CHICAGO | Lincoln Yards

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Of all people, I figured school teachers would understand their math a bit better.

We are talking about CPS teachers... average ACT score of 12 perhaps?

I love the audacity of the teachers union in this city.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I love the audacity of the teachers union in this city.

The CTU, led by Sharkey, is absolutely killing their goodwill in this city. Stunts like this and their new contract demands will hurt them in the long run. An example of their argument:

“Where will the money come from? Rich people,” CTU Vice President Stacy Davis Gates said Tuesday, as she repeated the union’s call for Illinois to tax its wealthiest residents at higher rates and pointed to revenue-generating ideas that need support from Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

“We have a governor who has committed to legalizing recreational marijuana and putting a tax on it, we can take that as well,” Davis Gates said. “They are also talking about sports betting. We can take that. They’re talking about opening a new casino here in the city of Chicago. We can take that.”

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Seriously? You don't think 55 acres of vacant land in between Bucktown and Lincoln Yards, freed of its PMD restrictions, would ever be developed without hefty city subsidies?

No, I don't think so. Seriously

And what the hell does Chicago Public School pension payments have to do with City of Chicago infrastructure funding? CPS money can't be used for building streets and sewers.

Nah, it's all public money. The city is too broke to build infrastructure hence it floats bonds, sells parking meters, and comes up with TIFs. And the pensions are only draining the budget further.

Go try your arguments on someone more gullible.

[Skyguy_7]

^Ha. They appear to be empowered by AOC's fight with Amazon.

TUP, why would you assume the red-shirt protester-type complainers in the CTU would think with their heads?

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." A sad truth.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

The CTU, led by Sharkey, is absolutely killing their goodwill in this city. Stunts like this and their new contract demands will hurt them in the long run. An example of their argument:

“Where will the money come from? Rich people,” CTU Vice President Stacy Davis Gates said Tuesday, as she repeated the union’s call for Illinois to tax its wealthiest residents at higher rates and pointed to revenue-generating ideas that need support from Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

“We have a governor who has committed to legalizing recreational marijuana and putting a tax on it, we can take that as well,” Davis Gates said. “They are also talking about sports betting. We can take that. They’re talking about opening a new casino here in the city of Chicago. We can take that.”

They aren't even trying to appeal to the public at this point

[mark0]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Doesn’t the CTU shitshow want developments like this to generate property tax revenue and hence help pay for their benefits and pensions?

Logic and reason are lost on CTU members

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Nah, it's all public money.

Then why not just pay the pensions with Medicare reimbursement funding? It's all public money.

Different level of government, you say? So is the school district.

The city is too broke to build infrastructure hence it floats bonds, sells parking meters, and comes up with TIFs. And the pensions are only draining the budget further.

You seem to be mixing together every facet of municipal finance into some sort of word salad or rage stew. Bonds have to be repaid. There's nothing wrong with TIFs; it's just wrong to use them to unnecessarily pad the developer's bottom line when a district would redevelop without them. And of course the city has its own pension obligations separate from CPS, the park district, the city colleges, and CTA.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^Ha. They appear to be empowered by AOC's fight with Amazon.

TUP, why would you assume the red-shirt protester-type complainers in the CTU would think with their heads?

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." A sad truth.

You're really unlikable you know that.

The "red shirt protestor type" got you the weekend you dumb-dumb. And the old "can't do.. teach" adage is likely one of the more ignorant and ridiculous things anyone could say, not to mention it's originally a reference to brilliant artists and writers, not to elementary algebra teachers you turd.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You seem to be mixing together every facet of municipal finance into some sort of word salad or rage stew.

And you're living in a fantasy land thinking that pensions aren't eating up the municipal budget. Been on another planet lately?

Staying on point: Chicago cannot build this infrastructure. It wants the developer to foot the bill for it and hand it over to them. Nothing wrong with said developer making a win-win deal with the city. This is a win-win deal, it's just that the CTU wants to be bratty about it.

There's nothing wrong with TIFs; it's just wrong to use them to unnecessarily pad the developer's bottom line when a district would redevelop without them.

^ You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. What makes you think that a transit line, a water/sewer system, bridges, parks, and a streetgrid will just magically get built by a developer on this site and handed over to the city, along with 600 subsidized apartments, without some help from the public?

The only thing that would get built there without a public subsidy is a giant suburban shopping plaza or perhaps a neighborhood full of McMansions with a private street in, private street out. Nobody wants that.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The only thing that would get built there without a public subsidy is a giant suburban shopping plaza or perhaps a neighborhood full of McMansions with a private street in, private street out. Nobody wants that.

Completely agree, although you may need to change your signature based on this post.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And you're living in a fantasy land thinking that pensions aren't eating up the municipal budget.

Huh? What do Chicago teacher pensions have to do with the municipal budget? Do you really not understand that school districts in Illinois are entirely separate governmental units?

What makes you think that a transit line, a water/sewer system, bridges, parks, and a streetgrid will just magically get built by a developer on this site and handed over to the city, along with 600 subsidized apartments, without some help from the public?

A new transit line, bridges, and parks are not going to be built by this developer, either. Read the actual PD, not Crain's editorials saying it "sends a bad message" to deny anything Sterling Bay asks for, or even to wait until the new city council is seated.

The only thing that would get built there without a public subsidy is a giant suburban shopping plaza or perhaps a neighborhood full of McMansions with a private street in, private street out. Nobody wants that.

Why not, if it augments the city's tax rolls without requiring more subsidy than it can repay? All up and down the North Branch, former industrial parcels have been converted to residential areas, with the developers paying for their own damn streets and sewers. Want to ensure the streets are public? Require that in the PD.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Huh? What do Chicago teacher pensions have to do with the municipal budget? Do you really not understand that school districts in Illinois are entirely separate governmental units?



A new transit line, bridges, and parks are not going to be built by this developer, either. Read the actual PD, not Crain's editorials saying it "sends a bad message" to deny anything Sterling Bay asks for, or even to wait until the new city council is seated.



Why not, if it augments the city's tax rolls without requiring more subsidy than it can repay? All up and down the North Branch, former industrial parcels have been converted to residential areas, with the developers paying for their own damn streets and sewers. Want to ensure the streets are public? Require that in the PD.

Stop being silly. Yes, CPS is a distinct government unit from the City of Chicago, however our RE Tax bills pay both and both are near insolvency.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You're really unlikable you know that.

The "red shirt protestor type" got you the weekend you dumb-dumb. And the old "can't do.. teach" adage is likely one of the more ignorant and ridiculous things anyone could say, not to mention it's originally a reference to brilliant artists and writers, not to elementary algebra teachers you turd.

The "red shirt protestor type" also got most things manufactured in China, too, so kudos for that!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Completely agree, although you may need to change your signature based on this post.

Why?

Developer builds everything, then gets to keep increased property tax revenue for this expenditure for a said amount of time to recoup investment.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Huh? What do Chicago teacher pensions have to do with the municipal budget? Do you really not understand that school districts in Illinois are entirely separate governmental units?

Being typically coy and narrow. I'm talking public employee pensions in general that we can't afford, not just the CTU

Why not, if it augments the city's tax rolls without requiring more subsidy than it can repay? All up and down the North Branch, former industrial parcels have been converted to residential areas, with the developers paying for their own damn streets and sewers. Want to ensure the streets are public? Require that in the PD.

Whatever, Mr. D. All up and down the the north branch all I'm seeing is low density residential. Nobody wants that here except you, apparently

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

The "red shirt protestor type" also got most things manufactured in China, too, so kudos for that!

Bullshit.

American consumer goods went off shore because corporate shareholders, and the American consumer themselves, couldn't say no to $1.50 an hour (or less). $20/hour union wage vs. $15/hour non-union wasn't and isn't going to make one difference in Pennsylvania or the Carolina textile mills.

Get your head out of your ass Milton.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Bullshit.

American consumer goods went off shore because corporate shareholders, and the American consumer themselves, couldn't say no to $1.50 an hour. $20 and hour union wage vs. $15 an hour non-union wasn't and isn't going to make one difference in Pennsylvania or the Carolina textile mills.

Correct, consumers rationally decided there is no reason to pay artificially high prices for things if they don't have to.

[Busy Bee]

At the expense of our own manufacturing base and livelihoods. The snake eating its' own tail. The high cost of low low prices.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why?

Developer builds everything, then gets to keep increased property tax revenue for this expenditure for a said amount of time to recoup investment.

If the government wasn't reimbursing Sterling Bay, they wouldn't be proposing such a development. By reimbursing them through a TIF, the government is solving the problem of this area having no infrastructure.

You said yourself in this thread:

The only thing that would get built there without a public subsidy is a giant suburban shopping plaza or perhaps a neighborhood full of McMansions with a private street in, private street out. Nobody wants that.

[the urban politician]

^ I sort of see your point, but I mean....you're kinda stretching it on this one. What the Govt is really doing is saying "I tell you what, we know that we're an overbearing son of a bitch to deal with, so we'll just get out of your way if you build all this stuff and we'll lighten up the load on ya for about 20 years so that you can make this profitable"

If you define that as Government involvement then fine.....I don't really have a counterargument