CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

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

Can I assume you apply this same logic to the government providing subsidies for the poor?

Not having a job never made anyone rich, even if it meant food stamps.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Can I assume you apply this same logic to the government providing subsidies for the poor?

^ You may not assume that--not sure why you can't understand the difference between a varying tax rate based on varying income as opposed to a handout.

A Universal income, for example, is not the same as reduced taxes on those earning less income.

The difference is plain and simple.

A better analogy: a proposal to raise property taxes in vacancy situations is akin to raising income taxes on people who don't have a job. Does that make any sense?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

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.

You aren't making any sense--you're operating in this mindset from some SJW textbook that all property owners are billionaires that grow money from trees. There is no subsidizing anybody. When your revenue drastically goes down, your tax rate will have to go down. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

This is not different in concept from a graduated income tax. Using your goofy logic, people who earn more income and pay a higher income tax rate may as well make the same argument about lower income earners as you just made above.

If we're going to make taxes about ability to pay, then that's what we're going to do. Period. If you don't like it then lets create a flat tax for everyone.

Can't have both ways.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

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

You're not bailing anybody out. That's a nonsensical talking point.

On the flip side, when properties are fully occupied with creditworthy tenants, they are taxed more heavily and that lessens the load on everybody else as well.

It's a good system that encourages property owners and a community to support active, fully leased commercial space. Any notion to the contrary is hogwash. To propose a higher tax on vacant building is the single stupidest idea out there--it would be destructive in every way imaginable and accelerate blight. But if you like that idea, go stand on a podium with Alderman Rosa--seems perhaps you both would be two birds of a feather...

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

A Universal income, for example, is not the same as reduced taxes on those earning less income.

Your comment only makes sense if we assume poor people pay no taxes in the first place, because then they are getting an undeserved "handout". Luckily, we have the research to disprove that idea. Poor people are subject to Medicare and Social Security taxes on any income earned. They pay sales tax on purchases just like you and I. They pay taxes just as your property owner does (although likely considerably less in total).


From PBS:

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the lowest-income quintile — those making less than $19,000 a year — pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

If we give them $2,090 ($19,000 * 11%) of public benefits, it isn't functionally different than not collecting those taxes in the first place. As a reference, average SNAP benefits are $125/month or $1,500/year.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

A better analogy: a proposal to raise property taxes in vacancy situations is akin to raising income taxes on people who don't have a job. Does that make any sense?

This is a great way to frame it and I understand your point. I am not really arguing that the proposal has much merit (similar to anything else the CTU proposes). I am just surprised to see you supporting the current system. I admit that very well could be due to my ignorance of the topic.

To clarify, we are talking about property taxes, so a lower rate for you means a higher rate for me. In other words, a tax increase. It feels like you support higher taxes in this case because you are personally involved in the industry. You understand the ins-and-outs of this market and can see why taxpayer subsidy might be necessary. However, when you aren't personally involved in an industry, you tend to have no patience for tax increases and assume everyone is looking for a handout.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But if you like that idea, go stand on a podium with Alderman Rosa--seems perhaps you both would be two birds of a feather...

Can we discuss ideas and policies without resorting to these types of comments? It doesn't add to the discussion.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

To clarify, we are talking about property taxes, so a lower rate for you means a higher rate for me. In other words, a tax increase. It feels like you support higher taxes in this case because you are personally involved in the industry. You understand the ins-and-outs of this market and can see why taxpayer subsidy might be necessary. However, when you aren't personally involved in an industry, you tend to have no patience for tax increases and assume everyone is looking for a handout.

It’s not so much because I’m in the industry, but because it makes sense. We have a problem in this country that we assume that businesses get “loopholes” and hence automatically they are “gaming the system” and hence it is a perpetual talking point that stops all further discussion.

There are loopholes out there and yes, many get abused. But many of them are based on sound and fair principles.

As a homeowner, it would be in my interest to have a commercial property next door be in good financial standing. The owner of the building next door also feels the same way, obviously, and the last thing he wants is for his building to be vacant for two years.

But assuming it is, and because of severe hardship he appeals his property tax and gets a deduction, that is similar to a restructuring of debt—albeit it is temporary—and it’s an agreement with the tax levying body. With zero revenue the building owner can use their capital to make mortgage payments, keep the lights on, maintain the property, fix it up, market it, and then lease it to a new tenant. Then, the vacancy ends and the property tax rate comes right back up to where it was before, if not higher. Community benefits.

Conversely, if in the same scenario the property still has to make the same property tax payments as before it was vacant—but with zero revenue—then it’s a ticking clock. Instead of maintaining the property or investing into it, they expend capital paying taxes. The property becomes run down, and the risk of defaulting on the loan increases every month. Eventually you run the risk of bankruptcy and/or foreclosure. At that point property tax payments stop altogether. Maintenance stops, the building deteriorates, the building goes into receivership, etc etc. At some point it may get a new owner, but perhaps at a lower price—but this process can take years before you’ve got a functional property back on the tax rolls.

The latter scenario happens all of the time even WITH property tax breaks with substantial vacancy. Think of how much eliminating those tax breaks will strain the system further. The community gets no benefit from a foreclosed or distressed property anyhow, and they get no benefit when an owner simply walks away from it. There are properties like this all over Chicagoland now, they are called Zombie properties.

The communit benefits and ultimately gets more tax revenue and economic activity when it gives an engaged property owner an opportunity to turn around a sinking ship.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The communit benefits and ultimately gets more tax revenue and economic activity when it gives an engaged property owner an opportunity to turn around a sinking ship.

And the exact same logic applies to social safety net spending.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You aren't making any sense--you're operating in this mindset from some SJW textbook that all property owners are billionaires that grow money from trees. There is no subsidizing anybody. When your revenue drastically goes down, your tax rate will have to go down. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I am not coming from that that mindset at all, no need to put words in my mouth. Calling me a SJW doesn't make your points stronger, it makes you look like you have a weak argument because it isn't relevant to anything anyone is saying.

In Chicago, if you get your property tax bill lowered, I will pay a higher property tax rate on my property to cover the loss. This is how property taxes work and in this case it would be a direct subsidy from every other property tax payer in Chicago to the landlord. Someone made a bad investment and I am picking up the slack because they couldn't rent their storefront. Call it a subsidy, a bailout, or anything you like, but it's the reality.

Sure there are nuances, I don't dispute that, but you continually ignore those nuances in discussions of other government spending/tax expenditures, only to hammer them home on this topic. You claim this type of taxpayer subsidy "makes sense", but other kinds you call "socialism". I never said anything about "billionaires" or "gaming the system" those are your attempts to move the discussion onto more comfortable ground.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

And the exact same logic applies to social safety net spending.

This if off topic and I won't address this

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I am not coming from that that mindset at all, no need to put words in my mouth. Calling me a SJW doesn't make your points stronger, it makes you look like you have a weak argument because it isn't relevant to anything anyone is saying.

In Chicago, if you get your property tax bill lowered, I will pay a higher property tax rate on my property to cover the loss. This is how property taxes work and in this case it would be a direct subsidy from every other property tax payer in Chicago to the landlord. Someone made a bad investment and I am picking up the slack because they couldn't rent their storefront. Call it a subsidy, a bailout, or anything you like, but it's the reality.

Sure there are nuances, I don't dispute that, but you continually ignore those nuances in discussions of other government spending/tax expenditures, only to hammer them home on this topic. You claim this type of taxpayer subsidy "makes sense", but other kinds you call "socialism". I never said anything about "billionaires" or "gaming the system" those are your attempts to move the discussion onto more comfortable ground.

I use the term SJW because you seem to be using this discussion as a bizarre opportunity to bring up food stamps and Welfare as if they at all relate to what we are discussing. They don't.

To your post above, I disagree 100% and I clearly laid out my case.

Your ire should be focused on huge and well performing commercial properties that hired Burke or Madigan's law firm and got huge property tax breaks due to their inside connections.

Actual, struggling properties that are substantially vacant are legitimate uses of such tools and as I laid out in the post in the last page, the community benefits

[bnk]

Originally Posted by 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.

Lightfoot is a Periwinkel Light thus far... A total disappointment.
Illinois is fucked

I tried three times to make comments on this and lost connection every time.


I spent the last 30 mins making my case.




Its not worth it anymore.


Unless Illinois can come up with a pension bankruptcy plan the entire state is doomed. 90 % of the pensioners don't live in the state they live in tax less sunbelt states laughing at us.


I wish I could have posted what I put so much energy into. One day perhaps....


losing a connection twice that I spent 30 mins on making a point sucks. It really pissed me off.

Because 2020 census Illinois is going to take a major hit. I am moving to SE Wisconsin to be closer to work and not have to deal with Illinois BS.

I'm just one of hundreds of thousands.

But at least I will still live in the Chicagoland MSA!

[the urban politician]

^ None of those are Lightfoot’s ideas.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by bnk

Its not worth it anymore.


Unless Illinois can come up with a pension bankruptcy plan the entire state is doomed. 90 % of the pensioners don't live in the state they live in tax less sunbelt states laughing at us.

Hold your horses. That list is just 10 members of the DSA and co. sabre-rattling as usual. They couldn't even convince half of the progressive caucus. The others are working on a more reasonable plan.

The information below is where the situation currently lies. There's been reports that some of the unions are willing to cut a deal, but the Constitution allows the individual retirees to sue, so no point in making a deal until that gets amended.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...le-838-million

[LouisVanDerWright]

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...

This is literally the stupidest idea ever. How would occupancy even be determined? Is it based on the presence of a business license? What if the owner is using the space for their own business or storage? I have a property with a storefront that looks vacant, but is actually rented to a tow truck driver who has never bothered to decorate the place and has butcher paper over the windows. Is that vacant because he hasn't pulled permits to improve the space beyond the basic bathroom and mop sink?

Originally Posted by moorhosj

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.

Ok great and our current "progressive" governor is the biggest abuser of this buying a neighboring property and tearing the toilets out to get a tax break. I'm all for eliminating this stupid incentive for vacancy, but a tax? You have to be kidding...

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?

Yeah that's not how it works. Commercial real estate isn't like renting an apartment. You are talking about a multi year agreement that usually obligates the landlord to make major tenant specific improvements that are basically worthless if the tenant doesn't work out. It's not a matter of "just charge less". This is not a trivial decision.

Many times these storefronts are vacant because they are totally obsolete for modern business and uses and would require so much work that it wouldn't be worth doing unless you get high enough rents. This is a major driver behind the continual destruction of Chicago's historic building stock. I'm actually in the process of gutting a building that's been 50% vacant (four apartments and the storefront) since 1978. You think a boarded up storefront that was firebombed by gang bangers 40 years ago and left to rot and to be used by the local junkies as a latrine is going to become occupied just because I'm giving someone a deal on it? Literally the president of my bank stepped in junkie shit when he toured the property before I purchased it, what's a prospective tenant going to think when that happens to them?

No, it's only because I've sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into the building totally reconstructing it that it's desirable at all. I've spent $15k rebuilding the facade (the original was torn off in 1978 and replaced with shitty bland brick) and $13k on storefront glass alone. That just gets me to an enclosed space that the junkies can't get into to shoot up or take a dump and a reasonably presentable exterior. Tell me how long it will take to recoup $28k on a 1,000 SF storefront that rents for $1000/mo? And again, that's if I rent it out with zero additional upgrades for the tenant and doesn't take into account the new bathroom, HVAC, plumbing, electric, and a littany of other expenses.

Now take that situation and consider other landlords all over the city far less sophisticated than me. How many of them are going to just tear down their building rather than be taxed for leaving it vacant? This is the second biggest threat against Preservation I've heard after rent control. We are talking about policies that literally promote the idea of use it or throw it away.

[the urban politician]

^ The lower tax rate for vacancy does not incentivize vacancy. Once again, most landlords are not in the business of hanging on to vacant properties for long periods of time by choice. People don’t want their properties to be vacant and not generating any revenue. Usually when that happens it’s because either the owner died and their kids are disinterested, the neighborhood is in bad shape and there is little demand to renovate a building, or the owner just plain doesn’t have the money to fix up their properties. The only way I can see the elimination of the vacancy tax break being successful is in a stable or quickly gentrifying area where it motivates an owner to sell; problem is, there are many scenarios where I also see eliminating the tax break being much more harmful than beneficial as I’ve described before.

One exception is tax exemption status—that, to me, is bad policy. Non for profits like Northwestern University which is a money machine for lots of highly paid people uses its tax exempt status to land bank very valuable property downtown for decades.

But for everyone else, that’s not how the game works.

Finally, if you don’t lower taxes for vacant buildings, we will almost certainly see more demolitions.

[IrishIllini]

90% of pensioners do not live out of state. Maybe 30%.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by bnk

I am moving to SE Wisconsin to be closer to work and not have to deal with Illinois BS.
I'm just one of hundreds of thousands.
But at least I will still live in the Chicagoland MSA!

Ahhhh yes, that small-government utopia of SE Wisconsin where the state and local government just took people's homes to give the land and billions of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company. At least you won't have to worry about "socialism" because they give away taxpayer money to businesses not people.

[the urban politician]

^ Definitely agree with you there.

Foxconn was the most stupid boondoggle in recent memory, and it's probably why Walker didn't get reelected. God awful!

[moorhosj]

Memo from Gov Pritzker to state agencies:

To: All Governor’s Cabinet Directors
From: Dan Hynes, Deputy Governor, Budget & Economy
Alexis Sturm, Director, Governor’s Office of Management and Budget
Subject: Fiscal Year 2021 Spending Efficiencies Proposals
Date: September 9, 2019

Although the spring legislative session produced a successful balanced budget for fiscal year 2020, Illinois continues to face significant financial challenges, and we must continue to be wise fiscal stewards of the limited resources of State government. The State’s backlog of unpaid general funds bills that were left behind by the previous administration remained in excess of $7 billion as of June 30, 2019, and the extensive bill payment delays continue to strain the State’s network of providers and translate into millions of dollars of unnecessary interest costs.

In that context, it remains essential that agency leadership continue to evaluate current operations and procedures and set parameters for operational expenses in all agencies. Directions regarding submissions of fiscal year 2021 budget requests will be forthcoming in a few weeks from GOMB; however, even now, agency directors – working in conjunction with their Deputy Governor and GOMB staff – should be prepared to:

1) Propose in your annual submission to GOMB an actionable scenario that includes operational efficiencies reflecting a 6.5% reduction from an estimated maintenance level of fiscal year 2021 operations funding across all appropriated funds (additional details will be forthcoming in GOMB’s budget submission request forms);

2) Conduct a review of boards and commissions within your agency’s purview and propose elimination of statutorily created boards and commissions that would lead to a 10% reduction of them;

3) Identify at least two significant efficiency and savings ideas for consideration in the fiscal year 2021 budget. Ideas could include (but are not limited to) items such as elimination or consolidation of duplicative programs, reduction in funding for underutilized or inefficient services, or improvements in service delivery that streamline costs. Reviews of agency audits from the last few years can provide ideas for cost savings for fiscal year 2021.

Your proposal will need to be submitted with your fiscal year 2021 budget request to GOMB. Agency directors should be prepared to implement any ideas submitted in the fiscal year 2021 budget requests. We and our staffs are available to discuss this memo and answer any questions you may have.