CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

We don't know what's proposed, but it probably WON'T be a Manhattan or London-style congestion zone. If it's just another tax on Uber/Lyft, I doubt it will raise nearly enough revenue for rail improvements.

SBS-style bus lanes, on the other hand, might be feasible (signs and paint, v cheap, get JC Decaux to pony up for shelters and ticket machines). Put em on State, Halsted, Chicago, Roosevelt, Milwaukee, Columbus, maybe LSD if IDOT will play ball, open up the McCormick Busway to CTA if McPier and Metra will play ball, etc. You could build out a whole downtown network for a low 9-figure budget that would supplement and extend the rail network, or relieve the rail lines in the case of the O'Hare Blue and Brown Lines.

It's hard to tell until we get the parameters of what's actually under consideration of course.

SBS like service might be an option. Really I'd like to see major systemwide improvements even to local busses like all door boarding, TSP, boarding islands, stop consolidation, electrification, etc.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

I have been traveling so I am a bit late catching up on local news/not sure if this has been discussed here or in the local media but I ran across this today. I LOVE IT!

I really like that our Mayor is battling back against unfair stereotypes and perceptions of Chicago. It is about time someone stood up against the ridiculous and incessant stereotype and trope about Chicago that is so popular today. They say it because it is a fad (everyone does it)... because everyone accepts it as true and no'one PUBLICLY refutes it... but now when they say it, hopefully they (politicians/some in the media) will think twice before speaking because there is this little pit bull waiting in the wings that they will be hearing from.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/polit...ngs/index.html

Chicago mayor to Ted Cruz over city shootings: 'Keep our name out of your mouth'


It may or may not work (that is debatable) but at least someone is trying... and is not just rolling over while letting them drag Chicago's name through the mud.

.

I like it. She's got some fight in her. Damn necessary.

Coincidentally, crime stats are very meaningfully down this year in the city. I hadn't followed the stats in some time, and I was surprised at the decline in 2019 to-date.

[SamInTheLoop]

Hey Hey:

Parting words from departing FBI boss in Chicago: ‘Our corruption program is extremely busy. Expect more to come’

Licks lips.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ese-story.html

[Handro]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Hey Hey:

Parting words from departing FBI boss in Chicago: ‘Our corruption program is extremely busy. Expect more to come’

Licks lips.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ese-story.html

That is definitely a tantalizing prospect. Wonder who is next?

Also thought this was an interesting takeaway from a member of the FBI top brass:

“There are 115,000 self-admitted adult street gang members in the city of Chicago,” he said. “That doesn’t include the juveniles. That is major challenge for law enforcement and society, and we’re not going to police our way out of it.”

...

“We have to change the dynamics of the city," Sallet said. “When a kid is in a neighborhood where they are constantly hearing shots being fired and they’re constantly worried where their next meal is coming from, that’s PTSD for those kids. ...That is where they become very jaded in terms of their future.”

Not exactly a fresh take, but it's nice to hear it from a top law enforcement official.

[SIGSEGV]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...erent-outcomes hmm...

[BrinChi]

Ding ding ding...

But a few minutes later, Lightfoot said that even if such efforts succeed, the current COLA is "unsustainable." Asked if she'd like the constitution to be amended, Lightfoot replied, "I'd like to put as many options as possible on the table."

In response to another question, Lightfoot said she did not mean to imply that other pension efforts short of amending the constitution were useless, but that in today's economy, "3 percent compounded is a tough climb."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...-unsustainable

I didn't even vote for her (I didn't vote because my polling location was still in my old neighborhood). But the more I hear from her, she seems to understand the fundamentals of our problems. Hopefully she continues to push for real solutions rather than smoke & mirror tricks like JB.

[IrishIllini]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...a-theres-hitch

Interesting...hard to know how to interpret this. I’m struggling to see how these units aren’t converted to market rate housing as the leases expire, especially if a prospective buyer isn’t being paid during the leasehold (at least 17 years). I assume CHA realizes this.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I didn't even vote for her (I didn't vote because my polling location was still in my old neighborhood). But the more I hear from her, she seems to understand the fundamentals of our problems. Hopefully she continues to push for real solutions rather than smoke & mirror tricks like JB.

Yep. She is more practical than Hack Pritzker and is way more reasonable than the nightmare that Taxwinkle would've been.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Yep. She is more practical than Hack Pritzker and is way more reasonable than the nightmare that Taxwinkle would've been.

Why do make up this corny names for politicians you don't like? I don't know what your deal is, but 100% of the people who do this in my real life or on Facebook lack emotional maturity. Most are fine people. But they just always seem to lack the ability to express themselves in a way that people can relate to, and often don't understand what they are talking about themselves. If you don't want to be mistaken for that kind of person, it's an easy fix.

[SIGSEGV]

Epithets are making a bigly comeback, haven't you heard? Seriously though, it's only funny like maybe one or two times.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Why do make up this corny names for politicians you don't like? I don't know what your deal is, but 100% of the people who do this in my real life or on Facebook lack emotional maturity. Most are fine people. But they just always seem to lack the ability to express themselves in a way that people can relate to, and often don't understand what they are talking about themselves. If you don't want to be mistaken for that kind of person, it's an easy fix.

You’re just mad because you like both of those politicians. I’ve never seen you call out people who call Trump ‘Dotard’, nor people who call Ald Reilly ‘hack Reilly’ for caving into NIMBYs.

Anyway, I call Pritzker a hack because he is one. As I predicted he would be.

I call Preckwinkle Taxwinkle because she is a Socialist, loves taxes, and hates people who work and start businesses for a living. I think we dodged a nuclear explosion by not getting her as Mayor of Chicago.

It’s great having neither a pandering hack or a tax-loving Socialist as Mayor. . Lightfoot is so far quite refreshing.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You’re just mad because you like both of those politicians. I’ve never seen you call out people who call Trump ‘Dotard’, nor people who call Ald Reilly ‘hack Reilly’ for caving into NIMBYs.
.

This is the first time I've written of it here, but for the record, I think people who think it's clever to call Trump "Drumpf" or something like that are similarly foolish and it discredits their writing.

[the urban politician]

Look what our local branch of the Communist Party is proposing now:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/gove...list-lightfoot

A coalition of progressive groups and a handful of aldermen are getting specific about increases to a bevy of taxes to fill Chicago’s budget hole, including restoring and increasing Chicago’s corporate head tax to $16 per month for large companies, instituting a 3.5 percent tax on office leases, a hike in the hotel tax from 4.5 percent to 7.5 percent, a vacancy tax on commercial properties vacant for more than 18 months and a local income tax on those earning above $100,000 a year.

The coalition identified 13 revenue proposals—five require approval from state lawmakers—that they said together could raise more than $4 billion.

But Mayor Lori Lightfoot has said her priorities for the upcoming budget are to seek "reasonable" options that relieve "the financial burden on those least able to afford it" while "not driving businesses out of Chicago."

Lightfoot explicitly said she was against a LaSalle Street tax on financial transactions and reinstatement of the head tax in her meeting with Crain’s editorial board.

And guess who is behind this scheme:

Members of Grassroots Collaborative, education group Raise Your Hand, the Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, ONE Northside, Black Lives Matter Chicago, and Ald. Michael Rodriguez, Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez, Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, and Ald. Matt Martin held a press conference Tuesday for their “Reimagine Chicago” platform. Other platform supporters include the Chicago Teachers Union, SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, and their political arm, United Working Families.

The usual suspects, of course

Thank Pizza God that Lightfoot isn't beholden to them.

[the urban politician]

^ My favorite:

A COMMERCIAL VACANCY TAX!

It's bad enough in this day and age of online retail for commercial landlords to be struggling with vacancies. Now lets tax um!

This coalition is a bunch of thugs...

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ My favorite:

A COMMERCIAL VACANCY TAX!

It's bad enough in this day and age of online retail for commercial landlords to be struggling with vacancies. Now lets tax um!

This coalition is a bunch of thugs...

We currently have a COMMERCIAL VACANCY TAX BREAK that I imagine you are just as upset about given the tax implications. The never occupied commercial spots in Trump Tower are a great example.

While sitting on an empty space for seven years would sink most landlords, the nearly decadelong delay has benefited Trump, whose tax bill has been cut by nearly 70 percent on his empty stores at 401 N. Wabash Ave., according to reports.

I don't think going in the opposite direction is necessarily the right answer, although it does tax a "bad" (store vacancies, in this case) which is typically approved by economists. Either way, the current law is clearly not delivering on it's intended purpose. Here's another example.

The Bucktown building's owner, AW Green Management's Steven Dukett, paid close to $10,000 in property taxes on the three-story building in 2013 and 2014 when Silver Cloud was open. But Dukett paid less than $4,000 in 2015, when the commercial storefront was empty, county records show.

If commercial landlords are struggling with vacancies, they should lower their rents, not get tax breaks. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?

[Vlajos]

-restoring and increasing Chicago’s corporate head tax to $16 per month for large companies = future job loss

-instituting a 3.5 percent tax on office leases = future job loss

-a hike in the hotel tax from 4.5 percent to 7.5 percent = further hurting convention business, Chicago has one of the highest hotel taxes in the country

-vacancy tax on commercial properties vacant for more than 18 months = major disincentive to RE investment, reducing property values

-local income tax on those earning above $100,000 a year = further population loss

If the desire of these "progressives" is mass job loss and population loss, then go for it. My family will be putting our home up for sale. I don't need to be involved in stupidity.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I don't think going in the opposite direction is necessarily the right answer, but the current law is clearly not delivering on it's intended purpose. Here's another example.

^ No, your assumptions here are not correct. Have you ever owned an investment property?

Reduced property taxes for vacancy is standard and completely appropriate. Taxes have to be levied based on ability to pay.

I don't know about Trump, but most landlords will continue to lower their rents until they can find a tenant. But retail vacancies can last a long time, particularly in this market.

Nobody likes to have vacant commercial spaces. But providing tax relief while you are getting essentially ZERO revenue is only fair to prevent an owner from breaking the bank.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ No, your assumptions here are not correct. Have you ever owned an investment property?

Reduced property taxes for vacancy is standard and completely appropriate. Taxes have to be levied based on ability to pay.

I don't know about Trump, but most landlords will continue to lower their rents until they can find a tenant. But retail vacancies can last a long time, particularly in this market.

Nobody likes to have vacant commercial spaces. But providing tax relief while you are getting essentially ZERO revenue is only fair to prevent an owner from breaking the bank.

can't it create a scenario in which a landlord might feel more comfortable searching for a tenant at whatever rate they are asking rather than lower the price if they pay so much less in property taxes indefinitely?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Handro

can't it create a scenario in which a landlord might feel more comfortable searching for a tenant at whatever rate they are asking rather than lower the price if they pay so much less in property taxes indefinitely?

I highly doubt that.

When you've got expenses and mortgage payments to make, plus lets not forget that commercial lenders assess your financial portfolio yearly and at any time can demand immediate repayment of the loan (unlike standard residential mortgages where that is not the case) if they think you are unstable footing, it does not behoove property owners to keep a retail space vacant for a long period of time.

Lack of revenue never made anyone rich, even if it meant a tax break.

Don't get me wrong, sure some landlords may hold out for a while trying to get a higher paying tenant, but eventually if the market doesn't deliver then you will have to revise expectations and lower rents. The only entities that can keep commercial spaces vacant for long periods of time are deep-pocketed companies that own vast amounts of real estate and can weather the storm.

But for the rest of us, it's a losing proposition every month that a space is vacant and we're making no money. Raising property taxes in that situation only adds more injury to the situation.

This proposal to raise taxes in vacancy situations is dangerous for many reasons--it could, for example, encourage teardowns. In addition, if you raise taxes when a landlord is most vulnerable you may push them to bankruptcy, in which case you'll get no tax revenue whatsoever.

It's only fair to lessen the tax burden during periods of vacancy. I realize that there are cited examples of abuse, but that doesn't mean it's a failed policy. Every policy has its cases of abuses, but in this scenario for the vast majority of property owners it makes sense and is fair.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ No, your assumptions here are not correct. Have you ever owned an investment property?

Reduced property taxes for vacancy is standard and completely appropriate. Taxes have to be levied based on ability to pay.

I don't know about Trump, but most landlords will continue to lower their rents until they can find a tenant. But retail vacancies can last a long time, particularly in this market.

Why should taxpayers should be on the hook to subsidize owners of investment properties? I don't see how someone claiming to support small government, free market and low taxes could support it. It runs directly counter to any of those notions.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Nobody likes to have vacant commercial spaces. But providing tax relief while you are getting essentially ZERO revenue is only fair to prevent an owner from breaking the bank.

Why should the average homeowner (and the government through property taxes) have to bail out the speculator who made a bad investment?