What I said:
Hi Eric, Mark Weiss, I can’t resist.
I didn’t see the meeting and I haven’t seen the tape, either, but The Post quotes you regarding the term “privatization” as it applies to Downtown North parking and I think you misuse the term, with due respect.
“Privatization” would be what happened in Chicago where Rahm Emanuel, for example, someone paid a million dollars—, a billion dollars to collect all the parking revenues for the next 50 years in Chicago. and then they realize “Oops” it was worth ’10X’ that, ten billion, and they look stupid. That’s “privatization”. If We The People some of whom live on Bryant Street — in the first 300 blocks —three blocks — wish to regulate, that’s not “privatization”. That’s “regulation”. And I don’t know why you’re unclear on that. But “privatization” is an entirely more pernicious and separate matter, heretofore, separate.
Have a great trip, talk to you later. Bye.
This was back in November, shortly after elections.
What his email attachment claims I said:
Hi Eric, Mark Wise. I can’t resist. That’s the I didn’t see the meeting. But the I haven’t seen the J be there, but the post quotes, too. Regarding. The term privatize issue, as it applies to downtown north parking and I think you miss use the term. With due respect, privatization wouldn’t be what happen in Chicago. Where, Ron Emmanuel, For example, someone paid a million dollar billion dollars to collect all the parking revenues for the next 50 years in Chicago. And I realize pokes it was worth ten. Expeditor’s for ten billion that’s stupid. That’s privatization. If We, the people. Some of them live. I’m Brian street in the first 300 box. 33 blocks wish to regulate that’s not privatization. That’s a regulation And I, don’t know why you’re on clear on that. But privatization. Is it internally more print issues, and separate matter here 2 floor, separate. Have a great trip talk to you later. Bye.
And his response, which actually indicates he heard me properly or you be the judge. (and we had a quick further back-and-forth on somewhat related topics. Don’t get me wrong I like and respect Eric, but I do wonder if the gadgetry helps or hinders, and his background is smack-dab-in-the-middle of the widget-wonder-complex, which of course is why he owns a house here and I, the arts guy, still rent):
thanks for your comment re: privatization.
yes, perhaps it’s not the right term.
a regulation that sets aside a group of streets that everyone in the city has paid for and makes them for the semi-exclusive use of those who live there smacks of elitism and entitlement. The people who are hurt are small businesses (whose employees will have more difficulty finding affordable parking). My point was that we should at least charge a market rate for this “regulation”. The city’s projection is that this program will cost $500-700k/year to administer. And that’s for ONE neighborhood.
For a city that has difficulty finding a budget to help the homeless or the displaced residents living in our trailer park, spending this kind of money to ensure that I don’t have to always park in my driveway (and god forbid a dude who serves me at Sanchos gets to park anywhere near my house) feels unseemly.
Having said that, I supported the citywide ordinance if there is broad neighborhood support. I just think that we need to properly price parking.
here is a link to a discussion of the actual deal, which was made in 2008, before Rahm took office (and I admit I said his name wrong) and the math is more complicated than my description of it, and he is probably correcting the deal somewhat.
There’s also something called Privatization Watch that I subscribe to but never read because all their subject lines are the same and never indicate what the topic actually is.