CHICAGO | General Developments

[SolarWind]

April 25, 2018

[SolarWind]

April 25, 2018

[harryc]

April 25

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

April 25, 2018

The degree to which Moody has deactivated these blocks of River North is a great tragedy. They could have done so much to turn Wells and Chicago into bustling city blocks where students and community members alike enter and exit the urban environment. Instead, they have turned themselves inward, shunning the city.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

The degree to which Moody has deactivated these blocks of River North is a great tragedy. They could have done so much to turn Wells and Chicago into bustling city blocks where students and community members alike enter and exit the urban environment. Instead, they have turned themselves inward, shunning the city.

Awful. I assume they don't even pay real estate tax, which makes it exponentially worse.

[r18tdi]

This billboard killed a Fulton Market hotel project, lawsuit says
https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2018...-lawsuit-says/

Wow, so I guess we can expect the corner of Randolph and Jefferson to stay undeveloped until 2042!? That's just silly.

[left of center]

As a not for profit religious school, I'm certain they don't. And yes, the newer Moody buildings are just awful. They meet the street with unforgiving blank brick walls and are built looking like nuclear bunkers. The corner of Wells & Chicago in particular looks like complete crap. The older building along LaSalle and the annex on the corner of LaSalle and Chicago look much better by comparison, as they interact with the sidewalk.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

This billboard killed a Fulton Market hotel project, lawsuit says
https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2018...-lawsuit-says/

Wow, so I guess we can expect the corner of Randolph and Jefferson to stay undeveloped until 2042!? That's just silly.

Wow, dumb. I hope the courts strike down that billboard deal. Its unacceptable that a central area parking lot remain empty simply because of a billboard. Also, holy crap who makes a billboard deal for 25 years?

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Fucking Moody... typical of a Church to do this sort of shit too.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

this billboard killed a fulton market hotel project, lawsuit says
https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2018...-lawsuit-says/

wow, so i guess we can expect the corner of randolph and jefferson to stay undeveloped until 2042!? That's just silly.

boooooooo

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

As a not for profit religious school, I'm certain they don't. And yes, the newer Moody buildings are just awful. They meet the street with unforgiving blank brick walls and are built looking like nuclear bunkers. The corner of Wells & Chicago in particular looks like complete crap. The older building along LaSalle and the annex on the corner of LaSalle and Chicago look much better by comparison, as they interact with the sidewalk.

The city really should not exempt churches. It's bizarre.

[left of center]

^ I was always under the understanding that the precedent for exempting religious institutions from tax came from the federal government, and was rooted in the 1st amendment. Not sure if this is correct or something that I just subconsciously constructed in my mind. In either case, all 50 states plus DC exempt churches from property taxes, and they are exempt from federal and state income taxes (although they do have to file as non for profit organizations).

I remember when the city tried to charge religious institutions for city water use (they have previously been exempt) and there was a huge uproar over that. Even thinking about charging a property tax would be infinitely worse for any politician's PR, assuming Chicago even legally had the right to do so.

All that said, I would have no problem charging churches a property tax, especially if they are located in a high value area (read: greater downtown), while possibly allowing exemptions for smaller institutions under X amount of assets (which is the compromise that was worked out on the city water, IIRC)

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

^ I was always under the understanding that the precedent for exempting religious institutions from tax came from the federal government, and was rooted in the 1st amendment. Not sure if this is correct or something that I just subconsciously constructed in my mind. In either case, all 50 states plus DC exempt churches from property taxes, and they are exempt from federal and state income taxes (although they do have to file as non for profit organizations).

I remember when the city tried to charge religious institutions for city water use (they have previously been exempt) and there was a huge uproar over that. Even thinking about charging a property tax would be infinitely worse for any politician's PR, assuming Chicago even legally had the right to do so.

All that said, I would have no problem charging churches a property tax, especially if they are located in a high value area (read: greater downtown), while possibly allowing exemptions for smaller institutions under X amount of assets (which is the compromise that was worked out on the city water, IIRC)

I remember the water bill outrage. I was outraged that the city backed down.

[left of center]

Did they back down entirely, or did they end up with that compromise that I remember hearing about? If they backed down completely, that would be unfortunate.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

Did they back down entirely, or did they end up with that compromise that I remember hearing about? If they backed down completely, that would be unfortunate.

I don't remember.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by left of center

Wow, dumb. I hope the courts strike down that billboard deal. Its unacceptable that a central area parking lot remain empty simply because of a billboard. Also, holy crap who makes a billboard deal for 25 years?

The courts won't because it's a valid and legal contract. As to the duration, that's typical for hard assets (same goes for leases for cell sites, wind turbines, etc). Clear Channel leases the land and then leases space on the billboard to its advertising partners. The landowner will get lease payments each year and there's usually escalator clauses that boost rent by 250 or so basis points annually.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I don't remember.

Found it!

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten..._11-12-540.pdf

If a not for profit has net assets under $1 million, they get a 100% exemption on their water bill. NFPs with assets between 1 and 10 million get a 60% exemption, assets between 10 and 250 million get a 25% exemption, and any NFP with net assets over $250 million gets no exemption.

I would imagine when determining assets it would be limited to that of a specific parish, as opposed to say a larger body like the Roman Catholic Church at large. If so, I would imagine the vast majority of churches still get some kind of exemption, with most of the little store front churches on the west and south sides probably still getting 100% free water. While remaining unfairly generous IMO, it still beats the unlimited free ride they had before. Some money coming in is better than no money coming in. The city should seriously consider revisiting this provision at some point in the future, before pressing forward with future onerous tax hikes for its citizens.

Originally Posted by JK47

The courts won't because it's a valid and legal contract. As to the duration, that's typical for hard assets (same goes for leases for cell sites, wind turbines, etc). Clear Channel leases the land and then leases space on the billboard to its advertising partners. The landowner will get lease payments each year and there's usually escalator clauses that boost rent by 250 or so basis points annually.

Well in that case if the developers lose their suit against the sellers of the property, I'm sure their next avenue would be talking to Clear Channel to buy out the lease. I'm sure Clear Channel would attempt to take them for as much as they could get.

[OhioGuy]

3833 N Broadway redevelopment (4/27/18):


3901 N Broadway redevelopment (4/27/18):

[marothisu]

Building permits issued for 2150 W Lawrence (Lawrence & Leavitt). This is to modify the existing (vacant) 3 story building building by adding not only 2 more floors onto it but also an entire structure that would take up the vacant lot next to it. This will be a huge improvement IMO. A little west of that was the suburban-esque food market being torn down and made into 14 units + retail plus a few other projects of similar size nearby. I'm liking that there's attempts to actually improve this section of Lawrence for the better. If they could develop the parking lot across the street and also the one next to Roots Pizza then it would totally change that little area.

59 total units + ground floor retail or commercial. More recent streetview --> https://www.google.com/maps/place/21...!4d-87.6838074

Article from March 2017:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...alderman-says/

Source: DNA Info

[OhioGuy]

^^ So great to see Lawrence becoming a more inviting street. When I first moved to Chicago in 2007, I rented an apartment in a house at the corner of Lawrence & Hamilton. Each floor was an apartment, with 3 total units. I didn't particularly care for the location on Lawrence back then as it felt too barren & auto oriented. Now that house has been torn down and a new building with 6 units took it's place. And while Lawrence remains a busy street for cross city traffic, the updated streetscape and several developments already completed and others soon to come have helped make Lawrence a little more pleasant to walk along as a pedestrian.

(now encourage this kind of redevelopment on Broadway in Uptown/Edgewater, starting with streetscape enhancements!)