IBJOpinion

Meter deal is a bad idea

September 18, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

I read with interest [Cory Schouten’s] article in the Aug. 30 IBJ, “City vendor may get $1.2B,” detailing aspects of the city’s proposed deal to privatize the city’s parking meters.

I saw that you quoted Aaron Renn on the matter. I have read with interest many of Renn’s posts on urban planning and development, as he is a truly thoughtful commentator on such issues. I am not sure if you saw Renn’s additional blog posts on the subject of the parking meter deal [at www.urbanophile.com].

In his posts, Renn details a number of extremely troubling aspects of the deal, which make it hard for me as a downtown resident, taxpayer and worker, to understand how the administration could’ve allowed itself to ink such a deal. I find particularly troubling the provisions of the contract that make it potentially much more expensive—and thus less likely—for the city or developers to undertake downtown projects.

Given the enormous changes to our downtown over the past 50 years, it is difficult to understand why the administration would consider imposing higher costs on downtown development for the next 50 years (the term of the proposed contract). I am hopeful that the City-County Council will, upon reflection and the light of day, reject the deal when it comes to a vote. There are other, less onerous ways to achieve the laudable goal of upgrading our parking meter infrastructure.

Given the extremely troubling terms of the deal, I thought I’d let you know that I appreciated your article and hope that you follow up with additional reports.

____________

David Suess
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT