Ohio PIRG Supports Overturning Cincy Parking Plan

Media Contacts
Tabitha Woodruff

Cites Lack of Transparency, Accountability in Parking Proposal

Ohio PIRG

We urge Cincinnatians to overturn the parking proposal through the November ballot. The parking proposal contains many potential problems that could harm Cincinnati for decades, including:

  • Secret contracts with private companies. We initially applauded the selection of the Port Authority, a semi-public entity, and were encouraged by Cincinnati City Council’s public sharing of information about that transfer. It soon became apparent, however, that the substance of the parking proposal would be elsewhere: in undisclosed terms of proposed decades’-long contracts  between the Port Authority and private companies. These companies will perform virtually all the financial and operational tasks of running the parking systems. These contracts will determine what the city can and can’t do, what rates will be, and what revenues or potential penalties the city will face. When Cincinnati citizens and Councilmembers sought basic details about the Port Authority’s contracts, they were told they would not be allowed access to this information. These city contracts must ensure the parking proposal truly serves the public and is not a shadowy rip-off that hamstrings future city planning, like  the current parking deal in Chicago. Without a guarantee that the parking proposal contracts will contain public protections, the people of Cincinnati shouldn’t let the parking proposal stand.
  • Long-term private control of public assets. The parking proposal authorizes the Port Authority to draft 30 and 50 year contracts with private companies, effectively locking in the city with these contractors. The potential benefit of private contracting derives from competitive pressure on vendors to perform well in order to renew their contracts. When contracts last for decades at a time, they instead create private monopolies. The precise terms of these deals are extremely important because Cincinnati’s needs and parking pressures decades from now are highly uncertain. Chicago’s private parking deal, only a few years old, already impinges on its ability to decide policies on where other private parking is permitted, who receives handicapped parking permits, and how often street parades or festivals can occur. Parking policies can be vital for promoting economic development and managing quality-of-life issues. Multigenerational contracts transfer unnecessary control to private companies, and Cincinnatians shouldn’t allow City Council to subject a crucial public asset like public parking to such risks.
  • Short-term cash cow, long term consequences. Signing a multi-generational lease to balance a short-term budget is fiscally irresponsible.  Over half of the money generated by the parking proposal will be spent in the first few years filling budget deficits. Cincinnati needs a truly balanced budget, not short-term gimmicks that leave Cincinnati with the same deficit down the road.
  • Troubling track record of contractors. Executives from Xerox Parking Solutions, one of the private contractors in the parking proposal, confessed during a City Council meeting that its management team presided over the company Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) during numerous scandals before ACS was purchase by Xerox. These scandals included a blistering audit in Washington, D.C. where meters were left unrepaired and citizens were wrongfully charged over $150,000 in fines; an SEC investigation into fraud; and bribery charges in Canada alleging elaborate gifts meant to secure a privatization deal from public officials. Given these past abuses, it is even more important for the public to be able to scrutinize Cincinnati’s long-term contract terms beforehand.
  • Unanswered questions. Ohio PIRG recommends no less than 45 days between the release of the full terms of a privatization proposal to the public and a vote on that proposal. This allows the public time to give input about the proposal and, more importantly, gives decision-makers a chance to read the proposal thoroughly and ensure the people are not getting a raw deal. Only some of the terms of the Cincinnati parking proposal were released; even Councilmembers weren’t granted access to the private contracts. In less than three weeks’ time, City Council then voted and approved the parking proposal without ever laying eyes on these critical details. In a 5-4 split vote, City Council took a gamble with our streets and our future.

With this many red flags, the parking proposal poses too many threats to the public interest and provides too little transparency. Cincinnatians should reverse the parking proposal on the ballot this November.

Topics