I’m not “attacking” anyone. But to the extent someone hops onto an urbanist, city specific message board just to say he doesn’t like it, well, that’s a bit gauche, but it happens all the time. Cynical folks always want to share it and it’s not worth commenting on.

But it’s been this guy’s schtick for years. He complains about taxes. He loves New York and it’s so much better than other cities. He’s moving to exurban Minnesota. Do whatever you want, but say it once and then stop begging for attention or validation. It’s boring if it’s just neurotic. But whatever it is, it’s lame and I won’t miss it.

I agree

It’s a very rough road ahead, but Chicago is “too big to fail”

:haha:

So true.

First off you don’t know my financial situation (good or bad) so how could you know my tax situation?, secondly, how is it relevant?
Also I’m glad Chicago works for you, it clearly works for a lot of people.

I really like Chicago, the greatest summer city in the country. You surly have me confused with someone else if you think I engage here to bash Chicago. What I don’t enjoy about this city is the corruption and endless tax increases that don’t solve any of the issues the city faces. I also don’t want to raise my kids in neighborhood where the public schools aren’t an option. I’m 37 years old and have a 2 year old and a 3 month old, that’s a very long time to put up with dysfunctional schools and endless property tax increases.

I’m also confused on what you won’t miss? Do we know each other? Don’t worry, I’ll still be in Chicago, probably monthly, tending to my buildings and my customers.

Not that it’s here nor there, but wayzata,MN isn’t the “exurbs” of Minneapolis. It’s probably the wealthiest part of the metro area (homes more expensive than Southport coorodor) and a vibrant downtown. It’s 15 min from downtown MPLS, not that I give a shit about downtown Minneapolis.

I was contributing to this traffic because I was looking to buy my second home in Chicago. But in light of the recent unrest and worsening homicides, I have picked another city for my second home. The recent looting on the Magnificent Mile was the last straw for me, as I had planned to live in that area. Downtown Chicago is simply not safe any more.

I'm not being condescending. I'm explaining to you the difference in mindset between someone who rents versus someone who owns. Up until two years ago, I rented, and I never paid attention to property taxes, or local gov't policy nearly to the extent that I do now. Why? Because I own a condo now.... which means I am invested into the place I live in. When you rent, you are not invested at all in where you live. Yes, you care about the quality of the building, your neighbors, etc, but it's nothing compared to when you own. Why? Because you have the luxury of simply walking away from it when you lease is up.

Again, I love Chicago. If this pandemic happened to me with my current company 5-10 years ago, I probably would take advantage of remote work and just move to Chicago and work remotely permanently while renting. But, now that I own and want to continue to own, if I were to move there, it would entail buying a place. But, amount of money I would pay in taxes monthly (along with the other local taxes), and uncertainty given everything that's happening, I won't be making any moves until the city/state get their shit together. If Chicago (and Illinois) cut property taxes tomorrow, reform pensions, and make some assurances that the city is on the right path, then hell yeah I will move there tomorrow. This is especially true given the real estate prices there right now.

Again, not being condescending. Being a renter has it's advantages too, especially if you are single.

This is a great post. Thanks for being so articulate

I live a ten minute walk from N Michigan Ave. While the first big looting event was indeed scary, the second one I didn't even know happened because the cops had it under control mostly by daylight and it didn't start until 2am. It was overblown and doesn't intimidate me.

This is the bit of fight I’ve been wanting to see from Mayor Lightfoot. Fighting for some of Chicago’s business owners:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...ovid-clampdown

Illinois residents reject fair tax amendment

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2020/1...tax-amendment/

Not surprised. I wonder what this mean for the future?

A lot of layoffs, furloughs, and possible major reduction of state services.

All the above are possible but the income tax was not going to prevent that. Illinois needs a constitutional amendment to repeal the auto 3% raises on retirement payouts, increase state worker contributions to their own retirement and health care during employment and once retired. Im sure the list can go on forever but its the pensions that are the anchor to the state budget.

I agree 100% with everything you said. Additionally:

- The state needs to consolidate the vast majority of municipal and county governments, especially outside of Chicagoland (but also in Chicagoland as well), in order to minimize redundancy as much as possible. There are WAAAYY too many local state units of government in Illinois.

- State funded pensions need to be privatized.

- Eliminate/consolidate half of wards in the City of Chicago - LA City Council has 15 members, why does Chicago need 50 wards?

- Chicago and Cook County governments need to merge and eliminate any overlap or redundancy. Eliminate or merge CPS into a unified county-level school district. A larger City of Chicago is not about population bragging rights, but more importantly it increases the amount of federal dollars that the City receives.

That'll never happen. The other three are theoretically possible. I don't think 50 wards in the city is inherently a problem, although it wouldn't hurt to merge wards. It's the authority Alderman have. It'll get political regardless of who holds the hammer, but a lot of planning/zoning/permitting power should stay with City Hall and the relevant departments.

Wishful thinking, yes, but not impossible, and maybe necessary in the future. I really wish people would stop thinking of things as 'never happening' because that type of thinking is what's gotten Chicago and Illinois into these financial messes in the first place.

There are too many wards, and the aldermen have too much authority. Too many little fiefdoms in Chicago, which is what maintains the parochial status quo. If Chicago is going to succeed and thrive, people need to be willing to see beyond their neighborhood and focus on the big picture, but that's always going to be a challenge when the 'city of neighborhoods' mentality is a constant subconscious reminder. That mentality is one of the many many reasons that keeps the City so segregated.

Would be interested to do a comparison across cities that looks at associated costs to see if this would actually save much money. For example, does fewer aldermen translate into larger staffs or other costs that offset that benefit.

But I can certainly see the rationale. I could make the argument that having fewer representatives and making them full time would lead to better decision-making. They also would have a hard time hiding from their decisions as each one would be much higher profile and have to answer for their decisions as opposed to hiding behind 49 others. And by having to cast a wider net for votes, each would have to offer more than just a focus on parochial interests.

But I wonder who would champion it. As you suggest, there are likely many who prefer the local alderman as a way to get things done or exert influence. The mechanism of government would need to change so that aldermen are basically out of the picture - no calls to get a zoning variance, e.g. And how would it get done? Unless there is a way to put it to the voters, I don't see aldermen eliminating themselves.

^ Lightfoot is actually the ideal person to take on these power structures, but most of her term will be consumed by Covid and the aftermath. She started off saying she wanted to eliminate aldermanic prerogative, but only managed to do so for a handful of city permitting procedures, and certainly not for zoning changes.

It's still an underlying theme of Lightfoot's administration, though. You see it mainly in proxy battles these days, like aldermen roasting Maurice Cox for not kissing their rings enough. Or in Lightfoot's strongly stated desire to form a capital plan that is entirely based around triage of crumbling infrastructure, and not on the pet projects of each alderman.

The memory of the Council Wars under Harold Washington still looms large, a fundamental disagreement between mayor and council can shut everything down. Reducing the size of City Council, by definition, is the same as putting the majority of aldermen out of a job. It's about the most hostile gesture you could make towards City Council, and would surely start Council Wars II.

Lightfoot is an incrementalist, though. She wouldn't even consider changing the size of council, the same as she wouldn't consider defunding or abolishing the police.

Would it be possible for the State to force a shrinkage of Chicago’s City Council?