The Tribune article (“Parking meter deal could be even more costly,” Aug. 12) detailing how Chicago will likely owe more $100 million to Chicago Parking Meters (CPM) was highly necessary. According to the article, investors have recouped their initial investment of $1.15 billion and earned $150 million in revenues in 2023 alone. I’m not a lawyer or an expert in ethics, so I can only attempt to describe my anger.
This deal is a perfect case study in immorality. Mayor Richard M. Daley stole from future generations by creating the deal and, if possible, should absolutely be held legally liable for being negligent in conducting proper due diligence on the deal. There must be legal consequences for taking significant actions that negatively affect others for decades.
The investors and CPM also display blatant immorality in justifying their stranglehold over the city by pointing to the right of companies to profit. Never mind that every single investor is capable of understanding that those hundreds of millions of dollars could be used to replace some of Chicago’s 400,000 lead pipes. Profit may help people ignore the implications of their awful decisions, but each investor could pull his or her money from the project, and each employee of CPM could quit. None will.
How much more evidence do we need that this country is not designed for the actual people who live in it but the corporations that do business in it? Why should a handful of massively wealthy investors have the right to profit off the backs of working Chicagoans?
If our economic and legal systems are incapable of restoring control of the city to its people (as has been the case here), perhaps the overall system could be improved. Maybe?
It’s 2024. We have a drinking water crisis in the city that will likely last for decades. Meanwhile, our former government leaders have damned the city for 75 years with a deal that benefits such a small handful of people that it might as well be thievery. If you can’t acknowledge the basic principle that city parking is a situation in which price gouging is grotesque, then perhaps you should ask yourself who should be more valued in this country: human beings or transnational corporations?
Unfortunately, our city has made that decision for us, and it made the wrong choice. So much the worse for the rest of us, who will likely have to wait decades for improvement.
— Ethan Feingold, Chicago
A sticker idea for Chicago
Here’s an idea for the parking meter deal gone bad for the citizens of Chicago.
City Hall should offer an annual “all-you-can-park” sticker that would exempt a given vehicle from paying the city meters.
This program would redirect some of the lost money back into city coffers.
As a still occasional visitor to the city of Chicago, I would pay up to $250 a year for the privilege of ignoring all the signs and rules. For me, that’s only like three to four visits’ worth of tickets.
How much for an “ignore-the-5-mph-over-the-speed-limit-cameras” sticker?
What about a “no-need-to-anticipate-a-red-light” sticker for red light cameras?
Can I get a package deal?
— Mike Shannon, Park Ridge
Crime really a state issue
Thank you for publishing (on the same page!) the Aug. 15 op-eds “Voters don’t want to hear Trump and Harris fight over crime. They want to hear the best solutions.” by Ana Zamora and “Harris trying to run from her record as prosecutor” by Zack Smith. These pieces represent opposing views on crime solutions.
Smith paints Kamala Harris as either soft on crime or flip-flopping on policy. He criticizes her for not supporting the death penalty in two cases that she prosecuted. Zamora’s piece is more thoughtful as she explores the roots of crime. She criticizes the” get tough” approach for not working. Smith’s piece includes the line, “It’s the White House; truth matters,” when referring to Harris’ record. The truth did not matter in Donald Trump’s White House, and it does not matter on his campaign trail. To fault Harris for flip-flops on the campaign trail is beyond hypocritical.
But the real truth is that violent crime is mostly a state issue. Yes, the federal government can set standards, but the states run their own criminal justice systems, and they differ widely from each other. Some states have the death penalty; many do not. Illinois has gotten rid of monetary bail; most states still retain that system. States even differ in their definitions of crimes.
Voters have choices in this election between solutions that did not work in the past and solutions that are being tried in many states to get to the roots of crime. But on criminal issues, their choice for governor is more important than their choice for president.
— Jan Goldberg, Riverside
Author an appalling choice
As a long-term subscriber, I appreciate the opinion pages as a forum of ideas. I was appalled that the Tribune Opinion team published Zack Smith’s takedown of Vice President Kamala Harris as a prosecutor. Smith co-authored a book whose headline contains the words “radical Soros lawyers.” This is a well-known antisemitic trope that should not be a part of the Tribune. Shameful.
— Daniel Bruetman, Chicago
Truth telling in politics?
I must take issue with a remark in Zack Smith’s op-ed: “It’s the White House; the truth matters.” I wonder what country Smith has been living in for the past 50 years. When and where has the truth been told regarding any political candidate? I did get a good laugh though. Thanks for that.
— Peter W. Duwel, Northbrook
Foundation’s stance on law
Op-ed writer Zack Smith bashes Kamala Harris as well as Tim Walz for their records on upholding the law. Why should I believe what a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025, has to say about upholding the law when it is advocating going in the opposite direction and consolidating control over almost every aspect of our lives?
I choose Harris and Walz over the MAGA agenda that Project 2025 supports.
— Chuck Kessler, Northbrook
Harris’ no-interview strategy
The latest national polls show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in the presidential race. Harris has not sat for an interview or given a news conference since she announced her candidacy for president on July 21. The right-wing media and even a handful of left-wing media pundits are clamoring for her to answer questions about her proposed policies and previous statements on a range of issues. As of this writing, her campaign website contains no policy papers, although her staff has promised to publish them shortly.
Why should she sit for an interview or give a news conference? If the polls are to be believed, her current campaign strategy is working. With early voting beginning next month, she needs to maintain this strategy for only another month.
However, she and Trump have agreed to debate on Sept. 10 on ABC. If the ABC moderator follows the leads of Jake Tapper and Dana Bash in the CNN debate between Trump and Joe Biden, Harris will have to answer some tough questions in front of a potentially huge national audience. Why would she do that? The risk would seem to outweigh any possible reward.
Curious voters and critical thinkers can see and hear her current and previous positions on illegal immigration, policing, student loan forgiveness, abortion, the climate, fracking, Gaza, the pro-Palestinian protests, Ukraine, the Afghanistan withdrawal, private health insurance, gun control, wealth redistribution, equity versus equality, taxes, inflation, Title IX and a host of other issues from her time as San Francisco district attorney, California’s attorney general and U.S. senator; her 2020 presidential campaign; and as Biden’s vice president. The videos are available on the web.
Since the national media stopped calling balls and strikes on political issues, it’s up to voters to educate themselves.
— Randy Harris, Campton Hills
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
