The City That Sold Itself To Wall Street
38:28 Share

So I have some big news for vegans and vegetarians everywhere. It's Hellman's plant-based mayo spread and dressing. Made for people with a plant-based diet or anyone really who wants to enjoy the great taste of Hellman's real without the eggs. Hellman's plant-based is perfect for sandwiches, salads, veggie burgers, or any of your family favorites.

To celebrate, Hellman's is sharing some easy, delicious plant-based recipes at hellmans.com. Hellman's plant-based mayo spread and dressing. Same great taste, plant-based. I'm Malcolm Gladwell, and I'd like to take a moment to talk about an amazing new podcast I'm hosting called Medal of Honor.

It's a moving podcast series celebrating the untold stories of those who protect our country. And it's brought to you by LifeLock, the leader in identity theft protection. Your personal info is in a lot of places that can accidentally expose you to identity theft. And not everyone who handles your personal info is as careful as you.

LifeLock makes it easy to take control of your identity and will work to fix identity theft if it happens. Join the millions of Americans who trust LifeLock. Visit LifeLock.com slash metal today to save up to 40% off your first year.

The most innovative companies are going further with T-Mobile for Business. Red Bull harnessed the strength of the T-Mobile 5G network to launch point-of-view drones and give fans unmatched views of their extreme sports, while broadcasting in real time from some of the most remote locations in America. This is heart-pounding fan experiences. This is Red Bull with T-Mobile for Business.

Take your business further at T-Mobile.com slash now. Pushkin. A winter's day in Chicago. Early 2009. It's cold. Scott Wagaspak, a newly elected alderman for the north side of town, is keen to impress. Despite the freezing temperatures, he's pounding the streets, personally investigating a complaint about some garbage blocking an alley.

As he surveys the scene, piles of paperwork everywhere, he realises that this is no ordinary pile of trash. This paperwork is all about the recent controversial sale of Chicago's parking meters to a consortium led by an investment bank, Morgan Stanley. The parking meters weren't the first chunk of the city that Chicago's mayor had sold off. Mayor Richard M. Daley was famous for it.

It was more than in the air, said Daly's chief financial officer, Paul Volpe. We were the leaders in it. You couldn't go anywhere without Mayor Daly's reputation for being a leader in this industry being brought up to you. Daly had privatised the toll road that ran between Chicago and Indiana. He privatised delinquent tax collection, the city's janitorial services, and was even working on a deal to privatise Midway Airport.

So, when the idea came to privatise Chicago's parking meters, a lot of people shrugged and said to themselves, "Sure, why not?" The idea had been raised in early 2008, a year before Scott Wagerspack had found all that paperwork in a freezing alley. At the time, the global financial crisis was brewing, and the city needed some cash.

So it held an auction for the right to operate Chicago's street parking meter system. Whoever won that auction would run the meters and keep the revenue.

There were only a couple of bidders, which wasn't ideal. But one of those bidders, the consortium led by Morgan Stanley, offered over a billion dollars, $1.156 billion in fact, for the right to lease kerbside parking meters and collect parking fees across the city.

At the time, it wasn't clear who was investing with Morgan Stanley. Scott Wagaspak had been asked to vote on the deal, but he never felt he'd been given all the information he needed. Now, by sheer coincidence, he was looking at that information blowing around in a Chicago back alley. Apparently, one of the main investors was the Emir of Abu Dhabi.

Whatever Morgan Stanley had negotiated, it was a sweet enough deal to interest sophisticated investors from around the world. What mattered, of course, was whether it was a good deal for Chicago. So, was it?

On the surface, perhaps. The city was only making $20 million a year in meter fees. Chicago could just stick Morgan Stanley's money in the bank, earn a couple of percent interest, and make more than that. All money which could fund services for the city's hard-working, tax-paying citizens.

Even better, the city would get the rights to the parking metres back, eventually. Although, admittedly, not until 2084. Morgan Stanley had bid for a 75-year lease. But still, a billion dollars is a lot of money, isn't it? I'm Tim Harford, and you're listening to Cautionary Tales. MUSIC

Parking is an emotional issue in a town like Chicago. In 2008, around the time the meter deal was being negotiated, Chicago Tribune's John Cass devoted a column to describing a fight over a parking space. One fellow, Abe, squeezed his car in too close for the comfort of the other car's driver, Carol.

She told him he couldn't park there. He told her she had nothing to worry about. "Lady, I'm not going to hit your car," Abe declared. Then her husband Joseph showed up and started arguing. There was some shouting, then some shoving, and before long, Joseph was in an ambulance and Abe was handcuffed in the back of a police car.

Abe was an Air Force veteran of the Second World War. He was 82. Joseph, his fallen opponent, was a sprightly 80. Just another day arguing about parking in Chicago. Given the fact that feelings tend to run high on the topic of parking, some of Chicago's aldermen were uneasy when the meter leasing deal was placed in front of them.

The council's decision-making process seemed rushed, even if the city administration had been working on the idea for almost a year. You had a year, but you're giving us two days, complained one alderman. Why are we rushing? asked another. The proposed deal was 521 pages long, written in legalese. What does that all mean? lamented a third.

Scott Wagespack had been in the room. He decided he needed a reality check on the offer. He hurriedly slapped together his own calculations and almost immediately realized why Morgan Stanley's billion-dollar-and-change offer might be less generous than it looked.

Chicago might only be making $20 million a year from meter fees, but some of those meter rates hadn't changed since the 1980s. $20 million was nothing compared to what could be squeezed out of those metered parking spots. It would be easy enough to double, triple, even quadruple rates. In fact, the city's own officials had floated the idea of increasing meter rates and nearly tripling meter revenues just a couple of years earlier.

And it wasn't a secret that Morgan Stanley planned to raise meter rates. Alderman Wagaspak's estimate was that the Morgan Stanley Group could pay the city three or four times as much and still be in profit. But when Wagaspak tried to get the city's budget director to answer some questions during a council meeting coffee break, it didn't go well. He literally ran off, says Wagaspak.

And Waggers Pack wasn't a heavy hitter like Mayor Daley. Daley was the ultimate insider. His dad, Richard J. Daley, had also been the mayor of Chicago. Mayor for life, the joke went, after he served for 21 years.

Mayor Daley II was also just about to pass the 20-year mark. A heavy-jowled, suit-and-tie power broker well into his 60s who combined old-school Chicago politics with the corporate ease of a trained lawyer. Wagaspak was a dorky-looking 30-something from Colorado via Kenya, where he'd served in the Peace Corps.

Freshly elected, he was the perfect person to cast a critical eye over the parking meter deal, but very poorly positioned to do much about it, because the pressure to pass the deal was on. To delay it puts our budget at risk, declared Chicago CFO Paul Volpe. This is the deal. We either accept it or we don't. Listener, they accepted it.

Chicago Parking Meters, or CPM, the company set up by the Morgan Stanley Consortium, took over the city's meters in 2009. The early weeks didn't go smoothly.

Chicagoans were soon furious, not only about the way that CPM immediately jacked up the parking charges and extended the metered hours, but also about the fact that they neglected to change the signs informing drivers about the new hours and charges. Adding insult to injury, the parking meters started to choke on all the quarters that were being fed into them. CPM couldn't get round to empty them fast enough.

Even when the meters were working, drivers didn't enjoy having to carry buckets of quarters around in their cars. Every quarter fed into a parking meter seemed to be going direct to Wall Street.

Some suburbanites wrote to the Chicago Press, explaining that they would be avoiding the city at all costs. "'Personally, I'm in full boycott mode,' wrote one. "'I'll stand on my head to spare myself a visit if street parking is involved. To hell with Chicago!'

Another correspondent explained that she was being treated for breast cancer in a city hospital. Before the privatisation, she might have to wait a while to find a spot, but then she'd put in a few quarters and head in for her radiotherapy.

Now, however, she put in her first quarter and realised it would only buy seven minutes. Seven? I start thinking, I'm there early and I'll be there for a while. They might run late, so we need to build some cushion time in. So I calculate all that, realise I don't have eight pounds of quarters with me. Screw you, Daly. One of Mayor Daly's public relations advisers, Marilyn Katz, put it even more bluntly.

It's one thing to give away and sell your airports, she said, but the parking meters were an insult every day that said, F you, every time you parked your car. And six months after the deal had been signed, the city's inspector general released a report explaining that, in effect, when the city of Chicago had signed that deal with Morgan Stanley, the city had had its face ripped off.

The Inspector General reckoned the fair price of the deal was two or three times what the city had been paid. Morgan Stanley itself told investors, and I'm slightly oversimplifying here, but only slightly, that they wouldn't have to wait 75 years to make their money back. They might well make their money back inside the first decade. It was just as alderman Scott Wagaspak had predicted. But then came something he hadn't predicted.

In February 2009, barely weeks after he'd voted in vain against the deal, Wagaspak was informed that across his neighborhood in Chicago's North Side, CPM would start charging to park on Sundays. Sundays had previously been a day of worship, rest, and free parking.

This was not going to go down well with Wagaspak's constituents. He proposed keeping the old, shorter hours and the free Sunday parking on a few hundred of the metres. That could be done, explained city officials, but under the terms of the deal with Morgan Stanley, the city would have to pay compensation for interfering with CPM's right to charge what it wanted, when it wanted. How much compensation?

Oh, a few hundred thousand dollars a year? And that's for a small change to fewer than 1% of the city's meters. As the journalist Henry Grabar explains in his book, Paved Paradise, that was the moment the truth about the full implications of the deal dawned on Scott Wagerspack.

Chicago City Council hadn't just traded away parking revenue, they'd traded away the streets themselves. Cautionary Tales will be back after the break. AI might be the most important new computer technology ever. It's storming every industry and literally billions of dollars are being invested. So buckle up.

The problem is that AI needs a lot of speed and processing power. So how do you compete without costs spiraling out of control? It's time to upgrade to the next generation of the cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI.

OCI is a single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs. OCI has 4 to 8 times the bandwidth of other clouds, offers one consistent price instead of variable regional pricing, and of course, nobody does data better than Oracle. So now you can train your AI models at twice the speed and less than half the cost of other clouds.

If you want to do more and spend less, like Uber, 8x8, and Databricks Mosaic, take a free test drive of OCI at oracle.com slash strategic. That's oracle.com slash strategic. oracle.com slash strategic. I love cycling, and I'm eager to get my kids cycling too. It's a great way for them to stay fit and move around our home city independently. But of course, I also want them to be confident and safe.

which is where Guardian Bikes comes in. The bike comes in a box and it's easy to assemble with all the tools you need and simple online instructions. My son and I unboxed his bike together, spent about 20 minutes working as a team to assemble it

And then he was on the bike and ready to ride. The bike looks great and with the SureStop braking system it brakes quickly and safely without locking the front wheel and sending you over the handlebars. Guardian bikes offer a 365-day money-back guarantee covering returns, repairs and spare parts. Join hundreds of thousands of happy families by getting a Guardian bike today.

Visit GuardianBikes.com to save up to 25% off bikes. No code needed. Plus, receive a free bike lock and pump with your first purchase after signing up for the newsletter. That's GuardianBikes.com. Happy riding! If you're listening to this right now, you probably like to stay on top of things, which is why I want to mention The Economist. Today, the world seems to be moving faster than ever. Climate and economics, politics and culture, science and technology, wherever you look,

Events are unfolding quickly, but now you can save 20% off an annual subscription to The Economist so you won't miss a thing. The Economist broadens your perspective with fact-checked, rigorous reporting and analysis. It's journalism you can truly trust. There is a lot going on these days, but with 20% off, you get access to in-depth, independent coverage of world events through podcasts, webinars, expert analysis, and even their extensive archives. So where

Whether you want to catch up on current events or dive deeper into specific issues, The Economist delivers global perspectives with distinctive clarity. Just to give an example, What's Next for Amazon as it turns 30? analyzes how Amazon's fourth decade looks like an area of integration for the company. Go beyond the headlines with The Economist. Save 20% for a limited time on an annual subscription. Go to economist.com and subscribe today.

Chicago was starting to realize just how much control it had ceded to Wall Street. The Morgan Stanley deal was predicated on a particular number of meters in particular spots on Chicago's curbsides.

When Rahm Emanuel succeeded Richard M. Daly as mayor, his team arrived with visions of a greener, more walkable city. Those visions soon made painful contact with the reality that Daly's team had negotiated. Those nice little pocket parklets, tiny urban oases of seats and lush planters, each one squeezed into a former parking spot,

That is going to cost you, said CPM. Our parking spot, our meter, our lost revenue. But the city could rent back prime downtown spots for the low, low price of $1,000 each per month.

What about the idea of an open streets festival, in which the streets would be closed temporarily to motorised traffic, allowing kids to play games or ride their bikes, neighbourhoods to hold block parties, that sort of thing? Don't even ask what that's going to cost. The scheme was abandoned. Every idea for greening Chicago's streets had a serious price tag attached. Bike racks, drop-off zones for restaurants and stores...

Bans on parking in rush hour to ease congestion. No parking zones near intersections to improve visibility and safety. All possible for a price. Congestion pricing to raise money and ease congestion? Forget it. Such a scheme was just impractical in the light of CPM's right to parking revenues.

And whether you're in favour of congestion pricing or not, it does seem that to rule it out for 75 years as a side effect of a deal over parking meters, well, that's not how a democracy should really work. Bike lanes, bus lanes, don't make me laugh. Do you know how much parking they eat up? Do you know how much money the city would have to pay over to Morgan Stanley's group?

Curbside seating for restaurants during the pandemic? Sure, of course. This is a global emergency. Oh, by the way, pay up. There were workarounds, to be sure. If the city could find suitable alternative spots, they could install meters in those spots and hand over the meter rights to CPM as a form of compensation. But that was complicated, and the alternative spots were soon all used up.

Chicago's privatization of parking meters is widely regarded as a fiasco.

A quintessential cautionary tale. If they really needed money so badly back in 2008, they could have borrowed from the bond markets, in which countless bidders compete to lend money to cities. Instead, they signed away their control over parking and over the streets themselves for 75 years to the winner of an auction in which there were only two bidders, and they sold it cheap.

Yet there is an irony here, as Henry Grabar argues in Paved Paradise. Some of what CPM was doing on behalf of its international backers was actually good parking policy. One reason to have parking meters in the first place is to make sure that people who need to park can find a space, even if they have to pay.

Chicago had long underpriced parking, which meant that there was too much demand for these cheap spaces and not enough spaces to go around. You can see that easily enough by looking at Chicago's parking revenue before the deal. The city made ten times as much from parking fines than from parking charges.

Parking spaces were so cheap that, counterintuitively, people had to park illegally instead, because the cheap, legal spaces were so often full. That changed after privatisation. There were almost always some free spaces, which meant that nobody needed to park illegally, and nobody clogged up the streets driving around in search of a space.

Businesses started to notice that they made more money when street parking was priced high enough to free up spaces. In fact, some of them lobbied against the reintroduction of free Sunday parking. Other people switched to buses and trains and bikes, easing congestion and reducing pollution. All of these benefits emerged once somebody took parking seriously and forced drivers to pay real money for a valuable service.

If only the city of Chicago had had the courage to do that job itself, rather than handing over the responsibility and most of the financial gains to Morgan Stanley and friends. The deal had been signed at the end of 2008, when Morgan Stanley paid more than a billion dollars, $1,156 million.

By the time Richard M. Daley left office in 2011, three years later, only $76 million was left. The other $1,080 million had been spent. By 2019, Morgan Stanley and partners had made back their initial investment. Chicago had spent the money, Morgan Stanley were in profit, and there were 64 years of the deal still to run.

Not to worry, that was a few years back. Now, there are only six decades left. This episode of Cautionary Tales was based, with permission, on the reporting of Henry Grabar in his book, Paved Paradise, and I strongly recommend you get hold of a copy as soon as you can.

But Chicago's parking meter fiasco isn't the only cautionary tale in Henry's book. And so I present to you our first ever hybrid episode of Cautionary Tales, half traditional tale and half cautionary conversation with Henry Gribar. Henry, welcome to the show.

Thanks for having me. We heard this story about two octogenarians beating each other up in an argument over a parking space. And it's not the only such story you tell others in your book. Why is it that people get so upset about parking?

Well, I don't blame them for it, actually. I think it's natural to be upset about access to parking when you live in a society where it has become impossible to do even the most basic tasks, like buying a gallon of milk or taking your kids to school, without using your car. So we have built for ourselves a place in which parking and finding parking has become a precondition of life itself.

And so naturally people do tend to get upset when they don't find parking spaces. And so I think the challenge here is not just to ask people to chill out about parking, but to focus on redesigning communities in a way where parking becomes less important. And by the way,

Even as the author of a book that argues that while we made a lot of mistakes about parking, I am not immune from this. I mean, I don't like paying for parking any more than anybody else does. I get parking tickets too. And I grew up in New York City and I feel like the...

The expectation that parking is going to be really challenging is so ingrained in the way I think about city life that when I'm driving, my move is always to take the first parking spot I find, even if I'm six blocks away from my destination, right? Because you have scars from looking for parking in New York City for too many years. Why did you want to write a book about parking?

Well, I'm a reporter by day, and the stories that I write are about cities. So I write about architecture and real estate and infrastructure, climate change, housing, stuff like this. And I began to find that in every single story that I started to work on, there was this hidden element that kept coming up.

that would change the way I understood what I was writing about. And that element, of course, was parking. And in the United States, parking is actually a fundamental concern of architecture and real estate. It's the first thing that a developer considers when they decide what they can put on a lot. Because of that, it's an essential component of housing. It determines the cost of housing, the quantity of housing, the type of housing we get in terms of its design.

And then finally, by becoming such a major component of the urban environment, it also changes the environment like capital E in terms of our relationship with rain, with heat, with pollution. I mean, this was perhaps the most shocking revelation to me of all was when I went to Houston after Hurricane Harvey had devastated the city, flooded tens of thousands of homes. And I began to look at the

rainfall records in Houston over the years. And while it's true that storms have gotten more intense in Houston over the last few decades, what has grown much faster is the amount of runoff that's created. That rain hits the city of Houston, which is one of the most auto-dependent, paved-over cities in the United States, and it doesn't go anywhere.

It just stays on that pavement, that asphalt, that concrete. And in this way, providing all this parking actually changes our landscape, right? It becomes a major component determining whose house floods during a rainstorm just because of all the land that's been converted into impervious surface. So that was a revelation for me.

There was a very striking sentence early on in your book. You write, parking is a mutant strain of yeast in the dough of architecture, making our designs bigger, uglier and further apart. If the Empire State Building had been built to the minimum parking requirements of a contemporary American city, for example, its surface parking lot would cover 12 whole blocks. And that would be a legal requirement. You'd have to do it.

Why do we have these laws and these rules? I think these rules often seem inexplicable when you read about them and you understand the way they stifle our ability to provide attractive architecture, walkable neighborhoods, affordable housing and all that. But I think if you put yourself in the shoes of the urban planners of the 1950s, they begin to make more sense.

Now, in the 1950s, most cities in the United States had scarcely changed in terms of their urban form since the beginning of the 20th century. And so obviously these big cities after the Second World War are overrun with cars and traffic. And planners think that the root of this problem is parking and that the reason there's so much traffic is that everybody's looking for a parking space and there isn't anywhere for anyone to park. Which is not completely wrong, right? Shocking statistics in your book about how...

much time and how many miles people drive just looking for parking spots and what percentage of the traffic on the road is just drivers circling around looking for a free spot. So it's not an absurd thing for them to think. No, it's not an absurd thing for them to think at all. And suburbs are really on the rise at this point. Big new malls open with lots and lots of free parking. And cities see this and they think, we have to up our parking standards to compete with the suburbs.

And this is a fatal mistake because cities are never going to be able to offer the easy, ample parking for free that is so common and so expected at many suburban locations. It just can't work geometrically. Nevertheless, they gave it their best shot. And one of the ways they did so was a kind of sneaky thing they did. They said, well, if we build all this parking, the city is going to go bankrupt. So let's just give it to the private sector. Let's make parking.

private developers bear the cost of this transition. And the way we'll do that is we'll pass laws that say that every new or renovated building has to include X or Y number of parking spaces. And before long, we will be competitive with the suburbs in terms of parking. And I think it worked beyond their wildest dreams because there's a lot of American cities you can go to today where you go downtown and it's 30, 40, 50 percent parking.

But a town which is 30, 40, 50% parking is obnoxious in all kinds of ways. The environmental impact, the lack of storm drainage. It's horrible for pedestrians to walk around a city where there's so much parking because everything is so far apart. You've got your Empire State Building and it's surrounded by 12 blocks of parking, or at least it would be. You also have a situation where it's just completely impossible to build...

affordable homes because every time you want to build an apartment block there's just this colossally expensive parking requirement. The rules deliver the parking but they don't deliver liveable walkable cities.

Yeah, and I think the attitude over the last 10, 20 years in American cities has very much been to look at these rules and to look at this transition that took place in the 1950s and 60s and say, we got it wrong. And that's a big step because for many years, the conventional wisdom was if you provide more parking, there will be less traffic.

And in fact, it came to be that it was mostly the opposite. The more parking you provide, the more people will drive and the more parking you'll need because the urban environment you create is so hostile to anybody who's not in a car. Over the last 10, 15 years, that has changed.

We now have dozens, if not hundreds of cities that have decided to repeal these laws and to let builders, architects, developers, homeowners, et cetera, decide for themselves how much parking needs to accompany every single apartment building, every single store, et cetera. And so you're beginning to see a revival of those traditional urban forms.

that were jettisoned over the course of the 20th century. But it's also true, of course, that parking doesn't exist in a vacuum. People say, well, nobody rides the bus or the streetcar or the train compared to how many people drive, so we can't make it harder to find parking. Because it is true in the United States that for most people, most of the time,

We do not have a choice about whether we want to use a car to get someplace. And so in that sense, parking is equivalent to access and it's not really our fault that we get so up in arms every time our parking is challenged and we fight with our neighbors and we fight with the people trying to take our parking spot and so on. So that is the real issue.

One of the points that you make in the book is that, as you say, parking is access, but that is a rather superficial kind of access. And it papers over deeper inequalities. I think most fundamentally, the focus on free and easy parking as a precondition of every landscape precludes us from building housing, right? Yeah.

Both because the requirement to provide parking brings up the cost of new housing and reduces its quantity, but also because in a society where everyone is so focused on having a parking space, neighbors often reject to the concept of new people entering the city based on their challenge to the parking status quo.

This idea that new neighbors are going to come and take away your parking spot, and this is a reason that we should oppose a new apartment building here, a new affordable complex there. This tradeoff between parking and housing I saw firsthand. I was in Austin, Texas, and I visited a housing complex for the formerly homeless.

This place has been constructed according to the city's then parking minimums with a giant two-story garage atop which were perched a couple dozen new apartment units. Now, the garage was almost always empty, of course, because the people who had moved into this complex were homeless. They were not statistically very likely to own cars and drive cars every day.

And yet the building had been forced to dedicate half its square footage and God knows how much money and construction costs to building this garage. And so, yes, they had provided free parking and all the access that comes with that, but at the expense of creating new homes for people who are living on the streets. We'll be back in a moment. And when we return, we'll be diving back, should that be driving back, into the Chicago parking meters fiasco.

I love cycling and I'm eager to get my kids cycling too. It's a great way for them to stay fit and move around our home city independently. But of course, I also want them to be confident and safe. Which is where Guardian Bikes comes in. The bike comes in a box and it's easy to assemble, with all the tools you need and simple online instructions. My son and I unboxed his bike together, spent about 20 minutes working as a team to assemble it,

And then he was on the bike and ready to ride. The bike looks great and with the SureStop braking system it brakes quickly and safely without locking the front wheel and sending you over the handlebars. Guardian bikes offer a 365-day money-back guarantee covering returns, repairs and spare parts. Join hundreds of thousands of happy families by getting a Guardian bike today.

Visit GuardianBikes.com to save up to 25% off bikes. No code needed. Plus, receive a free bike lock and pump with your first purchase after signing up for the newsletter. That's GuardianBikes.com. Happy riding! If you're listening to this right now, you probably like to stay on top of things, which is why I want to mention The Economist. Today, the world seems to be moving faster than ever. Climate and economics, politics and culture, science and technology, wherever you look,

Events are unfolding quickly, but now you can save 20% off an annual subscription to The Economist so you won't miss a thing. The Economist broadens your perspective with fact-checked, rigorous reporting and analysis. It's journalism you can truly trust. There is a lot going on these days, but with 20% off, you get access to in-depth, independent coverage of world events through podcasts, webinars, expert analysis, and even their extensive archives. So where

Whether you want to catch up on current events or dive deeper into specific issues, The Economist delivers global perspectives with distinctive clarity. Just to give an example, What's Next for Amazon as it turns 30? analyzes how Amazon's fourth decade looks like an area of integration for the company. Go beyond the headlines with The Economist. Save 20% for a limited time on an annual subscription. Go to economist.com and subscribe today.

We're back. This is Cautionary Tales, and I've been talking to Henry Grabar, the author of Paved Paradise. Henry, surely the city of Chicago wasn't expecting a free lunch from Morgan Stanley, so what did they expect? What were they thinking?

I do think they thought they had found themselves a pretty good deal, especially considering the moment in which they were making this deal, right? Property tax revenues are expected to shore up Chicago's budget as the recession takes effect. And they saw in this deal an opportunity to

to put a bunch of money into city coffers following a model that had been pretty well established in the city at this time and not always had these deals led to regrets, right? I think selling off, for example, the city-owned parking garages is regarded now in an era of remote work as not a terrible decision. I mean, I've told a number of people about this story, which is incredible, and the reaction very often is it must have been corruption. They can't have been that stupid, but what I'm hearing is maybe they were that stupid.

I think they were. I think they were. Moreover, it illustrates the process of doing business in Chicago politics where it's not corruption itself, but it's this disdain for the public process, this lack of review, this sense of self-confidence that the mayor and his advisors and his friends and associates in the business community know what's right for the city and

and that to question them is somehow not conducive to city interest. One of the things that this deal underlines for me is that

This is one way of managing city streets. And the way that Morgan Stanley, or I should say CPM LLC now, is managing these streets is to maximize revenue. And on a lot of these blocks in Chicago, the parking is actually so expensive that there's a lot of empty spaces. That's one problem, that this is not very well managed. And then the other one is that, of course,

It is really a catastrophe for the city of Chicago that all this money that people are putting into these parking meters is not going into public services.

street trees and park benches and cityscape improvements, drainage, all that stuff in the neighborhood that makes you feel like when you put that money in the meter, that money is going to something that you value. And that's an important political component of making people happy with these changes. And in Chicago to this day, people are very unhappy with this change. And I think that's one reason why. I always promise our listeners that

Our cautionary tales will teach them something. There'll be a lesson to learn. What's the lesson you draw from this one? The lesson from the Chicago parking meter deal, I would argue, is not in fact

that cities should never think about privatizing public services. I think there is a time and a place for that. But the mistake of the Chicago parking meter deal is much more specific. It's that if you're signing a novel privatization bid for an asset that has never before been privatized by any American city,

You need to spend more than 24 hours reading the 400-page contract. And perhaps even you should commission an independent consultant to review this deal, a public hearing in which experts testify in front of the city council and so on. So it really is a case of not really thinking through the future consequences. And Chicago did what every other city has done really, which is to not seriously think about the value of parking.

That is the real cautionary tale here. If you don't think at least a little about what all this parking might be worth, you wind up making big mistakes like this.

We've been talking about cars, and of course the auto industry, the experience of driving cars, is being transformed by the appearance of electric vehicles, which have different requirements, I guess, to gasoline vehicles. So how are electric vehicles going to change the parking landscape and change the issues we've been talking about? Electric vehicles are going to have a massive effect on the way we think about parking. The parking space is not just the place you store your car.

but it's also the place you fuel your car. We're talking about electrifying and decarbonizing, at least in America, what is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, the transportation sector. So this is a vitally important decision that households are making to opt for an electric vehicle. And it is contingent on

on whether they have a place to charge that vehicle at home. Now, two in three American households do have a private garage where they can more or less simply plug that vehicle into the wall. But one in three American households don't. That's tens of millions of people who,

are not going to be able to make this transition to electric vehicles unless they can find a place to charge them. Now, some of them live in multifamily buildings that need to be adapted for electric charging. But I think the more challenging question is what we're going to do about street parking. Because if all those street parking spaces are supposed to be available to people with electric vehicles where they can charge their cars right where they're parked, that's going to require either

an infrastructural investment in electric chargers that is beyond our wildest imaginations, or it's going to require a new way of thinking about parking in which people are more cooperative and they don't simply think of a parking spot as a place to leave their car for days at a time until they need it next.

But they begin to think of parking as a more fluid and cooperative system in which people move in and out of a select number of spaces that have become electrified. The stakes of this are really high, right? Because if we don't figure this out, we don't figure out a way to let all these households who park their cars on the street have a way to charge them, then our densest population areas are going to be left out of the electric vehicle transition system.

and are going to be left suffering from the consequences of the air pollution associated with gas-powered cars for decades longer than people who live in the suburbs and have home garages.

Henry, before we began the interview, you mentioned that you're about to move from Paris to Boston. Is that going to raise any new parking headaches for you? That is a funny question. It's going to raise an immediate parking headache for me. I have long been, as a car-free resident of Paris,

extolling the city's decisions around reducing the availability of parking and building green spaces and bus lanes and bike lanes and all that stuff which I use on a daily basis and very much appreciate and now I have to rent a giant moving truck and drive it around the city

It is always an adventure to try and find a parking spot here. But then the other side of it is that I am excited in a perverse way to go back to the United States and once again experience the feeling of losing your car in a giant supermarket parking lot. Henry Gravara, thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

Henry Grabar is the author of Paved Paradise, which is available now in the US and Canada from all good booksellers. This episode of Cautionary Tales was based with permission on a chapter of that book. And for a full list of our sources, as always, please see the show notes at timharford.com.

Cautionary Tales is written by me, Tim Harford, with Andrew Wright. It's produced by Alice Fiennes, with support from Edith Ruslow. The sound design and original music is the work of Pascal Wise. Sarah Nix edited the scripts. It features the voice talents of Ben Crow, Melanie Guttridge, Gemma Saunders and Rufus Wright.

The show wouldn't have been possible without the work of Jacob Weisberg, Ryan Dilley, Greta Cohn, Leet Almalad, John Schnarz, Carly Migliori and Eric Sandler. Cautionary Tales is a production of Pushkin Industries. It was recorded in Wardall Studios in London by Tom Berry. If you like the show, please remember to share, rate and review. Go on, you know it helps us. And if you want to hear the show ad-free...

Sign up for Pushkin Plus on the show page in Apple Podcasts or at pushkin.fm slash plus.

I'm Malcolm Gladwell, and I'd like to take a moment to talk about an amazing new podcast I'm hosting called Medal of Honor. It's a moving podcast series celebrating the untold stories of those who protect our country. And it's brought to you by LifeLock, the leader in identity theft protection. Your personal info is in a lot of places that can accidentally expose you to identity theft.

and not everyone who handles your personal info is as careful as you. LifeLock makes it easy to take control of your identity and will work to fix identity theft if it happens. Join the millions of Americans who trust LifeLock. Visit LifeLock.com slash metal today to save up to 40% off your first year.

So I have some big news for vegans and vegetarians everywhere. It's Hellman's plant-based mayo spread and dressing. Made for people with a plant-based diet or anyone really who wants to enjoy the great taste of Hellman's real without the eggs. Hellman's plant-based is perfect for sandwiches, salads, veggie burgers, or any of your family favorites.

To celebrate, Hellman's is sharing some easy, delicious plant-based recipes at hellmans.com. Hellman's Plant-Based Mayo Spread and Dressing. Same great taste, plant-based.

The news isn't always good news, but when you're getting quality journalism and in-depth expert analysis that's held up for more than 180 years, that is definitely good news. So if you haven't already, save 20% with The Economist's summer sale today and stay on top of the stories that matter to you. You'll instantly gain unlimited digital access to daily articles, special reports, award-winning podcasts, subscriber-only events, and so much more. Now that's

Good news. Go to economist.com and subscribe today.