Quote:
Assuming a rising interest rate enviroment, and legislative breakdown on pushing through more tax hikes almost assures the state's failure to make essential payments (to pensioners and existing employees) in the next few years, and this will cause the federal government to get involved. The question is, do they help the state do what needs to be done to fix its constitution (axe the pension amendment), or do they punish the state economically by forcing the state to abide by its own laws and pushing through onerous taxes, thereby making an example out of us? Considering there are a dozen other states who have less than 50% of their pensions funded and could be coming up to the same fiscal cliff Illinois is already struggling to keep from fall off of, I fear that that it might lean towards the latter. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Illinois will never pay off its pension obligations. I don't care what the stupid Constitution says. Those State employees are screwed.
Too many promises and lies. But whatever, keep voting for the same people. Like clockwork, they will probably put that slimy hack ("make the rich pay their fair share.....but not really") Pritzker in office. |
I wonder how Pritzker would respond to this question:
Mr Pritzker, what do you think about imposing a State tax on Capital gains to help fund pensions? Watch him try to mumble and stutter his way out of that. |
Quote:
Detroit's bankruptcy left plenty of unanswered questions though, and the district courts here and the 7th Circuit might handle things differently than what happened up in Michigan. Who knows. |
Quote:
|
^ Yep, except for Chicago
|
Quote:
The whole state is going to go down in flames, it's mathematically impossible to tax our way out of this. Let's not even consider the giant waiting list for payment we still have. Do you think those creditors will just accept what they are owed or do you think the unpaid bills have late fees and interest charges attached? They pay off those bills and what do they use? Debt which just means more servicing costs. The state is currently adding about $6 billion a year in debt. Right now it's priced around 6-6.5%. That means, at current interest rates, the state's debt service costs rise by about a third of a billion dollars a year. |
Quote:
|
I like this idea of use of money to keep the museum from raising prices every few years. Id like to see them lock in the current rates for at least another decade or longer, till 2030 would be nice, especially for international and out of state visitors IMO. That's what the donors would really like to happen, all cost raises, but gave most of the money without restrictions.
I would also like to see a big portion of the 50 M used in an endowment or used to create wealth in a mutual fund of some sort to grow larger over the years and make it untouchable for a long time and not blow it all in one stupid Warhol POS purchase or something like that. I'm ok if they use the rest of the non invested money to cover the rail tracks and create an additional wing for their Asian art and ancient Indian sculpture collections and free up that space for their other art that is just stored away. That would expand the footprint and allow more visitors access at the same time. http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...418-story.html Art Institute lands largest cash donation, $70 million in total The Art Institute of Chicago publicly revealed the largest announced monetary gift in its history Tuesday, an unrestricted $50 million donation from trustee Janet Duchossois and her husband, Craig Duchossois, officials said. In addition, trustees at Tuesday’s board meeting received news that board Chairman Robert Levy and his wife, Diane v.S. Levy, had ponied up another $20 million for operations and acquisitions at the not-for-profit institution. .. There are no specific, immediate plans for the new money, Rondeau said, but he suggested it could be influential in shaping the museum’s future. The museum’s long-range plan has included hopes to put up a new building, possibly devoted to Asian art. ... Levy said he hopes one of the things his family’s gift will do is “provide support to limit future price increases. … For us, access is a very important issue.” The museum has had at least two price increases this decade. Most recently, in June 2015 general admission went up to $20 for Chicago adults, $22 for Illinoisans and $25 for those from outside the state. |
Quote:
Quote:
Due to the uncharted nature, a different bankruptcy court in a different district might rule differently, but Detroit's precedent will certainly be taken into consideration either way. |
Quote:
I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation. Aaron (Glowrock) |
Aldermen's absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge
Posted By Maya Dukmasova on 04.16.18 at 02:55 PM GlenStar, the luxury developer at odds with 41st Ward alderman Anthony Napolitano over a proposed 299-unit apartment building near the Cumberland Blue Line, has sued the city in an attempt to secure the necessary zoning changes to proceed with construction. But buried in its demands that a judge find city officials' actions regarding its proposed building unlawful is a major legal challenge to the age-old practice of "aldermanic prerogative." This tradition, while not articulated anywhere in city code, has historically given aldermen veto power over developments in their ward. As the case of GlenStar's proposal has shown, when Napolitano decided he didn't want its apartment building in his ward, the City Council's zoning committee complied and didn't grant the developer a hearing or vote on its proposal... https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ourt-challenge |
^ Interesting... if this case works out in the favor of GlenStar, it could set a powerful precedent that aldermanic prerogative is no longer acceptable in Chicago... which would be absolutely fantastic!
|
^ I feel like we’ve seen this movie before re:lawsuits... even a victory for the developer would be narrow and only apply to the project in question, not aldermanic prerogative generally. Aldermanic prerogative is just a shortcut that enables City Council to function, imagine if every alderman had to weigh the pros and cons of every zoning change across the city. Now, aldermen generally have an obligation to conduct a predictable and consistent process for evaluating zoning changes before rendering a decision of support or no support, but this development did not really receive that.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...media=AMP+HTML The development went through the community process and was generally supported, Ald. Napolitano even wrote a letter of support before suddenly getting cold feet and deciding his ass was on the line if the new development brought more traffic and poor people into his ward. Basically he got scared after the NW Side racist NIMBYs turned out in force against a different affordable housing proposal in Jefferson Park. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.