Letters: Chicago’s parking meter deal is an example of immorality

The Tribune article (“Parking meter deal could be even more costly,” Aug. 12) detailing how Chicago will likely owe more than $100 million to Chicago Parking Meters (CPM) was sorely needed. According to the article, investors have recouped their initial $1.15 billion investment and will earn $150 million in revenue in 2023 alone. I’m not a lawyer or an expert on ethics, so I can only attempt to describe my outrage.

This deal is a perfect example of immorality. Mayor Richard M. Daley stole from future generations by creating the deal and should absolutely be held legally accountable if possible for failing to perform proper due diligence on the deal. There should be legal consequences for taking significant actions that negatively impact others for decades.

The investors and CPM also display blatant immorality by justifying their stranglehold on the city by pointing to the right of corporations to make a profit. Never mind that any 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 might help people ignore the implications of their terrible decisions, but any investor could pull their money out of the project and any CPM employee could quit. No one will do that.

How much more proof do we need that this country was not designed for the people who actually live here, but for the companies that do business here? Why should a handful of extremely wealthy investors have the right to make a profit off the backs of working Chicagoans?

If our economic and legal systems are unable to return control of the city to its citizens (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 leaders have cursed the city for 75 years with a deal that benefits such a small handful of people that it might as well be theft. If you can’t acknowledge the basic principle that parking in the city is a situation where exorbitant prices are grotesque, then perhaps you should ask yourself who should be valued more in this country: people or transnational corporations?

Unfortunately, our city made that decision for us, and it was the wrong choice. Even 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 that failed for Chicagoans.

City Hall should implement an annual “all-you-can-park” sticker, which would exempt a given vehicle from paying for the city’s parking meters.

This program would return some of the lost money to the city treasury.

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. To me, that’s only worth three to four visits worth of tickets.

How much does a sticker that says ‘ignore speeding cameras at 5 mph’ cost?

How about a speed camera sticker that tells you not to expect a red light?

Can I get a package deal?

— Mike Shannon, Park Ridge

Crime is really a state affair

Thank you for publishing (on the same page!) the August 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 attorney” by Zack Smith. These pieces represent opposing viewpoints on crime solutions.

Smith paints Kamala Harris as either soft on crime or a policy pivot. He criticizes her for not supporting the death penalty in two cases she prosecuted. Zamora’s piece is more thoughtful in examining 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. Truth didn’t matter in Donald Trump’s White House, and it doesn’t matter on his campaign trail. Blaming Harris for pivots on the campaign trail is beyond hypocritical.

But the real truth is that violent crime is primarily a state problem. Yes, the federal government can set standards, but the states run their own criminal justice systems, and they vary greatly. Some states have the death penalty; many do not. Illinois has abolished cash bail; most states still do. States even differ in their definitions of crimes.

Voters in this election have a choice between solutions that have not worked in the past and solutions that are being tried in many states to address the root of crime. But on criminal issues, their choice for governor is more important than their choice for president.

— Jan Goldberg, Riverside

Author a horrible choice

As a regular subscriber, I value the Opinion pages as a forum for ideas. I was shocked that the Tribune Opinion team published Zack Smith’s arrest of Vice President Kamala Harris as a prosecutor. Smith co-authored a book whose headline includes the words “radical Soros lawyers.” This is a familiar anti-Semitic cliché that has no place in the Tribune. Shameful.

—Daniel Bruetman, Chicago

Truth-finding in politics?

I have to disagree with a comment in Zack Smith’s op-ed: “It’s the White House; the truth matters.” I wonder what country Smith has lived in for the past 50 years. When and where has the truth been told about a political candidate? That did make me laugh. Thanks for that.

—Peter W. Duwel, Northbrook

Foundation’s position on the law

Opinion writer Zack Smith takes aim at Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for their record of enforcing the law. Why should I believe what a colleague at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025, has to say about enforcing the law when he advocates the opposite and consolidating control over nearly every aspect of our lives?

I choose Harris and Walz over the MAGA agenda that Project 2025 supports.

— Chuck Kessler, Northbrook

Harris’ strategy of not doing interviews

The latest national polls show Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump in the presidential race. Harris has not given an interview or held a press conference since announcing her candidacy for president on July 21. Right-wing media and even a handful of left-wing media pundits are pressing her to answer questions about her proposed policies and past statements on a range of issues. As of this writing, her campaign website has no policy documents, though her staff has promised to release them soon.

Why would she need to give an interview or hold a press conference? If the polls are to be believed, her current campaign strategy is working. With early voting starting next month, she only needs to keep it up for another month.

However, she and Trump have agreed to a Sept. 10 debate on ABC. If the ABC host follows the lead 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 massive national audience. Why would she do it? The risk seems greater than the potential reward.

Curious voters and critical thinkers can view her current and past positions on illegal immigration, policing, student loan forgiveness, abortion, climate, fracking, Gaza, the pro-Palestinian protests, Ukraine, withdrawal from Afghanistan, private health insurance, gun control, wealth redistribution, fairness vs. equality, taxes, inflation, Title IX and a host of other issues from her time as San Francisco District Attorney, California Attorney General and U.S. Senator; her 2020 presidential campaign; and as Biden’s Vice President. The videos are available online.

Now that the national media is no longer covering political issues, it is up to voters to inform themselves.

—Randy Harris, Campton Hills

Send a letter to the editor of no more than 400 words here or email [email protected].