EXTRA: Gas tax hike kicks in Monday -- Happy Fiscal New Year!!!

I almost feel like I ought to be making a point to fill up the gasoline tank this weekend – what with new Illinois state taxes on the price of a gallon of gas going up as of Monday.

How long until you've seen gas prices this low?

It is part of the capital spending plan the General Assembly and Gov J.B. Pritzker approved earlier this year, meant to raise some $45 billion to pay for improvements needed in state construction projects.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, the motor fuel tax for Illinois will increase from 19 cents per gallon to 38 cents – which is the first such increase since 1990 – literally back at the tail end of Jim Thompson’s time as governor.

On top of that, municipalities in Cook County were given the option of creating their own 3-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline – on top of what the state will charge,

The coming of the new Fiscal Year on Monday means that is when these new rates will take effect. We’ll start noticing the prices on the rise as of that date – with probably many of those people living near the Illinois borders with Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky going out of their way to buy their gasoline elsewhere.

Although Pritzker may have put the need for money into perspective when he said, “it means fewer blown-out tires, fewer car axles thrown out of balance, fewer fender benders and fewer life-threatening car accidents” by having better roads. Although I suspect many people are just too eager to complain about someone regardless of reality.

  -30-

EXTRA: Cheech & Chong gag obsolete? At least in Illinois!

The Illinois House of Representatives completed the legislative portion of the process by which marijuana use in the Land of Lincoln loses its stigma -- sending off to Gov. J.B. Pritzker the bill that will make it no longer any kind of illegal act for people to light up a joint/doobie/whatever you choose to call it.

Which makes me wonder about the old Cheech & Chong comedy skits involving the Sgt. Stedenko character. The overbearing, and inept, cop was forever trying to bust the comedy team -- and as I recall in one of their films, turned out to be a drug user himself.

BUT HOW WILL future generations view such moments? Will they wonder just why a cop was getting all worked up over someone wanting to indulge themselves in having a smoke for pure pleasure?

For the intent of Illinois' new law, which Pritzker is expected to sign off on some time this summer, will allow for people to purchase their "pot" from officially licensed vendors -- whose sales will be taxed, Meaning Illinois will get its "cut" of the proceeds. Which the cynics say is an immoral, if not ought to be criminal, reason to legalize something.

I don't doubt some people are going to wan to forevermore maintain the stigma of marijuana use -- mainly because they're going to object to the kinds of people they want to believe actually use the substance,

Which is why the most important part of this legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, if Pritzker actually signs it into law, are the measures allowing for people to have their criminal records cleared of any offenses for past usage.

THE MARIJUANA POLICY Project estimates that some 750,000 people in Illinois will be eligible to have their records cleared for any times in the past they were caught by police using. It should be clear that people have to show they didn't commit other illegal acts while using pot -- their convictions will remain in place.

It should be noted that this change in law, when it takes effect, will not legitimize your neighborhood drug dealer. If anything, they're going to remain under police scrutiny. They will be, after all, selling pot products that compete with the officially-licensed vendors the state will want people to purchase from.

It will be something along the lines of the "illegal lottery" rackets that compete with the Illinois State Lottery games and are the remnants of the old policy rackets that allowed people to place nickel bets on numbers in hopes of winning a prize. The police still crack down on those people -- because they want us to buy lottery tickets from gas stations and convenience stores instead.

Which means that the cops are still going to crack down on the scuzzy-looking guy who tries growing his own pot product for sale. "Sgt. Stedenko," however, will become a less onerous law enforcement image -- and something more akin to "Barney Fife."

  -30-

DeLUCA: Our brains on drugs

EDITOR'S NOTE: Just a bit of evidence as to how some people will always remain opposed to the idea of legitimizing marijuana use. Amongst the legislators who voted "no" are state Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, who couldn't bring himself to side with the desires of his political party's governor. DeLuca brought to mind that old public service announcement, reenacting that moment by frying an egg in a pan within the House chambers, then telling us, "This is your brain on drugs."

Saving jobs? Or cheap pop!

Are we really on the verge of putting some 1,100 people out-of-work because we want to keep the price of pop and other sweetened drinks as low as possible?
 

Is this worth 20 more cents?

That’s the line of logic being offered up by Cook County government these days, where officials say layoff notices will have to be issued in coming days to a significant number of county employees.

THAT IS BECAUSE the penny per ounce tax increase on the carbonated drinks too many of us consume at too high a rate has been stalled by the courts, meaning it can’t be charged and Cook County government can forget (for now, at least) about raising the revenue it mentally had already spent to maintain its operations.

For the record, the county was expecting some $67.5 million for the rest of their fiscal year (through Nov. 30) and more than $200 million for the next fiscal year – which begins Dec. 1.

That’s a big hole to suddenly have crop up in the budget. I can see where county officials would be dismayed at the various restraining orders that have prevented them from charging the penny per ounce fee they wanted to start collecting back on July 1.

Those restraining orders, as of now, run through July 21 – at which time there will be more hearings in the Cook County Circuit Court and a judge could eventually issue an order that strikes down the pop tax outright.

 

Will county government services need to be cut?

NOW AS ONE who has experienced the “wonders” (sarcasm most definitely intended) of job layoffs, I’m not thrilled about the idea of any worker being let go for any reason – particularly one that isn’t their fault.

But I also don’t doubt that many people aren’t terribly sympathetic to the idea of the county wanting to preserve its operations – which some may have their own ideological hang-ups about in thinking have grown too big.

If you really are the type of person who thinks it’s a good thing that the county will have fewer workers, I’ll say you’re a cold-hearted person.

Having a pop not the same experience of old

But there may be those who view the tax bills they’re already paying and figure they don’t like the idea of paying one penny more.

WHICH IS WHY the notion of this particular pop tax being only one cent per ounce may sound terrible. Besides, that’s about a 20-cent increase in the typical plastic bottle of pop meant to evoke the image of the old glass Coca-Cola bottles we all used to drink from.

And as for the 2-liter bottles that are all so popular, that’s another 65 cents added to the price.

Personally, I don’t that’s overly excessive – although I’ll also admit that I have been making an effort during the past year to reduce the total amount of carbonated beverages I consume.

I still enjoy an occasional Coke, but have to admit to finding ice water equally refreshing, Maybe I’m just getting boring in my old age.

BUT SERIOUSLY, IT would not be the worst thing in the world if people would think twice about the amount of carbonation they feel the need to consume. Which, if you think about it honestly, can create a gassy condition that can’t possibly be good for any of us.

If you think I’m somehow trivializing this issue, keep in mind that this is the essence of all the legalese that eventually will be spewed in open court as attorneys argue on the merits of the county being able to use a pop tax as a revenue-raising source.

At some point, a judge is going to have to decide on the merits of carbonated beverages in general, and the right of an individual to have a Coke (and a smile, according to the old jingle) for as cheap a price as possible.

Is that really a right? In order to properly express my thoughts on that concept, I’d have to guzzle down a Coke or two in order to get the proper tone to my belch!

  -30-

Skeptical of the smoking stats!

5,500 and 6,400. The two new statistics that I’m not quite sure I believe.

Or, even if they are true, if they really mean all that much.

THOSE ARE THE numbers that aides to Mayor Rahm Emanuel were using on Tuesday to try to justify the proposal to raise the tax on a package of cigarettes by 75 cents.

City Health Department officials admit that this new tax would result in cigarettes costing more in Chicago than anywhere else in the United States. Which they say is a good thing.

Because it would persuade some 5,500 adults to quit smoking (because they can’t afford it anymore) and some 6,400 teenagers to never start smoking in the first place.

It’s my own gut instinct that says people who are determined to smoke are going to, regardless of the official price of a pack of cigarettes. Although even if those number of people do wind up not smoking because it becomes too expensive, is it really worth that much.

BECAUSE WE’RE TALKING about some not-quite 12,000 people out of a population of 2.7 million in the city, or some more than 8 million in the Chicago metro area.

The 11,900 that city officials are saying will not smoke? That’s a pretty insignificant number.

Personally, I’d respect city government more if they’d just come out and admit they want to gouge the people who are so addicted to tobacco that they can’t get by without their two-pack-a-day fix!

At least that would be honest.

NO MATTER HOW much they want to talk about saving $235 million in long-term health costs from problems caused by smoking, they really want the added tax revenue.

There are many areas to which the money – about $10 million per year, city officials say – could be put to use.

Including the child health care programs that city officials say they want to support. A noble goal.

But I wonder at what point do we start seeing people taking extreme measures to avoid buying cigarettes in Chicago? Will it turn out to be like gasoline – where anybody who can possibly avoid using a gas pump in the city limits does so?

WILL WE GET those places selling “cheap smokes” just across the city limits/state line in Hammond, Ind., and surrounding Hoosier communities seeing a sudden surge in business.

Or what of the places within the city – usually in the seedier neighborhoods that most need help but don’t’ get it – where locals know which stores will sell them “loosies.”

As in cigarettes sold individually.

It’s most definitely an illegal act. But there are those people who think they’re Al Capone reincarnated and that they’re “providing a service” to people who merely want to indulge their taste for tobacco.

AND WHEN IT comes to wanting something easily accessible and cheap, some people are more than willing to overlook the legalities of any issue.

As for me, I don’t smoke. It is just one habit I never picked up on. I wish it were practical to think of tax increases like this as a way to seriously decline the number of people who feel compelled to smoke cigarettes. I’m just realistic enough to know that life isn’t quite so easy.

If only the addition of another tax were the way to do it.

Instead, we’re going to get these taxes going higher and higher and some people will pay it. But many others will manage to find their alternatives.

WHICH WILL RESULT in no one getting paid a tax. Because avoiding the tax will be the whole point of the purchase.

The healthcare issues and other problems related to smoking will remain. But the increased tax revenues just won’t be there to back up a solution.

Isn’t that a pleasant thought for the day!

  -30-

Way too late to show caution

The current parking meter mess almost makes me nostalgic for a scene like this 1959 Miss Parking Meter. Photograph provided by Chuckman Chicago Nostalgia

There are certain government officials who give a knee-jerk “no” vote whenever any measure comes up that involves a sports stadium.

For some, they are bitter that their opposition to a new stadium for the Chicago White Sox some two decades ago passed anyway. That’s a long time to hold a grudge.

BUT FOR OTHERS, they saw the negative reaction caused by that deal. So they think a “no” vote now will somehow show they are being responsible and protective of the public interests.

I’m skeptical of such logic – which to me makes about as much sense as the aldermen who this week made a point of expressing opposition to attempts to alter the deal the city has with Chicago Parking Meters LLC.

That is the entity that operates the parking meters on city streets. It is the entity that paid Chicago a respectable sum of money a few years ago – in exchange for gaining the rights to the meters and all their money for decades to come.

Of course, Chicago blew through that cash within a year; and now has nothing to show for all the upcoming years that an outside entity will take in billions from those people who pay the parking fees to legally leave their cars on city streets.

THAT IS THE motivation behind Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s desires to redo the deal. He wants to be able to take credit for getting something back for city taxpayers (the ones whom a new Chicago Tribune poll says don’t love him quite as much as they did a year ago).

He apparently worked out a deal by which we’d be able to park for free on Sundays, provided that the hours of the day the rest of the week be extended during which tickets could be issued to those people who don’t bother to feed the meters.

Personally, it strikes me as being way too little. Chicago parking meters are going to be an issue that will be a political joke for decades to come – most likely for the rest of my life (and I don’t anticipate departing this Earth anytime soon).

Maybe the aldermen think they’re gaining our support by the fact that they wouldn’t give Emanuel’s “deal” a rubber stamp of approval. Because that’s what didn’t happen when the City Council met this week.

ALDERMEN COMPLAINED, RANTED and whined about how they suspected that this was just a scam to let Chicago Parking Meters LLC make even more money. Such as how requiring the meters to be “fed” in those areas just north of the Loop (River North, Streeterville) could bring in more money than would be lost by offering free Sunday parking.

They might be right.

But if the aldermen think they’re suddenly being responsible public officials, they’re seriously being delusional. Because there isn’t anything they can do these days to fix the mess that has been created.

That actually is the one point on which I will give Emanuel some credit. He admits this is a bad deal that can’t be fixed.

ALDERMEN ARE ACTING as though there is a “fix” to be found!

And I think the mindset of most Chicagoans when it comes to street parking is set – regardless of any amendments to the deal that might be made in the future.

About the only thing that can be said about street parking is that it isn’t quite as expensive (in most cases) as parking in a downtown garage.

Although I suspect I’m not alone in being among the ranks of people who turn to mass transit to get about the city. Parking the car is just too darn costly!

  -30-

Solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

I’m not quite sure what to think of city Clerk Susana Mendoza, who on Wednesday came up with a solution to a problem that I never really realized existed.

MENDOZA: Solving a non-existent problem?



The problem is the inconvenience factor involved in having everyone in Chicago who owns an automobile having to renew their city stickers by June 30.

I’M SURE MOST people think of it less as an inconvenience and more as a citywide rip-off that they have to purchase a city sticker at all for every vehicle they own – or else risk the Wrath of Rahm and other city officials who will have them ticketed (should Chicago police ever stumble across their vehicles) and fined!

But Mendoza seems to think that it will seem less painful for people to have to buy the stickers if they don’t have to deal with massive lines as every single motorist rushes to her office all at once to make their purchases – at $85 a pop.

The Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday how her office is drawing up a year-round sticker purchase plan – one that is being copied heavily from the way the Illinois secretary of state’s office handles the renewal of license plates.

Those identification plates on our cars are good for one year, then we have to purchase a new sticker each year that indicates we paid our $100 fee for the upcoming year.

BUT THERE ARE 12 different deadlines, on account of the fact that everybody gets until the end of the month from one year they purchased them to renew them.

In my case, June 30 is the big date – the one by which I have to go to a motor vehicle bureau and wait in the lines for a procedure that – once I get to a clerk of some type – takes all of about three minutes to complete.

It’s the wait in line that winds up being annoying to us – envision an hour-long wait for a three-minute process.

It can be just as bad when it comes to buying the city sticker, except that I’m not sure it is really appropriate to compare the two because there is a bit of a difference.

THE LICENSE PLATE is something that is meant to help public safety officials (particularly those highway patrol types of the Illinois State Police) identify an automobile much quicker than would otherwise be possible if they had to look up the VIN number every single time they made a traffic stop.

The city sticker always reeked of being just another fee the city charges us to try to raise revenue – and not one that provides any real benefit to the public.

Which is why a part of me admires the rare community that doesn’t sell city vehicle stickers. I still remember when I lived in Springfield, Ill., and first moved to the capital city.

Local officials looked at me like I was a circus freak when I inquired about how to get a city sticker. Of course, Springfield city officials have their own tax (1 percent on the purchase price) on local residents whenever they buy automobiles – which I learned when I bought a car while living there.

BECAUSE I BOUGHT the car from a suburban Chicago dealership (out in Oak Lawn, if I recall correctly), I wasn’t charged the tax. So Springfield sued me, although they dropped the lawsuit when I came up with $148 for the tax.

But back to city stickers. I’m just not convinced people are going to feel at all relieved that they won’t have to cram into a clerk’s office (or a currency exchange) all at once.

If Mendoza really wanted to make people happy, she’d figure out a way to reduce the fee – if not eliminate it altogether.

Not that I expect that to ever happen. City officials are too dependent on the revenue (about $110 million this year, according to the clerk) by now to be able to afford to give it up.

BESIDES, IF THERE’S a date we’d really like to do away with, it’s April 15.

Tax Day!!!!!!

All the tension we all feel from having to account for our incomes and hope that the Internal Revenue Service doesn’t find some bureaucratic rule that can be used against us.

That would be a significant move if we could reduce it by 1/12^th.

  -30-

How cash-desperate is government?

Government entities can always use more money to fund their operations – enabling them to provide more services that would actually benefit the public.

If I were a corporation serious interested in buying naming rights from  Cook County, all I'd want is the little plot of land upon which the iconic Picasso statue rests. Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

And when certain government officials talk about wanting to reduce government spending, in many cases what they really want to do is cut programs to which they have ideological hang-ups. Budget balancing is not their primary concern.

BUT WE’RE IN a time period where economic struggles are impacting government as well. The existing tax rates just aren’t producing as much money as desired (what’s that old cliché, “you can’t draw blood from a turnip”) and some people need to rely on government services all the more in order to survive.

So perhaps it shouldn’t be shocking that government entities are considering some pretty strange-sounding ideas these days – justifying them with rhetoric about how desperately they need more money.

I can’t help but think that Cook County government talking about selling off naming rights and sponsorships is among them.

We may now be with a generation that thinks it is totally normal for sports arenas to have names like the United Center, U.S. Cellular Field or Toyota Park (just to name a few). But now, it seems, we’re going to at least contemplate the idea that the forest preserves or government buildings (at least parts of them) will have corporate names.

NO LONGER WILL such facilities be named for political hacks like Richard J. Daley or Dan Ryan (the woods, along with the expressway). That is, not unless their families are willing to let the government have what was left of their campaign war chests at the moments of their deaths.

It was just earlier this year that county officials put the name of George Leighton (one of the first African-American judges in Cook County) on the Criminal Courts building in the Little Village neighborhood.

But now, it seems that corporate entities could have their names put on the lobby, or other portions of the building.

Or if you have some real money to spend, you could get your name put on an entire forest preserve.

PERSONALLY, IF I had large amounts of money I could waste, I would want to buy a piece of Daley Plaza. I’m not greedy. I don’t want the whole plaza.

I just want the little square portion upon which sits the famed Picasso statue. Just think – the Picasso at Chicago Argus court, in Daley Plaza! It’s definitely a mouthful, and totally ridiculous-sounding.

Yet that’s the direction our county government is considering – all in the name of feeling desperate for cash to keep the county up-and-running.

Although it should be pointed out that it’s not just Cook County taking actions in the name of finance. It was just last week that the Illinois House of Representatives passed a measure meant to bolster the amount of money in state coffers.

NO, I’M NOT referring to the sequel of casino expansion (although that was done solely for the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars coming to the state). I’m talking about the proposed tax increase on packages of cigarettes.

If this measure actually gets past the Illinois Senate this week and Gov. Pat Quinn sometime this summer, the price of a pack would go up by $1.

I realize this increase is being justified to raise money desperately needed to maintain healthcare for low-income people. Anything that improves healthcare quality and access is a good thing.

It’s just that I wonder how far can political people go in terms of boosting tobacco-product taxes before they become too expensive to purchase. Not that it would bother me – I always thought of smoking as a tacky, smelly habit.

BUT AT WHAT point does this kind of increase become self-defeating by reducing the numbers of people who actually purchase cigarettes?

Or is nicotine truly so addictive that people will feel compelled to pay whatever price gets put on two-pack-a-day habit? I can’t help but think that we’d be encouraging people to cheat themselves out of something else in order to afford their tobacco fix – which just sounds like it creates so many problems.

Somehow, I suspect that the only people who will benefit from this change (if it becomes law) are the manufacturers of those generic brands of cigarettes – who will be able to offer a lower-base price.

That, and maybe those tacky little storefronts on the Indiana side of State Line Road – the ones that have their huge signs advertising “cheap smokes” along with firecrackers and all the generic flavors of pop you could want to guzzle down your throat while attending a picnic held at Little Caesar’s Pizza forest preserve!

  -30-

Only numbness when it comes to taxes



QUINN: He kept his word, sort of

There’s an old, third-rate joke that comes to my mind when I think of the personal and corporate income tax hikes signed into law this week by Gov. Pat Quinn.

It’s the one about a woman who has no problem with having sex with a man for $1 million, but then gets all self-righteously indignant when the man suggests paying her only $1,000. The punchline being that her “character” was established by the first monetary figure, and the second dollar amount was merely quibbling over price.

I CAN’T HELP but think of the people who are ranting and raging these days about the increased taxes as being the equivalent of the woman in that joke – making self-righteous diatribes that we’d all be better off ignoring.

For it has been known for quite a long time that some sort of tax increase by state government was needed to help get Illinois out of its financial predicament. The fact that Democrats kept control of the General Assembly in last year’s elections and that most of the state constitutional officers – including governor – remain Democrats should have alerted people that conditions were ripe for some sort of measure to get through the Legislature.

So anyone who seriously claims this was somehow sneaked through the governmental process is full of hot air. We should all have seen this coming and braced ourselves for the worst.

As for those people who are ideologically inclined to be disagreeable on this issue, you should have seen the failure of William Brady to get elected governor as evidence that a majority of the voters took his talk of balancing the budget solely through spending cuts as a whole lot of hooey.

AS FOR THOSE people who are now saying that Quinn has broken a campaign promise by pushing for such a large tax hike (original talk was that the state personal income tax would go from 3 to 4 percent – instead of 3 to 5 percent), you ought to be quiet.

BLAGOJEVICH: He won't leave



Because they are the ones who truly are quibbling over price – either was a serious increase that will wind up costing people. It’s not like the 1 percent hike would have been acceptable to many people, while 2 percent seriously breaks us. As I see it, Quinn said he’d approve a significant tax hike, and he did. It’s not, “Read my lips, no new taxes” by any means.

If anything, all I felt when I learned early Wednesday that the General Assembly had managed to push the tax hike bill all the way through the legislative process before the newly-elected state Legislature took control at mid-day Wednesday was a sense of numbness.

Not shock. Not outrage. Not self-righteous anger. Just numbness.

IN FACT, PART of the reason I held off until week’s end to try commenting on this issue was because it took me time to work up any sense of emotion for something bad that I knew was going to happen eventually,

Any attempt by me then, or even now, to write some sort of commentary expressing anger at our elected officials for doing such a dastardly deed as raising our taxes would be phony. I don’t even think I have the energy to get angry at such an increase – which is going to affect the payments I make to the Illinois Department of Revenue to pay my state taxes (the life of a freelance writer means that no one is withholding anything on my behalf) just like everybody else.

The only question now is to see five years from now if the measures that are supposed to cause these increases to decline will be allowed to take effect, or if a future Legislature will wind up deciding that the added revenues are too much a part of the budget to be allowed to wither away,.

If there is any issue that gets me angry, it is the fact that such an increase could have been lessened had it been done years ago! Our state’s financial problems (which still aren’t close to being resolved) have reached the crisis state they are in now due to years of neglect.

SOME PEOPLE CAN trace the neglect back decades, but there’s no doubt that the problem became worsened during the early to middle years of the past decade.

Yes, I’m referring to the years of Rod Blagojevich as governor, when he and the legislative leaders (particularly Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago) became obsessed with their partisan fights.

Milorod wanted to let the Legislature know where it fit into the grand scheme of things as he perceived it, while legislators were more than willing to fight back and let them know how much they could mess with a sitting governor who acted all self-righteous.

The end result was that nothing got done. Our problems became worse.

WHICH IS WHY I didn’t feel any real disgust over this situation until I read the Chicago Sun-Times reports indicating that Blagojevich is now engaging in, “I told you so!”



MEL: Stow it, Blago!



“This illustrates exactly what I fought for six years,” Blagojevich told the Sun-Times. “If they thought this was the right thing to do, why didn’t they do this before the election?”



I almost wish we could get actor Vic Tayback as diner owner Mel to tell Blagojevich to “Stow it!”

But that’s the closest I can come to feeling a sense of outrage over the issue, because I’m not about to move to Indiana, or Wisconsin, or any other surrounding state that may have delusions of stealing some business away from Illinois.

  -30-

Is $6.50/hr for downtown parking meant to scare motorists out of the Loop?

I’m starting to wonder if Chicago city officials perceive parking meters downtown the same way that most governments view tobacco products.

Whenever a government entity raises its tobacco tax, there usually is a concession that some people will quit smoking because they won’t be able to afford the increased cost of cigarettes – which is seen as a health benefit for society as a whole.

DO CITY OFFICIALS secretly hope that the idea of charging people up to $6.50 per hour when they park along downtown streets will discourage them from bringing their cars into the Loop, thereby improving the area’s traffic flow?

I’m not making that figure up. The City Council is expected to hold a special session Thursday to consider a measure that was rammed through a committee earlier this week – one that would turn over parking meters in the city from control of the Department of Revenue to a private company that would pay Chicago city government $1.2 billion.

Under the proposal being considered by the City Council, parking meters would get standardized rates, and rates would be increased annually. That is how meters that now charge about $0.25 per hour now will go up to $1 per hour come next month, and will be as high as the aforementioned $6.50 figure.

City officials tell reporter-types that they would want to use about half the money paid by the private company to balance the city budget for the upcoming year (the deal that was approved last month and included layoffs for more than 600 city employees).

I’M SURE CITY officials, including Mayor Richard M. Daley, like the idea of some private entity paying them a set fee, rather than having to rely on the ebb and flow of parking revenues for the next five years.

It allows the city to know exactly how much money it can expect from parking.

So what would the city care if the thought of such a high rate (it’s a good thing that modern parking meters take credit and debit cards, or else having to carry nearly $20 in small change for three hours of parking along a downtown street would weigh people down too much) winds up scaring some people away from driving their cars downtown.

The city still gets its money, and it becomes the problem of the private company to figure out how to achieve enough revenue to make operating the city’s parking meters profitable for them.

AND IF FEWER cars downtown means it is easier for people to move about on foot, then perhaps there is a plus for urban dwellers and travelers.

I have to confess something. While I enjoy downtown Chicago as much as anyone else, I can’t remember the last time I took my car down there.

One of the advantages of my current residence is that it is within walking distance of a train station that can take me to the Loop anytime I want to go there. Once there, the CTA continues to be helpful in getting about, along with the occasional taxicab (that is, if I can’t just walk there – that’s what legs are for).

I honestly don’t understand why anyone really feels the need to deal with the already-high prices of parking meters in the Loop, or those downtown parking garages whose rates also are going up.

IN FACT, ABOUT the only time in my life that I ever drove into downtown Chicago on a regular basis was back in my earliest days with the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago, where riding around in my car from assignment to assignment was part of my job, and my day always involved checking in with the “main office” in the old Jeweler’s Building at Wabash and Wacker.

That was about the only time I ever got parking tickets on a regular basis – finding a “legal” spot in front of the building so I could run in-and-out was difficult, so it became easier to just “take” the occasional parking ticket.

In fact, I recently used the Chicago Department of Revenue’s website to check my driver’s license number to see if I had managed to pay all those outstanding tickets.

As it turns out, I still have one ticket (from August of 1990) for parking illegally downtown. This particular ticket qualifies for the amnesty program the city is offering this month, and I probably will use that option to pay it off – mostly because I don’t want some overanxious city crew mistaking my car for one that can be “booted.”

MY POINT IN noting this anecdote is to point out the date – it has been just over 18 years since I last got a parking ticket. It may very well have been that long since I drove my own car into the downtown area.

Yet I don’t feel like my access to the area has been limited in any way. So I won’t suffer any sacrifice in avoiding a $6.50/hour parking meter fee, since I am already avoiding parking meter fees.

If more people took my view on the issue, this activity would be a moot point. Some company would wind up regretting getting involved in a deal with city government because not enough people would be parking at meters for them to generate enough money to meet their profit margins.

My question? How much would parking have to decline for the deal to become a money-loser for a private entity, and for Richard M. Daley to wind up looking like a genius for taking the $1.2 billion up front?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: New Year, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Thanksgiving and Christmas days (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/12/aldermen-debate.html) will no longer be recognized as parking meter holidays, if a new deal is approved by the City Council on Thursday.

The whole world is watching (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6850188-c0db-11dd-b0a8-000077b07658.html) as Chicago prepares to sell off operation of its nearly 36,000 parking meters to a group led by Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners.

The next time you wonder why it always takes government so long to do anything (such as approve a new airport for the Chicago area), keep in mind that this parking meter privatization (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1312003,chicago-parking-meter-privatize-approve-120308.article) did not exist publicly until this week. The City Council can act quickly when it is in their interest to do so.