Naive question here: Taking out a block of parking would have decreased the City's bottom line already, right? They wouldn't get to collect from those meters. That would have affected the city's budget. The only difference here is that the City will now have to cut a check, but the effect on the City's budget seems similar. The piece I don't know is whether the amount is different, like if the vendor is allowed to raise rates as much as they want and ask the City to reimburse at that rate instead at the rate the City "would have" chargee to park if they'd retained the ownership.

It's an interesting question. I'm just assuming the cost-per-space-removed under this regime is far greater than the lost-revenue-per-space-removed that they would have otherwise suffered, but that's just based on the fact that the deal is known to be especially bad for the city. It stands to reason that they would have gotten screwed on this point as well, but that's just a guess on my part.

I know Chicago has transit. I was responding to the assertion that "parking being unaffordable is good because less people will park"..

Decreases in availability/access and/or increases in cost of private vehicle use, without offsetting improvements in transit are not a good thing.

I would argue that in general that's probably true but not always. Reducing car trips can also relieve stress on the communities living in these urban communities or improve the quality in specific locations. Here outright banning or discouraging driving is done to improve walkability, reduce noise and quality of stay.

Communities living in cities also need traffic calmed, quieter places nearby. Banning cars here is often a good first step and reuse the street with cafes, restaurants and transportation by bike, public transport and cars only if parked somewhere else.