privatization ensures optimalization of products and customer service and the sharpest prices", but I am NOT seeing that. These people are all primarily out for personal monetary profit, and what I'm seeing is a tendency to blow prices up and cut costs to the point of terrible, impersonal customer service.

The World Bank and IMF forced the privatization of water on several Latin American countries, causing massive riots. They even made it illegal to correct rainwater.

Muzicman seems to have no idea that privatization of certain "community" resources have always been the center of right wing conservative politics. His analysis seems to be really as simple minded as - that was bad, it must be liberal.

Although, I support capitalism, privatization of certain resources (jails, water, the military, energy, etc) has proven to be inefficient to catastrophic.

[Muadib]

Just wait until the privatize your army...i hear Xi (blackwater) has 5 battalions these days.

[Tristan]

Privatization is disgusting. (I think it's called "liberalization" here, a nice way to hide its nature.) I'm already paying private, profit-seeking organizations for health care, telephony, internet, electricity, gas and public transportation, and that's already about six things too many.You're funny Music, I really coulda swore that the whole privitazation push was started by your man crush Ronny 666? That would actually seem to be a conservative tactic, you know limiting the size of government and all by relying on private industry. So if an elected Dem employs a Repub tactic it suddenly becomes bad, but if it was a Repub it would be OK?Just out of curiosity, other than privatization of running the parking meters, did the rules change? Was there also an opportunity for the community to complain about the rules? Was the 9pm thing an unwritten rule? All of the parking meters that I have ever seen post when you need to pay the parking meter or not. But, then again, this is Chicago with it's renown political corruption.

As for the arguments against privatization, the profit motive is much easier to understand than the amorphous motives of bureaucrats and government officials.The motive of elected officials, beyond what they say their motives are during election, is re-election; the motive of a bureaucrat is to keep their job. Sometimes that includes generating revenue. But privatization is the worst of both worlds - it's not an actual free market (there's usually a license to only one provider of the service) and their entire motive is to extract as much money from you as possible, with significantly diminished accountability.

It's not privatization, like I said. It's a licensing racket.

[meanlittlechimp]

It's not privatization, like I said. It's a licensing racket.

It is privatization. Taking something that was formerly controlled by the state or city and putting it in the hands of a private company is the definition of privatization.

Enron was a racket too; but it doesn't mean it wasn't also a privatization of energy markets.

[larkin]

It's not privatization, like I said. It's a licensing racket.

Clearly I missed part of this discussion. Either way, from Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency or public service from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business). In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector including governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement.

How does this not fit the broader definition? And do you think that if Morgan Stanley actually owned the rights to assess parking penalties by the narrower definition, it would work any better for the people in Chicago?

[curiousgeorge01]

It is privatization. Taking something that was formerly controlled by the state or city and putting it in the hands of a private company is the definition of privatization.

Enron was a racket too, but it doesn't mean it wasn't also a privatization of energy markets.

I guess you could call it that. But you could call putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound healthcare also. Technically yes it is, but it doesn't mean it has the correct connotation; privatization in this case is a racket, and a bandaid on a bullet would probably would be negligent.

[Hamburglar]

America is disgusting...I understand complaining about this in L.A. which was built around the automobile...but Chicago? Get a bike, ride the train, walk, etc.

[Night Runner]

Corrupt motherfuckers.....great idea, "lets privatize". Cant wait until it's our water supply.

*Gets his conservative talking points handbook* Um... Free market! Democracy! Laissez faire! Let's see, what else, what else... Ah, yes - you up-to-no-good commie sympathizer! Why do you hate America? I demand to see your birth certificate! Rah! :evil:

[Tristan]

Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency or public service from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business). In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector including governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement.

How does this not fit the broader definition? And do you think that if Morgan Stanley actually owned the rights to assess parking penalties by the narrower definition, it would work any better for the people in Chicago?

Under the most general, broad, open-ended, and useless definition, we could certainly label it as "privatization," and use the issue to misrepresent the power transfer privatization involves and what its effects are.

Far more specifically and to the point, it is a licensing racket. It has nothing to do with markets, and there is certainly no transfer of power.

In this case, the city government hasn't transferred anything at all to the private sector. Rather, it is bringing a company into the fold to work for it. Like with a Letter of Marque, where a state gives a privateer unlimited license to carry out its foreign policy objectives on rival nations' ships. This relationship removes the fine line between public and private; "privatization" is not a useful descriptor for this process. The city owns the right to assess parking fines, whether they hire an attack dog to take care of the niceties or not. The power remains with Chicago's government. The company doesn't work for itself; it works for the city. Parking fines aren't privatized; the company just went public.

[IrishGuy]

That's liberal politics. You elect them, they do what they do.

The solution? Don't elect liberals.
Privatization is a conservative policy. Liberals would keep the meters under government control and either up the rates or tax the wealthy more to cover their costs.

[Tocsin]

Privatization is a conservative policy. Liberals would keep the meters under government control and either up the rates or tax the wealthy more to cover their costs.

No! No! No!

Don't you get it yet?

Everything liberal is bad... Everything bad is liberal.

If a conservative does something that is bad, then they aren't conservative, they're liberal.

If it's a conservative policy, and it turns out to be bad, its because it's really a liberal policy - not conservative.

Labels define everything, including reality. If reality doesn't match the label, then change reality to match the label.

[phej]

A couple of questions to the OP: (1) What is a "city sticker?" Is it a parking license to allow you to park w/o needing to feed a meter; and (2) The privatization was announced sometime last year, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and people have been complaining since mar2009. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Are you just venting?

[aku chi]

Under the most general, broad, open-ended, and useless definition, we could certainly label it as "privatization," and use the issue to misrepresent the power transfer privatization involves and what its effects are.

Far more specifically and to the point, it is a licensing racket. It has nothing to do with markets, and there is certainly no transfer of power.

In this case, the city government hasn't transferred anything at all to the private sector. Rather, it is bringing a company into the fold to work for it. Like with a Letter of Marque, where a state gives a privateer unlimited license to carry out its foreign policy objectives on rival nations' ships. This relationship removes the fine line between public and private; "privatization" is not a useful descriptor for this process. The city owns the right to assess parking fines, whether they hire an attack dog to take care of the niceties or not. The power remains with Chicago's government. The company doesn't work for itself; it works for the city. Parking fines aren't privatized; the company just went public.

As usual, I agree with Tristan. This practice might also be better labeled government contracting (which would also seemingly fall under the supplied broad definition of privatization). The government hasn't relinquished any power or control of the parking meter taxing, they've simply handed off the execution of the taxing to a private party. And they wouldn't have done so if they didn't expect more net revenue as a result. This is a very different situation from the privatization of a market or industry (like the airline industry) where the government does relinquish power and control and removes its own economic entanglements with the industry. I generally support this latter kind of privitization for rivalrous goods and services (I would like to see the postal industry privatized). I am indifferent to contracting; the government's desire for contracting is simply a demonstration of the inefficiencies of beurocracy, nothing more.

[curiousgeorge01]

No! No! No!

Don't you get it yet?

Everything liberal is bad... Everything bad is liberal.

If a conservative does something that is bad, then they aren't conservative, they're liberal.

If it's a conservative policy, and it turns out to be bad, its because it's really a liberal policy - not conservative.

Labels define everything, including reality. If reality doesn't match the label, then change reality to match the label.


I would agree with you for the most part but I feel like labels themselves are sometimes as evil as ignorance. It steers you in a direction that makes you believe it is something and that one label can encompass a spectrum of meanings. Privatization can be good or bad depending on how you spin it.

[boldbidder]

America is disgusting...I understand complaining about this in L.A. which was built around the automobile...but Chicago? Get a bike, ride the train, walk, etc.

Burg, you ever been to the Chi? Sure some folks can make it with only public transit, but it's a pretty huge flipping city. Unless you're actually within a snowball's throw of the loop (downtown) I don't see how you could make it without a car.

[BlackOp]

A couple of questions to the OP: (1) What is a "city sticker?" Is it a parking license to allow you to park w/o needing to feed a meter; and (2) The privatization was announced sometime last year, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and people have been complaining since mar2009. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Are you just venting?

If you live IN Chicago you have to have an $80.00 sticker on your windshield. It's a racket in itself and if you saw the condition of the roads here...you would feel my frustration.

The whole transition has been a trainwreck....it was rushed through and not well thought out to say the least. I am venting but its warranted.

Check this out...and no, it isnt a joke. The twisted part is they would probably do a much better job....it couldnt be worse.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[phej]

If you live IN Chicago you have to have a an $80.00 sticker on your windshield. It's a racket in itself and if you saw the condition of the roads here...you would feel my frustration.

Wait, so you have a city-specific car registration? Does the money get dedicated to road maintenance or does it go to the city coffers so that they mayor can have a ribbon cutting ceremony?

The whole transition has been a trainwreck....it was rushed trough and not well thought out to say the least. I am venting but its warranted.

Check this out...and no, it isnt a joke.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I get the venting. (Your link didn't work. Apparently the Tribune's web page temporarily cratered.)

[BlackOp]

Burg, you ever been to the Chi? Sure some folks can make it with only public transit, but it's a pretty huge flipping city. Unless you're actually within a snowball's throw of the loop (downtown) I don't see how you could make it without a car.

Yeah...three days of -30 windchills and he would be rethinking that post. Besides the burden of having an automobile shouldnt be put on me by paying ridiculous parking fees. We already pay the highest taxes in the country...including the "bottled water" tax..





BlackOp added to this post, 3 minutes and 46 seconds later...

Wait, so you have a city-specific car registration? Does the money get dedicated to road maintenance or does it go to the city coffers so that they mayor can have a ribbon cutting ceremony?


What do you think? Yes, it's a Chicago specific sticker but registration is state.. and now has a barcode on it for scanning....

[phej]

Yeah...three days of -30 windchills and he would rethinking that post. Besides the burden of having an automobile shouldnt be put on me by paying ridiculous parking fees. We already pay the highest taxes in the country...including the "bottled water" tax..

I can only offer one potential solution: move to a better state and city. Sounds like you're taxed up the wazoo and get crappy government services.

[Mader]

You live in Chicago. duh.

Every city I ever lived in in Illinois had a city sticker on your car. Yes, different from your license plate.

Better bake some nice cannoli's and go visit your alderman.

You park overnight on a meter? That sucks. Nothing out back?

Public transportation - I do disagree. I can get anywhere in Chicago without a car. My grandparents lived there for 40 years without cars. Yeah, it takes two buses and the El, but it is much cheaper than owning a car (and parking on a meter). I was out near Oak Park, not downtown, but went downtown several days a week -easier than driving. But the question would be, does public transportation go where you need to go?

[BlackOp]

You live in Chicago. duh.

Every city I ever lived in in Illinois had a city sticker on your car. Yes, different from your license plate.

Better bake some nice cannoli's and go visit your alderman.

You park overnight on a meter? That sucks. Nothing out back?

No, I dont, it's residential. They were casing for booting people's cars. If you have TWO unpaid parking tickets...they will boot you. Thats part of the scam.. I am venting because there are a lot of people who are going to be deeply affected by this and it's a sham. You have to keep a roll of quarters in your car to do anything.

People in the burbs arent required to have a sticker.

[larkin]

Under the most general, broad, open-ended, and useless definition, we could certainly label it as "privatization," and use the issue to misrepresent the power transfer privatization involves and what its effects are.

Far more specifically and to the point, it is a licensing racket. It has nothing to do with markets, and there is certainly no transfer of power.

Sure. Why would we bother with using the *only* surprisingly simple definition of privatization, which represents exactly what has happened here, when we can use a term that you just made up?

As for the claim there's no transfer of power: that's funny, in the article titled "Group Sues Chicago Over Parking Meter Privatization" (clearly mislabeled by the entire news media and the OP, as well, whoops) they say the suit's central complaint is that "The group also argues that [...] such long-term contracts are inherently invalid because they deprive future city councils of any control over the way the streets and parking meters are regulated."

[curiousgeorge01]

If you live IN Chicago you have to have an $80.00 sticker on your windshield. It's a racket in itself and if you saw the condition of the roads here...you would feel my frustration.

The whole transition has been a trainwreck....it was rushed through and not well thought out to say the least. I am venting but its warranted.

Check this out...and no, it isnt a joke. The twisted part is they would probably do a much better job....it couldnt be worse.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yea I don't get why they wouldn't let KFC do it. So we'd have some advertising on the floor? I'd rather look at that than a hole.

[themuzicman]

Muzicman seems to have no idea that privatization of certain "community" resources have always been the center of right wing conservative politics. His analysis seems to be really as simple minded as - that was bad, it must be liberal.

The Chimp seems to have mistaken libertarianism for conservatism. Privatization of roads and parking has never been a conservative tenant.

Perhaps he should take the blinders off.

[reb]

not trying to take one side of the 'musicman/chimp' debate or the other, but privatization has become a haven for governments who found out they can get away with it because most of society is so doltish they refuse to vote out all incumbents. you pay taxes, some group in government cannot do the analysis, or contracting, or interior work necessary to fulfill the obligation they were set up to do, and they find a contractor to do it for them. this leads to further hiring of incompetent ninnies in the government office involved, usually friends, political 'owed' or relatives of the person 'elected'.

a county i deal with has hired a contractor to do appraisals for property tax. i am completely 'less government is better', and score 'one notch left' on the political compass test (lol!). this 'failure to perform duties of a government' is....words fail me..a string of curse words and insults come to mind. i don't give a shit who started it. i think people who ascribe to party politics are daft, and i don't care what you call privatization. it is an abrogation of government responsibility, which defaults the social contract.

carry on with vigah as jfk might say.

[Lucid]

The motive of liberal elected officials is more power. They do this by enslaving people economically and socially. This is just one example of changing the rules to get $50 from a bunch of people, and causing them to have to change their lives to be more dependent on government.

Hilariously, you are doing the same thing here as you did in the dead dog thread; if there's something you don't like then it's the fault of the organization you don't like. Whether this has any connection to fact or reality seems to be completely unimportant. You know nothing about this but that parking meters are being privatized and you say it's an evil liberal thing. Then, in the health care thread you argue for the privatized health care system. You talk about liberal politics being all about increasing government control and power... when privatization is actually relinquishing government control and power to the private sector... something you seem to be in favor of in every other thread.

Are you doing this on purpose just to be funny? Is this some kind of Stephen Colbert thing where you pretend to be a conservative in order to make fun of them?

[themuzicman]

Hilariously, you are doing the same thing here as you did in the dead dog thread; if there's something you don't like then it's the fault of the organization you don't like. Whether this has any connection to fact or reality seems to be completely unimportant. You know nothing about this but that parking meters are being privatized and you say it's an evil liberal thing. Then, in the health care thread you argue for the privatized health care system. You talk about liberal politics being all about increasing government control and power... when privatization is actually relinquishing government control and power to the private sector... something you seem to be in favor of in every other thread.

Are you doing this on purpose just to be funny? Is this some kind of Stephen Colbert thing where you pretend to be a conservative in order to make fun of them?

I was referring to the government's actions in changing the law and then citing people, not privatization.

[Harmony]

Wow, after reading all this its no wonder my friend sold her Jeep Cherokee when she moved to Chicago. Thank God around here the parking meter police stop at 5 PM...