The parking meter deal in Chicago is a prime example of immorality

The Tribune article (“Parking meter deal could get even more expensive,” Aug. 12), which details how Chicago will likely owe Chicago Parking Meters (CPM) more than $100 million, was much needed. According to the article, investors have recouped their original $1.15 billion investment and will generate $150 million in revenue in 2023 alone. I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on ethics, so I can only try to describe my anger.

This deal is a perfect example of immorality. Mayor Richard M. Daley stole from future generations by putting this deal in motion and should absolutely be held legally accountable, if possible, for being negligent in vetting the deal. There must be legal consequences for significant actions that negatively impact others for decades.

The investors and CPM are also displaying blatant immorality when they justify their stranglehold on the city by citing corporate rights to profit. Never mind that every single investor can understand 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 consequences of their terrible decisions, but any investor could pull their money from the project and any CPM employee could quit. No one will.

How much more proof do we need that this country was not made for the people who live in it, but for the corporations that do business there? Why should a handful of filthy rich investors have the right to profit at the expense of working Chicagoans?

If our economic and legal systems are unable to return control to the citizens of the city (as was the case here), perhaps the overall system could be improved. Maybe?

The year is 2024. We have a drinking water crisis in the city that will likely last for decades. At the same time, our former government leaders have condemned the city for 75 years with a deal that benefits only a handful of people that might as well be theft. If you can't accept the basic principle that extortionate parking prices in the city are grotesque, then maybe you should ask yourself who should be worth more in this country: people or transnational corporations?

Unfortunately, our city made this decision for us, and it made the wrong one. Even worse for the rest of us who will likely have to wait decades for improvements.

— Ethan Feingold, Chicago

A sticker idea for Chicago

Here's an idea for the parking meter deal that went wrong for Chicagoans.

City Hall should issue an annual “all-you-can-park” sticker that exempts a specific vehicle from paying city parking meters.

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

As an 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 the equivalent of admission tickets for three or four visits.

How much is a sticker that says “Ignore cameras speeding 5 miles per hour over the speed limit”?

How about a “No need to expect a red light” sticker for red light cameras?

Can I get a package deal?

— Mike Shannon, Park Ridge

Crime is actually a state matter

Thank you for publishing (on the same page!) the August 15 opinion pieces “Voters don't want to hear Trump and Harris argue about crime. They want to hear the best solutions” by Ana Zamora and “Harris tries to run from her past as a prosecutor” by Zack Smith. These pieces represent opposing views on solutions to the crime problem.

Smith paints Kamala Harris as either soft on crime or politically fickle. He criticizes her for not supporting the death penalty in two cases she herself prosecuted. Zamora's article is more thoughtful, as she examines the roots of crime. She criticizes the “hard-hitting” approach because it doesn't work. Smith's article includes the line “It's the White House; the truth matters” when referring to Harris' record. The truth didn't matter in Donald Trump's White House, and it doesn't matter in his campaign. Criticizing Harris for her changes of mind during the campaign is beyond hypocritical.

The truth is, however, that violent crime is primarily a state-by-state issue. While the federal government can set standards, states have their own criminal justice systems, and these vary considerably. Some states have the death penalty, many others do not. Illinois has abolished bail, but most states retain that system. States even differ in their definitions of crime.

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 causes of crime. But on crime issues, their choice of governor is more important than their choice of president.

— Jan Goldberg, Riverside

Author a terrible choice

As a longtime subscriber, I value the opinion pages as a forum for ideas. I was appalled that the Tribune opinion team published Zack Smith's criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris as an accuser. Smith is the co-author of a book whose title includes the words “radical Soros lawyers.” This is a well-known anti-Semitic cliche that should not be part of the Tribune. Shameful.

— Daniel Bruetman, Chicago

Finding the truth in politics?

I have to disagree with one remark in Zack Smith's op-ed: “It's the White House; the truth matters.” I wonder what country Smith has lived in for the last 50 years. When and where has the truth ever been told about a political candidate? I had a good laugh though. Thanks for that.

—Peter W. Duwel, Northbrook

The Foundation’s stance on the law

Editorial writer Zack Smith criticizes Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for their record on upholding the law. Why should I believe what an employee of the Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025, has to say about upholding the law when it is going in the opposite direction and consolidating control over nearly every aspect of our lives?

I'm voting for Harris and Walz over the MAGA agenda supported by Project 2025.

— Chuck Kessler, Northbrook

Harris' strategy of not giving interviews

The latest national polls show Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump in the presidential race. Harris has not given an interview or a press conference since announcing her presidential candidacy on July 21. Right-wing media and even a handful of left-wing media pundits are calling on her to answer questions about her planned policies and past statements on a range of issues. As of this writing, her campaign website does not contain any policy documents, although her staff has promised to release them shortly.

Why would she give an interview or 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 maintain this strategy for one more month.

However, she and Trump have agreed to debate on ABC on September 10. If the ABC moderator follows the example 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 seems to outweigh any potential benefit.

Curious voters and critical thinkers can watch and hear her current and past positions on illegal immigration, policing, student loan forgiveness, abortion, climate, fracking, Gaza, the pro-Palestinian protests, Ukraine, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, private health insurance, gun control, wealth redistribution, justice versus 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.

Since the national media has stopped calling for protests and strikes on political issues, it is up to voters to inform themselves.

—Randy Harris, Campton Hills

Submit a letter of 400 words or less to the editor here or email [email protected].