GUY: Do meter-contract critics have a plan?

John Guy
October 16, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

John GuyOpposing a parking-meter contract is a whole lot easier than proposing.

Over an extended period, individuals in Mayor Greg Ballard’s administration methodically reviewed alternatives for modernizing city parking meters. They must have considered two obvious alternatives: The first alternative is public funding through sale of bonds, installation by a private contractor, and administration by city personnel. The second is contracting with a private-sector company to do it all, to finance the project, install and administer, and to pay upfront and annual fees to the city.

I have not spoken to anyone involved, but I believe that city officials felt they selected the best alternative, a contract with a private company. However, I doubt they believed the choice was clear, for rarely is a business decision manifestly the best. If clear certainty were a business criterion, nothing ever would happen.

Was it inevitable that opposition would appear? Perhaps, for disagreement is inherent in our democracy. In any case, opposition did appear in the form of blogs, essays, editorials and letters to the editor. To me, the opposition seemed unusually strong and categorical, because parking meters have relatively little impact on public finance, certainly nothing like a sports facility.

The opposition had several characteristics. First, no opponent was a person having decision-making power. Second, unlike the proponents who offered details of a contract, opponents made no positive proposal, except a generality that the city should sell revenue bonds, as if new parking meters would magically appear on receipt of bond proceeds. Third, opposition was general and categorical. Instead of suggesting modifications in the proposed contract, they opposed it entirely.

Finally, opponents attached themselves to several undocumented and unproven hypotheses. These were that a similar contract in Chicago was a disaster, that the private company had complaints in other cities, and that the Indianapolis Cultural Trail downtown could not have been built had the proposed parking-meter contract been in effect. None of these hypotheses was proven or documented.

In any government context—whether health care, taxation or parking meters—the “loyal opposition” would serve better if it proposed instead of opposed; if, instead of advocating categorical defeat, it offered positive alternatives, in detail.

To some opponents, a 50-year contract seemed long, but none suggested what the length should be. (Holders of applicable revenue bonds would insist on a long contract, somewhere between 30 and 50 years.) They did not say who should be in charge, or how much he/she should be paid to set up a technically complex operation that involves connections to credit- and debit-card processors. They did not itemize the costs of purchasing and maintaining the new equipment. They offered no details. None.

One opponent wrote me that he did not have a proposal, but that the city’s suggested deal “clearly” is not good. One word in that sentence bothered me. It was the word “clearly.”•


Guy is president of Indianapolis-based Wealth Planning & Management LLC and author of “Middle Man, A Broker’s Tale.”


  • It Will Remain A Hard Sell Without Supporting Facts
    Mr. Guy, specifically, how have the so-called "meter-contract critics" not presented a viable alternative to the proposed contract with ACS through their argument that the city should instead issue bonds backed by the city's parking meter revenues and use the bond proceeds to install modern electronic meters and to fund infrastructure improvements. By the city's own admission, the current parking meters set at the current parking rates in downtown and Broad Ripple generate a good sum of revenue for the city. So, wouldn't it be logical to assume that if the city issued bonds to install modern electronic meters, extended parking hours and raised parking rates, it could generate even more parking meter revenue, which could then pay back the bonds and create additional funds for infrastructure improvements? And, couldn't the city accomplish all this while keeping the entire amount of the parking meter revenue for itself without having to share it with a private middle-man? Furthermore, will the proponents of the ACS parking contract ever answer the question as to what ACS can supposedly do to overhaul Indianapolis's parking meter system which the city cannot do for itself? What efficiencies or special skills would ACS bring to the table which the city lacks? It seems to me that the deal is simply a device for a private subsidiary of Xerox to make a hefty profit without adding any extra value. If the proponents of the ACS parking contract could present even a shred of persuasive evidence that ACS could contract to install meters more cheaply than the city could contract on its own, or manage the parking meter system more efficiently than the city could, then perhaps the parking privatization plan would not be such a hard sell.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....