CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Vlajos]

The anti TIF people are not the brightest. The vast majority of TIF goes to CPS, CTA, parks, affordable housing and other economic development. Personally I don't really care either way if we have them or not, but this is not some massive pot of money that can magically solve our fiscal problems. Would the city stop trying to fund all the things outlined?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The anti TIF people are not the brightest. The vast majority of TIF goes to CPS, CTA, parks, affordable housing and other economic development. Personally I don't really care either way if we have them or not, but this is not some massive pot of money that can magically solve our fiscal problems. Would the city stop trying to fund all the things outlined?

I think it's a fair argument that if those things are worth funding (they are), they should go through the same budgetary process as other general spending. It's the same argument with the "menu money" that Aldermen get. It is generally spent on worthy projects (specifically, road repair and street lights). That doesn't mean it is the most efficient way to spend it. In the case of menu-money, maybe CDOT should just have that money so they can better coordinate how it's spent and save on efficiencies.

More specific to TIF's, there is going to be another large increase in pension payments in the near future. If you need to come up with $500 million annually, it would be a good idea to look at some TIFs in no-longer-blighted areas. Rahm regularly declared TIF surpluses to divert money to the general fund (including $175 million for the most recent budget).

Add in $150 million from transfer tax increase and you may be able to avoid another big property tax hike.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ The transfer tax idea is a stupid one in my opinion. It sounds great, but remember what happened in 2008-2010 to the CTA? A large chunk of CTA's funding comes from transfer stamps and they were basically out of money for 3 years straight because the RE market locked up. Transfer tax is much too cyclical to be reliable revenue as revenue is basically guaranteed to drop like a rock exactly when you need it most: during recessions.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

...
This has got to be a joke she cant audit tifs for places like Lincoln yards or that once they are contracted there's no turning back on those. and downtown absolutely needs the tifs…. but I believe that she is just saying this for votes. some of her policies are wishy washy on what she is leaning towards.

Auditing things funded with public money should always be done. It sounds like you may misunderstand what an audit is. Audits don't change anything, they simply investigate and report things. It sounds to me like the mentioned audit would be aimed more at helping evaluate the likely success for various types of future TIFs. That's a good thing - even supporters of TIFs don't want them to be wasteful.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by emathias

Auditing things funded with public money should always be done. It sounds like you may misunderstand what an audit is. Audits don't change anything, they simply investigate and report things. It sounds to me like the mentioned audit would be aimed more at helping evaluate the likely success for various types of future TIFs. That's a good thing - even supporters of TIFs don't want them to be wasteful.

I completely and totally agree with this. 110%!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ The transfer tax idea is a stupid one in my opinion. It sounds great, but remember what happened in 2008-2010 to the CTA? A large chunk of CTA's funding comes from transfer stamps and they were basically out of money for 3 years straight because the RE market locked up. Transfer tax is much too cyclical to be reliable revenue as revenue is basically guaranteed to drop like a rock exactly when you need it most: during recessions.

Doesn't all revenue drop quickly when recessions happen? I would think especially sales and property taxes which are the primary drivers of municipal revenue. I don't think it should be the sole basis of government revenue or budgets, but as a tax it is progressive and taps into a segment of the population who has seen huge growth the past decade.

For reference, at the Federal level, tax receipts fell from $2.524 trillion in 2008 to $2.105 trillion in 2009, a 17% drop.