The question is, are we suckers?
Share with others:
I have this awful feeling that against their best interests the people of Pittsburgh through their representatives on the City Council are headed straight toward getting a really bad deal by leasing out Pittsburgh's parking facilities for the next 50 years. I have the same sinking feeling when I look at how the Legislature in Harrisburg is dealing with the issue of taxing Marcellus Shale natural gas.
The feeling is similar to the one I get when I watch film footage of sheep rushing straight for the edge of a cliff in spite of the guard dogs trying to head them off. Another comparable image is that of fish trying to swim up a waterfall while fast-pawed bears wait on the rocks to turn them into tasty snacks.
In neither case is it too late. Some members of City Council get the picture and, although torn this way and that by various considerations, remain fully capable of resisting the pull of the money and the demands of the interests involved to refuse the call of the deal.
Basically, the city has to come up with $200 million by Dec. 31 to top up the city employees' pension fund or have the state take it over and impose on the city whatever taxes or other measures are necessary to keep it adequately financed. A study that City Council commissioned for $250,000 has estimated that city parking facilities could generate $2.4 billion over the next 50 years. The high bidder to lease them, J.P. Morgan Asset Management and LAZ Parking, has offered the city $452 million up front.
One problem is that the lease would leave in the hands of city officials $152 million (after $200 million goes to the pension fund and the city pays off the parking authority's $100 million debt). Figuring out what to do with that much money is enough to put a glow in the cheeks not only of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, whose idea this was in the first place, but also of City Council members, no matter how public-spirited they might be.
First Published October 6, 2010 12:00 am
