Pension Parking Parsing
Some things really need commenting on though. Bram tweets that the administration presented some idea that if a bond was issued against future parking revenues, that there was a potential for the parking authority to default with a result of the bond holders taking posession of city parking assets. If Bram passed that on accurately, then folks should know that that is basically false. Default on a revenue bond really can't result in foreclosure against public assets like that. Skipping legal wonkery, it just isn't the way things work. Purchasers of a revenue bond have claims against future revenue streams, not the underlying assets. It would be extraordinary, and certainly not required for the bonds to have a mortgage pledge in their prospectus. The concept of wall street types winding up as owners of the garages is just not an option.
Beyond that.. like I said I don't have it in me. We are again down the rabbit hole Downtown and who knows where we will emerge when all is said and done.
OK, I can't resist one really fundamental comment. Seems to me that the whole presentation today by the mayor was that this bond issue plan wouldn't work and it was based on some math saying a bond would be issued at 5.5% if tax-exempt and 7.5% if not tax-exempt. Are those rates for real? I don't think any muni bond rates are that high these days are they? Would make for some very different math if those rates are incorrect. I really need my Bloomberg box back.
Speaking of bond rates... us 3 public finance wonks may have noticed that bond insurer Assured Guaranty had its bond rating dropped today... Methinks a few big public bonds locally have bond insurance issued by Assured Guaranty. Oh, nevermind.
Yeah... my original post was still longer than all of that.