CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Seriously, this is like an Illinois version of Obama's 2009 Economic Stimulus package.

I mean, there is literally going to be construction everywhere. Watch out for worsening worker shortages (it's already quite bad in the construction industry) and lots of traffic jams!

I was thinking the same thing. And a lot of it is pretty sensible revenue (though I HATE the $1,400 electric vehicle registration fee!) Tax stuff we want less of--cars, cigarettes, vaping, gasoline, parking lots--and get stuff that already exists but is untaxed into the revenue stream--pot and gambling. Plus we eliminate a disadvantage for local businesses by charging tax on internet sales.

Most of that money goes into education and infrastructure, investments that pay dividends in growth. This is like reading a Good Government laundry list.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I was thinking the same thing. And a lot of it is pretty sensible revenue (though I HATE the $1,400 electric vehicle registration fee!) Tax stuff we want less of--cars, cigarettes, vaping, gasoline, parking lots--and get stuff that already exists but is untaxed into the revenue stream--pot and gambling. Plus we eliminate a disadvantage for local businesses by charging tax on internet sales.

Most of that money goes into education and infrastructure, investments that pay dividends in growth. This is like reading a Good Government laundry list.

EV registration fee is $248 in the passed legislation.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Seriously, this is like an Illinois version of Obama's 2009 Economic Stimulus package.

I mean, there is literally going to be construction everywhere. Watch out for worsening worker shortages (it's already quite bad in the construction industry) and lots of traffic jams!

This, except on infrastructure steroids. The stimulus package from 2009 was almost entirely tax breaks, state bail outs, and unemployment benefits. The amount that went towards direct infrastructure was only around $50 billion, a measly 0.3% of national GDP. Whereas the direct infrastructure investment in this thing is over 3.0% of Illinois GDP.

A rundown of all the specific projects to be funded would be quite interesting.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

A rundown of all the specific projects to be funded would be quite interesting.

This is as close as I've found so far, focused on transportation:

https://chi.streetsblog.org/2019/06/...than-expected/

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by k1052

EV registration fee is $248 in the passed legislation.

$100 more than gas cars is still ridiculous given an EV's lower pollution and therefore lower costs to the state for health related issues. But there aren't enough EV owners to have clout. And besides, EV owners are all rich and can afford it, right?

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I mean, there is literally going to be construction everywhere. Watch out for worsening worker shortages (it's already quite bad in the construction industry) and lots of traffic jams!

Which makes it a very bad idea. Trying to do all the construction at one time will cause labor shortages, will increase labor costs. Schedules will stretch out, jobs will take longer.

But that's government right? Delay, delay, delay, drive up costs by deferring necessary maintenance. Then panic and spend even more to fix it all at once.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by aaron38

$100 more than gas cars is still ridiculous given an EV's lower pollution and therefore lower costs to the state for health related issues. But there aren't enough EV owners to have clout. And besides, EV owners are all rich and can afford it, right?

How else are EV users supposed to contribute to road maintenance if the primary method before was the gas tax?

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by k1052

Kind of amazing what years of pent up legislative demand and a governor who is a reasonable human being can do. I wasn't exactly passionate about JB but thus far his competency in actually governing seems to greatly exceed Rauner's.

Spending money like a drunken sailor isn't leadership. It's basically the easiest, laziest thing one can do.
Now I have to be the adult and take the hit and be the "bad guy" to my wife when I tell her she can't spend as much because I have to give more to the government. But hey, she voted for JB not me.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by bnk

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/...chicago-casino

House clears budget, gambling measure that includes adding Chicago casino

I grew up in the Quad Cities in the 90s when riverboat gambling came to town. I remember all the projections and promises. How we were going to be a tourist hotspot, the downtowns would be revitalized. New hotels, new construction, amazing new jobs. Not much of it came to pass.
https://qconline.com/news/local/what...9d2d984f4.html

Looking back now, the live music scene and micro-brewing made the downtowns of the Quad Cities much more fun to hang out in than the casinos, which are these sad little side shows.
Then there's a cousin and a good family friend, both divorced with deadbeat husbands who gambled themselves six figures into debt. So have fun with that.

That a casino is going to do anything for the state budget is fiction.

[Kenmore]

yup, casinos are depressing and have a long track records of problems and under performance

i'm sure a few already rich people will get richer tho

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

How else are EV users supposed to contribute to road maintenance if the primary method before was the gas tax?

Road damage is exponential based on vehicle weight. Cars don't destroy roads, trucks do.
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-...damage-levels/

And if climate change is going to destroy the world in 11 years and car exhaust causes millions of asthma cases a year, then it's silly to discourage EVs with higher taxes. The State should consider the total and pocket the net savings.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Trying to do all the construction at one time will cause labor shortages, will increase labor costs.

But that's government right? Delay, delay, delay, drive up costs by deferring necessary maintenance. Then panic and spend even more to fix it all at once.

To summarize, construction without delays will increase costs, and delaying the projects will increase costs. Seems that no matter what government does, some people will still complain.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Spending money like a drunken sailor isn't leadership. It's basically the easiest, laziest thing one can do.

Spending money without figuring out a budget is far easier and lazier. It's also what our most recent Governor did for years.

[Vlajos]

JB needs to go, so does the entire state of Illinois government. Decade after decade of tax and spend has done nothing for anyone but the pols and public employee unions. We should expect population loss to increase and further economic stagnation.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I grew up in the Quad Cities in the 90s when riverboat gambling came to town. I remember all the projections and promises. How we were going to be a tourist hotspot, the downtowns would be revitalized. New hotels, new construction, amazing new jobs. Not much of it came to pass.
https://qconline.com/news/local/what...9d2d984f4.html

Looking back now, the live music scene and micro-brewing made the downtowns of the Quad Cities much more fun to hang out in than the casinos, which are these sad little side shows.
Then there's a cousin and a good family friend, both divorced with deadbeat husbands who gambled themselves six figures into debt. So have fun with that.

That a casino is going to do anything for the state budget is fiction.

I don't know how the casino is going to play out. I'm sure it will bring jobs, but at the same time it's not going to save whatever. And I don't think anybody in their right mind is claiming so. But please, let's not compare a place that has about 400,000 people in its entire metro area to a city of 2.7 million that is nearing in on having 60 million outside visitors in a single year.

I don't think anybody envisions a casino in Chicago transforming anything (maybe an area around it, if they do it right. But even that is questionable). It's going to basically be a secondary, tertiary, etc reason why people come to the city, not a primary. That is the difference between this and putting casinos in a place with only 100,000 people. This isn't the main draw of Chicago and it will never be, not even close. They're going to come for everything else and then some people will say "oh yeah there's a nice casino. Let's check it out." Nobody expects it to be a draw for why people come to the city - except for maybe people close by from Indiana or Wisconsin or something. But it will be used by tourists and locals no doubt if they put it in a good location and it will at least provide some more jobs, and the ability for some people/tourists in the city not having to go all the way out near O'Hare to do any sort of gambling.

Comparing Quad Cities, where there's really no tourist draw and putting casinos in to Chicago which already has tourist draws and is one of the top 3 most visited cities in the entire US is completely apples to oranges.

[the urban politician]

^ I think that’s the mix up.

A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.

But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.

Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.

Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think that’s the mix up.

A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.

But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.

Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.

Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.

Yeah, sorry I didn't mean it would save a struggling neighborhood. The casino is going to have its own drinks, food, etc so really not going to spur any new commercial/retail around it. I meant to say more like this - if they put it where Michael Reese was for example, I wouldn't doubt if there was some new development in that immediate area for housing. I'm not talking about tons of it, just a little. That type of thing. Rivers Casino employs over 1000 people - I'm sure you could build 50 new units nearby for some people who want to live close to work. Maybe not though - definitely not retail/commercial new development though unless they have plans to open up like 10 new entertainment venues next to it in a new entertainment district.

Anyway, I think you got my point. And I think the place for this would be within reach of downtown. Honestly Michael Reese type of area or Motor Row/McCormick works the best. It will be just one more thing for tourists and locals to do, but in no way is it going to be why 99% of them come to the city in the first place. It's possible it could sway some tourists on the fence about visiting in the direction of actually visiting the city though - some.

I think of this kind of like what I remember from the casinos I went to in Singapore. Actually they might be the only 2 in the entire city but anyway - one is on Sentosa Island (artificial tourist island) and the other is in Marina Bay Sands. Both nice - the one in Marina Bay Sands is really nice. Nobody is going to Singapore to only gamble (there's Macau for that in SE/South Asia) but it's just one more thing to do for tourists/locals. These places were always full when I went and neither is in the direct center of the city, but they're also right around hotels (Marina Bay Sands of course is a hotel and Sentosa Island has multiple hotels) and easy to get to via public transit. Sentosa is a bit different as there are other attractions there like Universal Studios, a water park, madame tussauds, an aquarium, beaches, etc.

I am hoping that a casino in Chicago will sway more upscale looking and in operation. The last thing the city needs is a dingy casino. But if they can do one with a bit of class and keep it up well, then it would be a lot better. I think McCormick Place or Michael Reese would be a good location for a casino. Make sure the public transit can take you between the casino as well as Soldier Field, Museum Campus and the Loop, and that it has easy access to the lake. Catch a show downtown, then catch a train/bus and go to the casino not far away. Some people would definitely do that.

I think of this like any other tourist attraction in most cities in the US. The majority of people on your average visit are not going for just one attraction to places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. They're going for multiple reasons, to see multiple things. Having a nice casino accessible to your average tourist is just another plus for some percentage of them.

[aaron38]

Have a casino if you like, just don’t expect to plug any budget holes with it. But that’s how it’s being sold, by being a key part of the budget agreement.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Have a casino if you like, just don’t expect to plug any budget holes with it. But that’s how it’s being sold, by being a key part of the budget agreement.

1/3 of the casino revenue will go directly to Chicago’s Police and Fire pensions. The deal in Springfield to expand gambling was a part of the capital bill to fund infrastructure projects not the budget agreement.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

JB needs to go, so does the entire state of Illinois government. Decade after decade of tax and spend has done nothing for anyone but the pols and public employee unions. We should expect population loss to increase and further economic stagnation.

Absolutely. Look at all the highest taxed states, every one of them is suffering with a failing economy and a low quality environment. California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont. Those are the highest taxed states in the U.S. That should be avoided. Look to Kansas if you want to succeed economically.