What is this? The Cincinnati media is something else.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Consultant-Management-fees-in-Cincinnati-parking-lease-are-excessive

What is this? The Cincinnati media is something else.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Consultant-Management-fees-in-Cincinnati-parking-lease-are-excessive

 

It seems the city's consultant reviewed the lease and determined that Xerox will cause a 257% increase in on-street parking overhead costs.  I'd assume that means they'll be writing an excessive amount of tickets.

"The City's consultant" was consulted for due diligence purposes only. Their revenue is tied to the old model, and they don't want it to go away. Read the port's response.

"excessive amount of tickets" is a ridiculous phrase for a couple reasons.

 

First, it presupposes that there is a set quota of parking tickets the city should write and shouldn't exceed that number. This leads directly in to the second problem: if a vehicle is parked illegally (at an expired meter, during restricted hours, in a no parking zone), they should be ticketed.

 

This whole idea of excessiveness in writing tickets also seems to purport the idea that on-street parking is a God-given right rather than the privilege that it really is.

 

/rant.

Wcpo is the new enquirer

My understanding was that the consultant believed the fees paid to Xerox were excessive. However the port did a good job addressing this in its response.

"excessive amount of tickets" is a ridiculous phrase for a couple reasons.

 

First, it presupposes that there is a set quota of parking tickets the city should write and shouldn't exceed that number. This leads directly in to the second problem: if a vehicle is parked illegally (at an expired meter, during restricted hours, in a no parking zone), they should be ticketed.

 

This whole idea of excessiveness in writing tickets also seems to purport the idea that on-street parking is a God-given right rather than the privilege that it really is.

 

/rant.

 

Extremely strict enforcement of any minor traffic violation is always met with disdain from the community.  If people routinely get tickets for being 45 seconds late to their cars, they'll stop visiting. No one thinks parking is a god given right, it's a simple case of not fixing what isn't broken.  I have serious doubts anyone will be pleased with the new parking systems aside from Xerox and city coffers.

If people aren't coming and parking, then Xerox isn't making money. Unlike private prisons, where what benefits the operator is detrimental to society, private parking operators should theoretically want the same thing as everyone else. At least, that is true since there is a cap on the amount the price can go up annually. Otherwise, they could possibly prey on the few who don't care or have little choice and gauge them to make up for the decrease in "customers".

I would imagine CO    will protest a private firm issuing tickets/fines.

Dominiating AM radio today...

 

City manager: I didn't need to share parking lease memo with Cincinnati City Council

Some council members upset, want special session

By: Kevin Osborne, WCPO Digital

 

Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney Jr. is defending his decision to withhold from City Council a highly critical memo of a 30-year lease of parking meters and garages, which has angered some council members.

 

Although council is currently on its summer break, two members have said they will ask for a special session soon to discuss Dohoney’s action.

 

As WCPO Digital first reported Sunday , city administrators received the memo June 20 from Walker Parking Consultants. The memo stated operating expenses and management fees included in the city’s controversial lease are excessive.The report remained undisclosed to City Council and to the public until sources began discussing its existence.

 

Cont

 

 

New parking lease documents show talks between city, port

by Jane Prendergast

 

New documents and emails between officials of the city and the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority show some of the back-and-forth that went on behind the scenes before and after the city and port signed the deal.parking meter

 

The city actually signed it twice, according to one email.  Once without the 75-day vetting period added by the port, then again on a new document with that time period included.

 

Cont

This guy......

 

 

 

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/COAST-seeks-injunction-against-Cincinnatis-parking-lease-over-changes

The jokes just keep on coming.

 

End this deal.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130718/NEWS/307180157/EXCLUSIVE-Port-authority-wants-27M-city-s-92M-from-parking-deal

The jokes just keep on coming.

 

End this deal.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130718/NEWS/307180157/EXCLUSIVE-Port-authority-wants-27M-city-s-92M-from-parking-deal

 

Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Port-Authority-wants-27M-from-Cincinnatis-parking-lease

^at least the Port is being modest...

I don't get the hostility. Any Port money will be spent to redevelop brownfields within the city.

I don't get the hostility. Any Port money will be spent to redevelop brownfields within the city.

Didn't  they request  700k a year more in funding and get assurances it will not be cut in the future?

I don't get the hostility. Any Port money will be spent to redevelop brownfields within the city.

 

1.  The Port thinks it's a shitty deal for the city.

2.  The Port is trying to go forward with the deal while making it shittier for the city.

3.  These backroom machinations are undercutting the credibility of the city.

4.  Despite being a terrible deal, the good leaders won't back away from it and are giving excessive ammunition to bad politicians.  Stop the unforced errors!

5.  Literally every other city that has done a parking deal has been bent over and rammed six ways from Sunday.

6.  Every city that has done due diligence has refused to go forward.  See NYC.

7.  I have no confidence the city will be the exception.

8.  The people of the city are overwhelming against the deal.

 

It's getting pretty hard to apply Hanlon's razor and come to the conclusion this deal is the simple result of idiocy rather than malicious intent.

I for one was for the deal. Now that they did fix the budget for a few years with all the cuts they made before the deadline. I find that there was not need for the deal now. MLK interchange can wait. It's been like that for MANY decades and businesses are still there.

Why would the Port knowingly enter into a "bad" deal on the parking lease? That line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense. My take is that they are doing their due diligence on the deal.

 

Now that the upfront money on the deal is no longer going to the projects proposed in March, the Port is negotiating with the city on how to best utilize some of the remaining funding. The $27 million is more than enough to help them jump start some of these long awaited neighborhood projects, all of which are located within the city limits.

I'm getting cold feet because so many former supporters are. I was never really for or against it, because I don't trust my own ability to analyze the details and predict the outcome. I know it's been a disaster in other cities, which makes me hesitant to give it support. (Like Harwell Scrabblepound said "I have no confidence this city will be the exception" -- though I wouldn't say it so strongly.) But in principle I think it's an okay thing to privatize, because theoretically the operator would want the same thing we all want -- people wanting to come visit and park in the spaces and have spaces available to park in.

I always wonder why the city couldn't just up its own resources and increase enforcement of existing meters, and install new meters as money allows? Lexington (to our south) did just that, and so there are meters in downtown and elsewhere that accept credit cards from the individual meters, increased enforcement, and longer in-effect hours - all without privatization.

 

--

 

And what a PR disaster from the city. Even if there are good intentions, the city and some of its incompetent servants have been handling this in manners that only raises suspicion. They are not being up front and truthful.

Why would the Port knowingly enter into a "bad" deal on the parking lease? That line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense. My take is that they are doing their due diligence on the deal.

 

It's a bad deal for the city.  Port is presently just a pass-through entity that gets a small annual payment.  Better something than nothing.  But as Marmer, the vice chair of the port board, pointed out: the city is over the barrel, why can't we extract more value from them?  I.e. make the deal worse for the city and better for the port.  From the perspective of the public, if it's bad for the city then it is bad for the public.  The port getting $300K per annum isn't going to make much of a difference.

I always wonder why the city couldn't just up its own resources and increase enforcement of existing meters, and install new meters as money allows? Lexington (to our south) did just that, and so there are meters in downtown and elsewhere that accept credit cards from the individual meters, increased enforcement, and longer in-effect hours - all without privatization.

 

One theory would be that it's a union-busting tactic. Under private operation, the formerly unionized employees no longer are, and that lets the city off the hook on their pension obligations.

^yup - so why doesn't CO    support it?

 

^yup - so why doesn't CO    support it?

 

Because even a broken clock is right twice a day?

One theory would be that it's a union-busting tactic. Under private operation, the formerly unionized employees no longer are, and that lets the city off the hook on their pension obligations.

 

But in practice, the city isn't firing anyone; all of the parking employees are getting other city jobs. I do recommend Xerox attempt to hire the african-american parking enforcer who covers downtown/otr on his bike. He is good.

 

The administration did not try to do it themselves because it is far easier to get $92 million upfront AND have someone else pay for the upgrade to the system, and at the time they were looking for (yet another) short term solution to plug a budget hole.

I don't get the hostility. Any Port money will be spent to redevelop brownfields within the city.

1.  The Port thinks it's a shitty deal for the city.

2.  The Port is trying to go forward with the deal while making it shittier for the city.

3.  These backroom machinations are undercutting the credibility of the city.

4.  Despite being a terrible deal, the good leaders won't back away from it and are giving excessive ammunition to bad politicians.  Stop the unforced errors!

5.  Literally every other city that has done a parking deal has been bent over and rammed six ways from Sunday.

6.  Every city that has done due diligence has refused to go forward.  See NYC.

7.  I have no confidence the city will be the exception.

8.  The people of the city are overwhelming against the deal.

 

1. Didn't the Port have a hand in negotiating the deal?

2. And again, any money the Port makes with be invested BACK into the city. That's their sole purpose. That's what they're required to do. (And in Hamilton County to a degree.)

3. Negotiating would be nearly impossible in an open environment. A certain amount of discretion is required. (see Detroit USA).

4. I don't see this as a bad deal and neither does the City Manager and by the sound of things, the Mayor and future Mayor don't either.

5. I like the technology aspect. I don't live in the city, but spend plenty of time DT. I'm expecting it to be easier to pay, find open spaces, navigate to garages and gets cars in and out efficiently. You ever watch folks going to the Aronoff try to figure out those pay machines. I've seen people just give up.

6. Tech. improvements should be a given. The Port has a vested interest in making this work well.

7. Governing is messing.

8. Pretty subjective.

 

Unless parking rises to Bengals' game day prices ($25-30) as a regular visitor I'm willing to pay more if it's easier to pay, park, and leave.

Keep the discussion on-topic. If you start feeling compelled to talk about the Mayor's race, we've got a thread for that.

 

 

Thanks.

A Fishwarp watchdog exclusive

What you didn't know about Xerox can affect parking Cincinnati

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130728/NEWS0108/307280030/What-you-didn-t-know-about-Xerox-can-affect-parking-Cincinnati?nclick_check=1

 

A fairly misleading headline on a fairly positive article

East Side neighborhoods plead case on parking

Community leaders of Oakley, Hyde Park and Mount Lookout on Monday told Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority officials to not increase meter-enforcement hours in those neighborhoods under the city’s controversial parking deal.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130729/NEWS0108/307300009/East-Side-neighborhoods-plead-case-parking

 

---

 

There’s no logical reason to extend hours other than a money grab – it’s essentially charging residents even more for what we are all paying for already. The argument that spaces will turn over fails because the middle and upper class can easily refill parking meters via smartphone. The only benefit will be more open spaces because some people won’t be willing/able to pay – thus parking will get easier for those with money, and extremely harder for the poor and any residents who happen to live near business districts.

Port authority President and CEO Laura Brunner said her agency and Xerox are discussing a deal between five and 15 years.

 

“The agreement with Xerox is separate from the lease agreement, and we want people to understand that,” Brunner said.

 

Probably good to keep in mind.  I wasn't aware of this or had forgotten.

 

 

Leaders are concerned that people dining on Hyde Park and Mount Lookout squares would try to park on neighborhood streets to avoid meter fees, forcing residents to be without parking.

 

Some sort of neighborhood parking permit fixes this concern easily.  Newport has this.  No big deal.

 

 

Further, one Hyde Park leader said residents of about 100 apartments around Hyde Park Square do not have access to off-street parking.

 

“Six p.m. is a reasonable end time without disrupting the environment,” said Carl Uebelacker, a Hyde Park Neighborhood Council board member. “Residents and businesses have to exist in a symbiotic relationship.

 

This one is harder to sort out.  I'm not sure that apartment residents have any more right to parking than businesses that rely on that parking to be available for patrons.  Interesting point, and I could argue this both ways.  Again, some sort of permit or agreement on special rules for this situation could probably smooth it over.  What percentage of people parking at those meters are residents in those apartments?  This doesn't seem like a reason to open up every meter after 6.

 

 

This whole situation sounds like fear of change to me.  I'm not sure how we'll ever know what the effects really are until something actually gets implemented.  There are always kinks that need to be worked out whenever anything changes.  My hope is that the contract leaves enough wiggle room to do so.

"Leaders are concerned that people dining on Hyde Park and Mount Lookout squares would try to park on neighborhood streets to avoid meter fees, forcing residents to be without parking."

 

What about the reverse -- residents that park at metered spaces after 6 p.m.? Aren't they making it harder for people to park and frequent businesses in that neighborhood?

"Leaders are concerned that people dining on Hyde Park and Mount Lookout squares would try to park on neighborhood streets to avoid meter fees, forcing residents to be without parking."

 

What about the reverse -- residents that park at metered spaces after 6 p.m.? Aren't they making it harder for people to park and frequent businesses in that neighborhood?

 

There you go being logical again.

 

Two new articles on the parking meter situation.

 

 

Why the port authority changed Cincinnati’s parking lease plan

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority has decided to make major changes to its deal to lease the city of Cincinnati’s parking meters.

 

The Cincinnati Reds, neighborhood community councils and residents sparked the changes, which include:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/08/why-the-port-authority-changed.html

 

 

 

Parking lease politics not going away

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Eliminating night enforcement of parking meters in Cincinnati neighborhoods under the parking lease plan eventually might blunt the issue’s political impact, but opponents showed no signs of ending their criticism on Friday.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/08/parking-lease-politics-not-going-away.html

They are at it again!

 

 

COAST working on another parking lawsuit

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

An anti-tax and government spending group is working on a lawsuit to again take Cincinnati to court over its plan to lease its parking assets to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/20/coast-working-on-another-parking-lawsuit.html

Port to city residents: We’re trustworthy on parking lease

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

The message from the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority to Cincinnati residents was clear on Friday: Trust us to run the parking system.

 

The port’s board members -- volunteers from Cincinnati’s largest corporations and citizens of note – sought to assure residents that they wouldn’t be gouged while parking at meters under the city’s lease with the port, which the port gave final approval to on Friday. The port board members also made the case that the proceeds from the lease can be used to initiate big, new projects that will allow Cincinnati to keep pace with the rest of the world.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/23/port-to-city-residents-were.html

EXCLUSIVE: Timetable for changes in Cincinnati’s parking system

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Extended enforcement hours and increased rates for Cincinnati’s parking system are expected to be implemented by April, according to a schedule outlined by the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority Executive Director Laura Brunner.

 

The Port Authority gave final approval for its lease of the city’s parking assets on Friday. The schedule calls for the following:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/23/exclusive-timetable-for-changes-in.html

Don't Follow Leaders: Parking Meters and Minimums

Is getting rid of free parking the first step toward a better urbanism?

By Aaron Betsky

 

Since we don’t seem to want to pay for the things we need and use together anymore, cities and other government entities have turned more and more to fees to make us pay. The next step is to outsource the collection of those fees to companies that collect tolls or the (virtual) quarters you put in parking meters. In return, the government gets some immediate money, but it in the long run it is the private sphere that makes the big bucks. In some ways it is a reversion of the days when the government gave tax collection out as concessions—maybe that is next.

 

Does this matter in terms of how we use our environment? We are about to find out in my native Cincinnati, where the city is selling its parking meters to the local Port Authority, which is in turn contracting the work out to a division of Xerox (no longer a mere document company).

 

http://www.architectmagazine.com/urban-development/cincinnati-parking-meters-and-parking-minimums.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ABU_090313&day=2013-09-03

COAST sues over parking lease again

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes has sued the city of Cincinnati again over its agreement to lease the city’s parking garages, lots and meters to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority.

 

COAST says the city and the port made too many changes to the version approved by the Cincinnati City Council before signing it, and council must approve the changes. http://coast-usa.blogspot.com/2013/09/coast-files-suit-to-enjoin-parking-plot.html

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/09/03/coast-sues-over-parking-lease-again.html

Don't Follow Leaders: Parking Meters and Minimums

Is getting rid of free parking the first step toward a better urbanism?

By Aaron Betsky

 

Since we don’t seem to want to pay for the things we need and use together anymore, cities and other government entities have turned more and more to fees to make us pay. The next step is to outsource the collection of those fees to companies that collect tolls or the (virtual) quarters you put in parking meters. In return, the government gets some immediate money, but it in the long run it is the private sphere that makes the big bucks. In some ways it is a reversion of the days when the government gave tax collection out as concessions—maybe that is next.

 

Does this matter in terms of how we use our environment? We are about to find out in my native Cincinnati, where the city is selling its parking meters to the local Port Authority, which is in turn contracting the work out to a division of Xerox (no longer a mere document company).

 

http://www.architectmagazine.com/urban-development/cincinnati-parking-meters-and-parking-minimums.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ABU_090313&day=2013-09-03

 

Wow, that's a terrible article. You can't access schools or affordable groceries from Downtown without driving?

^^Do what you will, but I wouldn't post links to COAST's blog.  No point in giving them the click-throughs, unless you support them and want to give them ad revenue (I do not wish to do so).  The second link is a better source anyway.

Jane Prendergast tweet: City: Supreme Court declines to take jurisdiction in parking case

Judge denies attempt to halt parking lease

 

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Ralph Winkler ruled the city can proceed with implementing the agreement that calls for the city leasing its parking garages, spots and meters for an upfront $92 million payment and $3 million per year for at least 30 years after that.

 

"For a court to intervene in city business there has to be ... substantial grounds to do that," the judge said.

 

Despite the denial of the request for a temporary restraining order, the issue isn't over. The sides have scheduled a Sept. 26 permanent injunction hearing. In it, attorneys Chris Finney and Curt Hartman will ask the judge to stop what they consider is an illegal contract signed by City Manager Milton Dohoney. They are expected to call Dohoney as a witness. In the same hearing, city attorneys will ask the judge to dismiss the case.

How many times can a person sue the city on the same issue? Isn't there some kind of limit?

We should start a ballot initiative to add an amendment to the Charter banning Chris Finney or any associated law firm from suing the City of Cincinnati.

We should start a ballot initiative to add an amendment to the Charter banning Chris Finney or any associated law firm from suing the City of Cincinnati.

 

The definition of "associated law firm" might get a bit murky, but in principle it's a good idea.

 

There really should be a progressive group with a petition engine like COAST has. Progressives of the city should go on the offensive and get positive things on the ballot on a regular basis.

A few more articles from the Business Courier...

 

 

 

Judge shoots down latest COAST bid to stop parking deal

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

A Hamilton County Common Pleas judge squashed the latest effort to derail Cincinnati’s plan to lease its parking lots, meters and garages to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority.

 

Judge Ralph Winkler denied a request by the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes to hold up the deal because City Manager Milton Dohoney and the port signed a deal that was different from what Cincinnati City Council approved.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/09/04/judge-shoots-down-latest-coast-bid-to.html

 

 

 

One legal battle down, one to go on Cincinnati's parking lease plan

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The Ohio Supreme Court decided Wednesday not to hear an appeal of the Hamilton County appellate court’s decision to allow Cincinnati’s parking lease plan to go forward while a county judge was set to hear a new lawsuit on the issue this morning.

 

Back in June, the appeals court decided that the city did not have to hold a public vote on the parking lease plan and that the city council lawfully used its power to pass emergency ordinances in order to approve the plan.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/09/one-legal-battle-down-one-to-go-on.html

Xerox will reap millions annually from parking deal: EXCLUSIVE

Chris Wetterich - Staff reporter - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Xerox will be paid about $4.5 million a year for 10 years to upgrade and operate Cincinnati’s parking meters under an agreement announced by the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority on Tuesday.

 

The contract document itself does not say what Xerox will be paid in total. It lists the fees it will charge for employees, parking meters and other items, which add up to $4.475 million a year, said port spokeswoman Gail Paul.

 

The contract allows the port to renew Xerox’s contract for two additional 10-year periods after the initial term.

 

Cont

City Councilman: 'Parking deal is now dead'

 

Mayor-elect John Cranley and the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority are expected to announce Tuesday afternoon the parking-lease deal has been stopped.

 

Cranley and port authority President and CEO Laura Brunner will hold a joint press conference at 3 p.m. at the Downtown Westin Hotel.

 

City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld said on Twitter: “The Parking Deal is now dead. Tremendously positive announcement for our city. Thanks to all who kept public pressure strong along the way.”

 

Cont

 

I suspect some businesses will leave now.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20131112/BIZ/311120064?nclick_check=1