$451.6 Million

Care of JPMorgan Investment Management. Confirmed with quotage.
Here’s some perspective. And more. Trib reports that LAZ Parking enjoys pride of place, whereas P-G rolls with JPMorgan in this new “Pittsburgh Parking Partners”. Statement from Peduto here. Infinonymous notes a bit of synchronicity.

18 thoughts on “$451.6 Million

  1. RoboticGhost

    Or knock down a bunch of abandoned properties? This number is, frankly, a shock. I know some folks were expecting something in this range. I was not. You know City Council is looking at that $120 million like a cartoon wolf eying up a sheep.

    Reply
  2. Conservative Mountaineer

    From one of the articles: “Without the lease deal, the city could face a 24 percent property-tax hike; a 44 percent wage-tax increase; or layoffs of 400 police officers, Ravenstahl said.”

    So? The City residents have mindlessly pulled the D lever for 70+ years, thereby implicitely allowing the pension problem to fester and grow and… now, we suburanites are expected to bail them out? Outrageous.

    Yeah, yeah, a huge portion of people will have no choice.. such as those attending sporting events, the Cultural District or commuting. Outrageous.

    Only fools who do not understand basic finance and that the amount of parking revenues that will be required to pay of the +$450M AND allow for a *gasp* PROFIT to the buyer(s).

    Christmas in September for the “Boy Mayor” and the miscreants on City Council.

    Reply
  3. BrianTH

    Let the feeding frenzy begin. I just hope most of it gets spent either retiring long-term liabilities or investing in long-term assets.

    Reply
  4. TheTruth

    I just hope most of it gets spent either retiring long-term liabilities or investing in long-term assets.

    Q. What are long term assets?
    A. Parking garages. We already own them.

    Reply
  5. BrianTH

    Sure, these are long-term assets. But would I advise the City to invest $452 million in cash in parking assets located in the City? No, I would not.

    If it really just wants a financial return, I'd suggest the City look first at any other liabilities it can retire–maybe it should put even more into the pension, in fact. After that I would suggest investing in a diversified portfolio of non-Pittsburgh assets (basically what any decent “sovereign fund” would do).

    On the other hand, I think it would be OK if some of the funds went to capital projects in the City, with the expectation of recoupment through higher general taxes. But I don't think subsidizing parking is a necessary or wise expenditure of the City's capital, so that wouldn't be on my list.

    Reply
  6. BrianTH

    It would be cool if they could lever this as the City contribution to public transportation projects–you could in principle get enough funding for the Spine Line that way, or maybe an urban gondola network centered on Oakland (which may be even better than the Spine Line). The problem is the City really isn't calling the shots in that area–it is basically the County's game.

    By the way: Chicago, a city almost ten times the size, for a lease 25 years longer, got only about two-and-a-half times as much. Just sayin.

    Reply
  7. Bram Reichbaum

    IMHO, it (the City) should put *significantly* more into the pension fund. Refilling to 51% of a sinking fund is no manner of breathing room. Then it needs to turn around and address our pension structure almost in the same breath. Are there contract talks on the horizon?

    Reply
  8. MH

    Refilling to 51% of a sinking fund is no manner of breathing room.

    That would be a very good idea. Maybe I'll write my state reps to get them to threaten to raise the minimum to 65% for second class cities.

    Reply
  9. BrianTH

    Note that under Act 111, there is not all that much the City can do to force new pension terms–it is basically up to the arbitrators.

    And one reason I can see to not pay too much into the pension is the hope that at some point there will in fact be a change under state law, either getting more state help for the pension or changing the contract procedures or both.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    Sort of off-topic for this blog's focus on the local political implications, but it is downright precious that someone called “Conservative Mountaineer” is crying because suburbanites will have to pay market rates for parking in a city. As a public policy matter, there frankly should ALWAYS be more scarce parking in a city (either by supply or price) to offset the massive negative externalities associated with city driving. Again, just precious.

    Reply
  11. BrianTH

    To be fair, the right of suburbanites to loot central cities is more or less what counts as a core “Conservative” principle these days.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.