I had a very good conversation with U.S. Senator Dick Lugar Tuesday evening.  We talked about Iraq, Afghanistan, the 2010 midterm elections and his own re-election bid.

I asked him his reaction to critics who say he’s been in office too long and what he thinks about a primary challenger?  He told me he will serve until his fellow Hoosiers decide it’s time for him to do something else.  And when asked about a possible primary challenger in 2010 , he said “it’s a free country and people are entitled to do what they wish.”  He says he has a lot of energy left and looks forward to the race.

I bring this up, because Lugar has been in the U.S. Senate since 1976, for some people that’s too long.   For me, I’ve always believed you should serve until you are no longer effective.  For some politicians that means serving one-term, others that could mean a couple decades.   I also think that if the voters have had enough of someone they should get together and remove that person from office.  It has been done before, just ask Lisa Murkowski, Robert Bennett and Arlan Specter.  Each was an incumbent and each lost.  Granted it was a primary, but they still lost.

Of course critics would say the above examples are the exception, not the rule.  I will freely admit incumbency always brings a certain amount of inherent advantages.  However, at the end of the day, it’s the votes that count.   I think we can make voting more competitive by eliminating blatant gerrymandering and the creation of districts that look like a Rorschach test.  We can also neutralize some of the power of entrenched incumbency by putting term limits on committee assignments.  Just because you should be allowed to serve until you die, doesn’t mean you can keep the same spot in perpetuity.

Of course, if people would get off their rear ends and exercise their civic duties and stay engaged in the process, this discussion wouldn’t be necessary.

The Indianapolis Department of Public Works Board met yesterday and unanimously approved a key measure in an effort to move forward with a lease of the city’s parking meters, and management contract of its parking lots and garages. The structure of the deal is in many ways similar to the Indiana toll road lease, which was controversial at the time it was approved in 2006 but is now hailed as a bargain for taxpayers.

Now in 2010, Mayor Ballard’s parking proposal, like the proposal to transfer city water and wastewater systems into the Citizens Energy non-profit, is being hailed as a creative proposal which helps shift the burden for infrastructure improvements away from property taxes toward alternative sources.

Under the agreement the city would contract out the management of its parking garages and lots for 10 years and meters for 50 years. In exchange the city will receive $35 million upfront to reinvest in roads and benefit from a revenue sharing arrangement over the length of the contract. Not only will the city receive a large payment and a share of parking revenue over time, but the city is expected to save $40 million in operation savings over the life of the contract. Parking meter rates will necessarily increase gradually over the life of the contract, and they should.

I wasn’t alive the last time parking meter rates were increased in 1975, and if left to politicians to control, I probably wouldn’t be alive for the next increase. Despite the fact that the city’s infrastructure is underfunded, previous mayors and councils have failed to raise rates to keep pace with costs. While meters and parking tickets amounted to over $4.1 million in revenue in 2009, after subtracting the city’s expenses of managing the meters, only $750,000 went to the streets, curbs and sidewalks they are intended to support.

Compared to our peer cities, those places we compete with for jobs, convention business and tourism, we rank among the cheapest at 75 cents per hour. Many meters are more than 40 years old, and the Mayor’s proposal would replace all of the city’s meters with electronic meters that accept credit and debit cards in addition to currency. As approved by the board of the Department of Public Works, rates would increase to $1.50 per hour in the busiest parts of downtown and in Broad Ripple by 2012. Other areas of downtown would see rates increase to $1.00 per hour. Increases would then be capped by rounding the growth in the Consumer Price Index down to the nearest quarter. Still, a bargain compared to nearby cities like Cincinnati where the rate is $2.00 an hour.

Today, Indianapolis parking meters are at best, a non-factor, and at worst, an annoyance (ask anyone who has gotten change stuck in a broken meter). Mayor Ballard’s proposal will vastly improve parking technology and convenience, generate more on-street turnover to help businesses, and generate the kind of revenue to make an impact in the city’s infrastructure needs.

Mayor Ballard deserves credit for his efforts to capitalize on under-leveraged public assets and fund infrastructure without a tax increase. This is exactly the kind of creative proposal that protects recession-weary taxpayers while still allowing the city to modernize and make necessary improvements.