Sale of Parking Meter Dead on Arrival Absent Major Changes

Chicago, Illinois—30th Ward Alderwoman Ruth Cruz today issued the following statement announcing her firm opposition to the proposed sale of Chicago parking meter concessionaire Chicago Parking Meters LLC to Stonepeak Partners, absent major changes to the underlying agreement that favor the City and Chicago residents:

This proposal is dead on arrival, at least with me. The current owner of the parking meter concession doesn’t want it any more? Tough. Chicagoans are saddled with this bad deal for five more decades, and unlike the owner, we don’t have a private equity fund lined up to solve our problems. Asking me to vote to approve this sale without changes is like asking me to vote for canceling Christmas or to eat 100 hot dogs with ketchup. Never gonna happen.

All of us need to come together at this unique moment to demand major changes to the agreement that benefit the City and its residents. The parking meter deal is probably the worst agreement in the history of municipal finance anywhere on Earth. Chicago residents have made clear repeatedly how much they hate it. I am one of them. Why should we make it easy for the owner to unload this lease on a new party that will continue profiting at the expense of City residents and visitors for another 57 years? Investors have already earned back far more than they paid for the lease in the first place, with more than five decades remaining. I intend to use my leverage to get a better deal for Chicagoans. If the owner wants to sell and the buyer wants to buy, they need to come to the table ready to make a deal. Some of my ideas include:

• Terminating the agreement decades earlier than the current 2084 end date.

• Reducing the “true-up” payments required from the City when meter revenue does not meet projections.

• Revenue caps that limit how much the owner can earn in a given year, with excess revenue returned to the City.

• Allowing removal of a certain number of meters every year and/or removal of meters accounting for a certain revenue total each year, to enable the City to use the removed parking spaces to accommodate street and transit improvements like bike lanes, bus lanes, Complete Streets projects, traffic calming measures, landscaping, wider sidewalks, outdoor dining areas, and other changes.

• Elimination of the fee for using the mobile application to pay.

I also share many of my colleagues’ concerns about the prospective buyer’s investment in companies supporting the federal government’s cruel and harmful immigration enforcement activities, and additional concerns regarding the Johnson Administration’s failure to share adequate information in a timely manner with the Council. Ultimately, however, the reason to reject this sale, absent major improvements, is that it ratifies the terrible deal made in 2008.

I am not persuaded by the argument that the Council must approve this sale or face arbitration or lawsuits. First, it is clear from a reading of the ordinance and concession agreement that the Council retains full authority to approve or reject a transfer of ownership and is not restricted in any way by a “reasonableness” standard. Second, we could hardly do worse than the current situation, so the threat of arbitration or lawsuits does not deter me in the least.