CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Steely Dan]

^ BRING IN THE LIGHT!!!

lightfoot landslide incoming.

[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.

[the urban politician]

The problem with these graduated transfer taxes is that they continue to discourage people from owning expensive homes. We already have a lukewarm housing market here. Do we really need to depress it further?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The problem with these graduated transfer taxes is that they continue to discourage people from owning expensive homes. We already have a lukewarm housing market here. Do we really need to depress it further?

The housing market is not lukewarm for expensive homes ($650k and up). Either way, Lightfoot's plan uses a higher tax on those homes to lower the transfer tax on lesser-priced homes.

The current tax is $5.25 for every $500 of a property’s sale value, or 1.05 percent. Lightfoot’s tax would charge 0.35 percent for the first $500,000 of sale value; 1 percent for between $500,000 and $1 million; 2 percent for between $1 million and $5 million; and 3 percent for the sale value over $5 million.

Under this structure, you would start paying a higher fee around the $1.2 million mark.

• A $750k home would save $3,625 ($7,875 today versus $4,250)
• A $500k home would save $3,500 ($5,250 today versus $1,750)
• A $250k home would save $875 ($2,625 today versus $1,750

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

The housing market is not lukewarm for expensive homes ($650k and up). Either way, Lightfoot's plan uses a higher tax on those homes to lower the transfer tax on lesser-priced homes.



Under this structure, you would start paying a higher fee around the $1.2 million mark.

• A $750k home would save $3,625 ($7,875 today versus $4,250)
• A $500k home would save $3,500 ($5,250 today versus $1,750)
• A $250k home would save $875 ($2,625 today versus $1,750

^ The housing market for the region is definitely not strong for luxury.

A lot of luxury homes are seeing their prices slashed and lingering on the market.

While there are a multitude of reasons for this, increasing the tax on a real estate transfer just doesn't help one bit.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The housing market for the region is definitely not strong for luxury.

A lot of luxury homes are seeing their prices slashed and lingering on the market.

While there are a multitude of reasons for this, increasing the tax on a real estate transfer just doesn't help one bit.

You are likely correct for luxury homes ($1 million +), but this also isn’t a regional tax it’s a Chicago tax. I am seeing lines down the street for single-family homes in the $500-$750k range.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

You are likely correct for luxury homes ($1 million +), but this also isn’t a regional tax it’s a Chicago tax. I am seeing lines down the street for single-family homes in the $500-$750k range.

And I think homes like this are the best ones to get in this region.

I just see no reason the buy a $1 MM + home in this region, even if affordability is not an option. That view grows stronger as the Socialists now push for a higher real estate transfer tax.

I own $ 1 MM rental property but I’m not too concerned—I don’t plan to sell.

[Vlajos]

TIF spending is approved by the city council. It's just a different sources of tax dollars. Again, I could care less if we eliminated TIF, but it's silly to have the public think it's going to solve our fiscal disaster unless we cut spending and redirect TIF money to pensions.

[Vlajos]

I'm hearing turnout is low both today and early vote. That bodes well for the machine and Taxwinkle.

56 to 44 Lightfoot win.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I'm hearing turnout is low both today and early vote. That bodes well for the machine and Taxwinkle.

56 to 44 Lightfoot win.

Yes, but I also think the enthusiasm gap is huge. People who support Lori seem extremely motivated. I was just volunteering this weekend for her and there were like 30 volunteers crammed into a small storefront at a time. They were coming in and out in shifts like 10 people at a time all day and I was only there for like 3 hours.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I'm hearing turnout is low both today and early vote. That bodes well for the machine and Taxwinkle.

56 to 44 Lightfoot win.

Why would low turnout help Taxwinkle? I would think it would be the opposite

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why would low turnout help Taxwinkle? I would think it would be the opposite

Machine gets the vote out usually, so in low turnout, they typically have the upper hand. I still think Lightfoot wins. I voted for her two weeks ago.

[Via Chicago]

preckwinkle is no more "machine" than lightfoot. (or are we forgetting that lightfoot got appointed to her posts by 2 former mayors?)

[Steely Dan]

^ preckwinkle is freaking chair of the cook county democratic party and president of the cook county board.

i don't think there's any plausible way to argue that lightfoot is just as "machiney" as preckwinkle.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

preckwinkle is no more "machine" than lightfoot. (or are we forgetting that lightfoot got appointed to her posts by 2 former mayors?)

The only people that support Prekwinkle, the Cook County Democratic Party leader, is machine and public employee unions, which is one and the same. I guess some of the bizarro Democratic Socialists are supporting her from what I see on social media.