"Would you have accepted congestion pricing without receiving the full future revenue stream?"

The issue here is partly that "we" (public space advocates) are receiving NONE of the future revenue stream. My aldermen were willing to set up a PBD in my neighborhood, and we could have done some really cool public space interventions. Now, though, the revenue stream is gone, the flexibility to adapt the rate for particular public policy aims is gone, and the ability to use the space is gone.

Another issue that several people have brought up: if, in the future, cars disappear, Chicago will owe Morgan Stanley the lost revenue. ALL of the downside risk is on the city. Risk-sharing is part and parcel of why PPPs work, and somehow it got entirely left out of this deal.

Much of that is because the deal was strictly structured to maximize the initial payout. (I believe that the city could have received a much bigger payout by issuing bonds against a future revenue stream, thereby cutting out the middleman.) Any details after that initial big figure were evidently NOT scrutinized.

Isn't democracy another word for political will? Are we really looking for authority figures outside of our will to rule us? Oh, well, the American Experiment was worth a try.

In the long-run, that means, if the city wants to replace a car parking space with, say, a wider sidewalk and on-street bike parking, they'll have to pay Morgan Stanley 75 years worth of meter fees.

In the short-term, this means if you want to have a block party or street fair and open a street to walkers for a day, you have to pay Morgan for all of the metered spaces for that day.

Crazy!

Makes you wonder if anyone in Daley's office read the contract before signing on the line which is dotted.

While cezar is correct in stating "who knows what the future will bring?" the point is that Morgan Stanley thinks it can draw revenue from these meters for 75 years... yet it only paid for about 40 years of value (a little over half of its estimated worth). When it comes to public assets, these deals need to be made with absolute taxpayer return in mind.

$900 million is a LOT of money to simply give up (especially for a municipality) to cover ongoing operational costs without actually fixing the underlying budgetary problems.

That's why I hope this privatizing binge Villaraigosa is on dies a quick death. Unless it's surplus property or can return a good deal for the taxpayers long-term, a public asset like street parking needs to remain in public control. I'm all for smart parking rates based on supply and demand; I just want the city government that's subject to public opinion to raise those rates, not a private corporation.

Ie. the tobacco settlement money, which was spent all at once by issuing bonds against it -- if people stop smoking future citizens would have to pay for the bonds. Just another example. They said it was for health. That's to get a few suckers on board.

In regards to Jack’s comments, without knowing what the exact cost the city incurs would be for the loss of a parking space (either for a temporary loss due to a street closing where a parking space is located or for a permanent loss due to a street re-purposing), it is difficult to provide a definitive answer to whether this should discourage the city from closing the streets for events or from re-purposing streets. Therefore, if this cost is significantly more than the discounted value of the future parking income, Jack’s assertion would be right.

Yet, assuming that the cost that the city has to pay for a temporary or permanent “parking spot unavailability” is near to or equal to the discounted value of the future income from the space, the city should not change its opinion of the worthiness of the parking loss because the city would also incur the same cost (the loss of the discounted value of the parking income) if it were to own the rights to the parking space.

There are almost always negative unintended consequences for every policy. The question is, "Does the public benefit exceed the public cost?" As far as I can see, increasing the cost of parking will increase citizen’s desire to seek transportation alternatives and therefore will also bolster the political will to develop transportation alternatives. Additionally, market-rate parking metering will help discontinue the standard government policy of subsidizing automobile travel and instead will apply market forces to a carbon-intensive transportation option.

Doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me.

Two things to add:
1. The "outsourcing of political will" is overrated: it was none other than Mayor Daley who called a press conference to announce the higher rates, and it's none other than the mayor and aldermen* who are taking the political heat.

2. 60% of the revenue will be spent within the next four years of operating budgets, and ZERO has been earmarked for capital investments of any sort -- much less capital investment in public space. This, even more so than the other city privatization deals, clearly shows that Chicago is mortgaging the house to pay the electric bill. Bond buyers beware!

* around here, we use the strange expression "Mrs. Alderman." none of this "councilmember" stuff.

Not to mention that the city hurried the deal through without any concern for the devastating effect on bike parking when 36,000 parking meters are suddenly removed. They had zero plan for retrofitting the posts to work for bikes -- instead they just yanked the meters. Now they're scrambling to accommodate the already exploding need for bike parking.

That's what happens when you rush a $1-2 billion back door deal in two days of planning. Suffice it to say that you don't think through every important issue.

- If the City of Chicago wants to remove metered street parking to install bike parking, bike lanes, BRT lanes, bump outs or any similar repurposing of the street anytime during the next 75 years, it will need to PAY the private firm for the loss of each meter. You think making these changes is tough in New York? Consider how much less incentive City officials in Chicago now have by attaching an additional price to these initiatives. From what I understand, the city must also pay the company to close the street for festivals and other activities when the meters cannot be used for revenue.

- A private company now sets parking prices in Chicago with only their interests in mind. Think about this. Policy wonks know there is a science to setting parking lot pricing and that meters are an important urban planning tool. This firm now sets pricing only with their interests in mind, as any business would. As a result they will not consider maximum turnover to benefit local stores, parking availability to reduce congestion and emissions from cars endlessly driving around the block looking for spots, encouraging alternative forms of transportation, improving stormwater management, street safety, beautification or pedestrian enhancements. If a Chicago alderman wants to make any of these changes for their neighborhood, he/she must now wait until 2084 to touch any street with metered parking.

As other cities continue to make progress reclaiming streets for people, Chicago;s toolbox is now significantly limited for the better part of this century. Chicago may have landed a chunk of upfront cash for this deal, but it will certainly suffer the long-term consequences.

I think what Chicago did was a wise move, it removed a large amount of risk from the revenue equation and passed it off to a private company.

I believe most readers here would hope and are working towards the situation of so many cars being different by 2084.