Comments on: Can Parking Meter Enforcement be Privatized?

By: Kokopelli

Kokopelli — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:22:24 +0000

I agree with Gene what do any of your arguements have to do with privazation?? If downtown wants to have ambassadors then they should hire ambassadors to roam the streets. Asking meter maids to be anything but meter maids is a BAD idea. Additionaly the people who are now complaining about parking tickets would continue to complain if enforcement was privatized.

By: Kokopelli

Kokopelli — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:15:15 +0000

If downtown wants ambassadors then they should hire ambassadors. No one should expect meter maids to be both the duties are not compatible.

By: dustbury.com » Outsourcing Rita

dustbury.com » Outsourcing Rita — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:15:00 +0000

[...] Steve Lackmeyer floats the idea of privatizing OKC’s meter-maid contingent: I’ve heard some arguments for making such a change — that the current enforcement is predatory — that the city’s approach is to literally stalk out cars and swoop in with tickets as soon as a meter expires. Others mention that the current meter enforcement officers are unionized — thus there are rules against them doubling up as “ambassadors” who can provide maps and helpful information on getting around downtown. [...]

By: CaseyCornett

CaseyCornett — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:50:56 +0000

Technically, I don’t see anything wrong with being strict when it comes to following the law…if you broke the law, just pay your $10 and move on.

I don’t get upset at anyone but myself if I get a speeding ticket. I might get upset at the price of the fine though but not for a parking violation.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:50:49 +0000

How would turning over the enforcement of parking meters to a private company who gets paid by a precentage of the tickets it writes and subsequent money collected decrease “predatory enforcement” that is currently too strict in some peoples’ eyes? It seems like parking meter enforcement would only become more strict under such a scenerio.

By: Brent

Brent — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:06:38 +0000

I’m not sure what the argument is for it here in OKC. It appears that in Tulsa the argument is that they aren’t making money on parking anyway, so why not privatize it if they can make more money that way. Is the argument here in OKC that we are too strict? If so, then just reassign or cut some of the parking enforcers, you save money and we are then not too strict anymore. Or just tell them not to be so strict with enforcement or do away with some parking meters. I guess I just don’t get the “they can’t be ambassadors” argument. Does anyone really think that is a big problem? If our downtown business owners don’t care to make it an issue, it doesn’t really seem to be a problem…except for those who get parking tickets. I suppose the legality of it is something we can debate, but until there is a real money reason for privatization (which is always the real argument for privatization), I don’t see why we should bring it up here in OKC.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:30:30 +0000

There are different levels of privatization. What Tulsa is suggesting is not leasing the right to operate the parking meters like they did in Chicago. Replacing government workers with contracted private labor is more in line with what they want in Tulsa. Nothing wrong there, since the civil service and union rules they play by make it impossible for management to make productivity and operational improvements.

By: Gene

Gene — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:13:54 +0000

What do any of those arguments have to do with privatization? If the current enforcement is too aggressive, then we should change the policy, not sell it. Privatization might be a solution when the goal is to introduce competition into a market, but it’s not like we can have multiple parking meters in a spot operated by different companies. We would only be transferring the monopoly from government, which is at least accountable to voters and the public good, to a private group that’s accountable to nothing but their own pockets. That didn’t work out so well in Chicago: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/features-cover-april-9-2009/Content?oid=1098561