For nearly two decades, Chicago has lived with a parking meter deal often described as one of the worst financial decisions in the history of our city.
It exchanged a valuable long-term public revenue stream for a one-time payment. The public lost control of a key piece of infrastructure while private investors enjoyed many years of revenue and maintained an iron grip on any modifications to the deal. As a result, every discussion about parking policy, curb access, street design, neighborhood development and municipal finance has had to account for a contract that restricts the city’s options.
Now the City Council is being asked to approve a new purchaser of the parking meter concession. Stonepeak has proposed acquiring the asset, and because the transfer requires City Council approval, aldermen have to vote whether to approve the transfer.
My answer is no. We need to pump the brakes here.
This is not about punishing a bad deal from 2008 or flailing about because my constituents are angry. It is about recognizing we may never again have this kind of leverage over the future of this asset. If we approve the transfer without a serious plan, we will have missed what may be our last meaningful chance to ask a larger question: Can Chicago create a better investment policy for its own future?
The city should not approve a new private owner until we fully evaluate whether Chicago can establish a taxpayer-backed Chicago Public Infrastructure Trust capable of acquiring, holding and managing revenue-producing infrastructure assets for the benefit of residents, taxpayers and pension beneficiaries.
This is not a call for a rushed buyback. It is not a proposal to repeat the mistakes of the past. It is a call for disciplined analysis and a new way of thinking about public assets.
The parking meter system is a mature infrastructure asset that produces recurring revenue, has long-term operating value and affects transportation policy across the city. The question before us is whether value of that kind should continue to flow primarily to outside investors or if we can invest to accrue some of that long-term benefit here.
Around the world, leading public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds invest directly in infrastructure. They invest in airports, utilities, transportation systems, energy assets, ports, broadband networks and other long-lived assets because infrastructure can produce predictable cash flow, inflation protection, diversification and returns that match long-term obligations.
Chicago should learn from that model.
Our pension systems face serious long-term challenges. They require responsible contributions, honest assumption and, I believe, a willingness to build assets. Infrastructure assets that generate value over decades make sense.
A Chicago Public Infrastructure Trust could give the city and its pension systems a vehicle to evaluate direct ownership of revenue-producing public assets. If the numbers work, the city and the pension systems could contribute capital and receive proportional ownership interests. Taxpayers would benefit from the city’s share. Retirees and workers would benefit from the pension systems’ share. The public would benefit from a structure designed to keep long-term value in Chicago.
The parking meter concession should be the first asset reviewed under this model. Before approving any transfer, Chicago should require independent valuation, legal review, actuarial modeling, financing analysis and transparent public reporting. We need to know what the remaining concession is worth, what risks exist, what financing options are realistic, and what governance structure would protect taxpayers and pension beneficiaries.
A serious trust would also need strict safeguards. It should have professional management, independent oversight, public reporting, conflict-of-interest protections and clear limits on eligible investments. Its mission should not be political dealmaking but long-term public value.
The financing conversation should be equally serious. Chicago has multiple public finance tools that are too often siloed. Pension investment policy, pension obligation bonds, tax increment financing, eligible redevelopment expenditures, infrastructure financing and public asset management should be evaluated together. That does not mean every tool is appropriate for every transaction, but it does mean we should think holistically.
If Chicago uses its redevelopment tools, infrastructure strategy and pension investment capacity together, we may be able to build something more durable than another annual budget patch.
This is the difference between managing scarcity and building public wealth.
Chicago owns, controls, leases, operates or influences many assets beyond parking meters. A public infrastructure trust could evaluate parking facilities, municipal buildings, equipment, vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure, broadband systems, development rights and other opportunities. Some assets may be better left alone. Some may be better managed differently. Some may have potential to generate revenue, reduce costs or support neighborhood development if they are evaluated with discipline.
I recognize Chicago has been down part of this road before. The prior Chicago Infrastructure Trust was launched with significant promise, but it never became the durable public investment platform the city needed given its public-private partnership-based model and dependency on one-off private financing, among other inadequacies. A new infrastructure trust must be different: publicly accountable, independently valued, tied to pension stability, coordinated with tax increment financing and other investment tools, and focused on building public wealth rather than simply inviting private capital into public assets.
If a Chicago Public Infrastructure Trust existed today, this parking meter debate would look very different. The mayor and City Council would not be stuck choosing only between approving a new private purchaser or rejecting the sale without a clear alternative. We would have a public platform capable of asking whether the asset should be acquired, restructured, partnered or left alone based on facts rather than frustration.
That is the kind of option a serious city should create for itself.
Some will argue that the city cannot afford to consider this. I believe the opposite is true. Chicago cannot afford to keep making major decisions without a long-term investment strategy.
A “no” vote on the Stonepeak transfer is not a vote against investment. It is a vote for better investment policy.
Ald. Jason Ervin, who represents the 28th Ward, is chairman of the Chicago City Council’s Budget Committee.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
