CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It's progressive tax right, so if a sale price is $1.25M for example then it would be:

($1M * 0.6%) + ($250K * 2% ) =$11,000

I think the original proposal would have been 2.65% on the entire price i.e. $33,125 in this case. is that right? The current tax would be $9375, so an increase of $1625 (+17.33%) with the latest proposal. This is certainly better than what was being proposed originally (very stupid proposal) if I got that right. Not going to say it's perfect by any means but the original proposal was horrible.

it's being called progressive but I am not sure if that refers to the application of the tax rates or not. the descriptions in news articles would indicate not.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I don't know what "overwhelming" means in BJ's eyes, but considering that this plan will be sold as a tax break to the 90% of city residents who will never come close to sniffing a 7-figure real estate transaction, I can see it passing a simple majority referendum pretty easily.

I think it means the hyper-progressive people he surrounds himself with are telling him as much

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I mean it obviously gets worse the higher the price. I'm not as worried about home sales as I am about commercial real estate. A $50M sale of an office building from what I understand would be $1,471,000 in transfer taxes vs. the current $375,000 for the buyer. It is an increase of nearly $1.1M, or about 2.2% of the total sale price ontop of it, extra. That may not be an issue for buildings that have great occupancy percentages (yes, they do exist especially apartment buildings), but orgs/companies trying to offload some more troubled properties (i.e. office buildings with too high of vacancy rate with no good progress since the pandemic) may have more trouble finding buyers now. Which could put their property in even more trouble. Even the ones that will overcome this and sell will probably see lease/rent rates go up to make up for it.

That's really what concerns me, not a buyer paying an extra $100K and change for a $5M home (may still dissuade some buyers for sure but the impact on CRE I think is a bit worse).

I think if the city NEEDS more money to invest in ways that increase Chicago's productivity, growth and broadly shared long term prosperity then this sort of tax may not be a bad way to do it.

My concern is the vague, potentially harmful, way that these funds may be used. "For the homeless" isn't really encouraging. Would the money be spent in naïve, well-intentioned ways that makes the homeless problem worse? Perhaps by providing amenities or services that encourage the homeless to come to Chicago? Would the policies do good things but perhaps very inefficiently? If we reduced the homeless numbers but in a way that cost $2,000 per month for each person helped, then the net effect of this tax would almost certainly be negative.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

it's being called progressive but I am not sure if that refers to the application of the tax rates or not. the descriptions in news articles would indicate not.

They actually used the term Graduated and the Sun Times article did a better job of confirming it than Crain's did. The first $1M goes from 0.75% to 0.6%. So most sales in the city for residential will see a reduction. And your $1.1M property will see a $500 increase from previous.

Obviously the higher the price a place is, the more money.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I think if the city NEEDS more money to invest in ways that increase Chicago's productivity, growth and broadly shared long term prosperity then this sort of tax may not be a bad way to do it.

My concern is the vague, potentially harmful, way that these funds may be used. "For the homeless" isn't really encouraging. Would the money be spent in naïve, well-intentioned ways that makes the homeless problem worse? Perhaps by providing amenities or services that encourage the homeless to come to Chicago? Would the policies do good things but perhaps very inefficiently? If we reduced the homeless numbers but in a way that cost $2,000 per month for each person helped, then the net effect of this tax would almost certainly be negative.

I agree, though we can say this about nearly any tax at any government level . There's a big transparency issue about how tax monies are used from local to federal.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I agree, though we can say this about nearly any tax at any government level . There's a big transparency issue about how tax monies are used from local to federal.

Dont forget, they doubled the real estate transfer tax in chicago in 2008 to "fund the CTA" and we can all clearly see the upsides of that money....

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

Dont forget, they doubled the real estate transfer tax in chicago in 2008 to "fund the CTA" and we can all clearly see the upsides of that money....

We can also see how zero real estate is bought or sold today as a result of that increase. Oh wait.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

We can also see how zero real estate is bought or sold today as a result of that increase. Oh wait.

I don't think anyone said anything like that. Simply, the cash is going into a black hole. The CTA tax increase is example #1.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I think if the city NEEDS more money to invest in ways that increase Chicago's productivity, growth and broadly shared long term prosperity then this sort of tax may not be a bad way to do it.

My concern is the vague, potentially harmful, way that these funds may be used. "For the homeless" isn't really encouraging. Would the money be spent in naïve, well-intentioned ways that makes the homeless problem worse? Perhaps by providing amenities or services that encourage the homeless to come to Chicago? Would the policies do good things but perhaps very inefficiently? If we reduced the homeless numbers but in a way that cost $2,000 per month for each person helped, then the net effect of this tax would almost certainly be negative.

Agreed. The last thing I want to see is another slush fund that gets used ineffectively to address a problem in the city. If BJ has a specific roadmap outlining how specifically he will use this money to actually reduce homelessness and bring affordable housing to folks, then I am probably on board.

[Handro]

Does anyone doubt it will be a gussied up slush fund for a bunch of disparate community groups and non-profits to get payouts based on how well they lobby the city? I would bet everything I have that we are not given a concrete plan of how the city will spend the money to directly address the needs of the homeless.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

Agreed. The last thing I want to see is another slush fund that gets used ineffectively to address a problem in the city. If BJ has a specific roadmap outlining how specifically he will use this money to actually reduce homelessness and bring affordable housing to folks, then I am probably on board.

Not calling you out, but I assume everyone saying this has already contacted their alderman. If not, you should.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Not calling you out, but I assume everyone saying this has already contacted their alderman. If not, you should.

good point, I plan to do that now.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by twister244

Agreed. The last thing I want to see is another slush fund that gets used ineffectively to address a problem in the city. If BJ has a specific roadmap outlining how specifically he will use this money to actually reduce homelessness and bring affordable housing to folks, then I am probably on board.

I HOPE the money gets used for the construction of affordable housing. At least then we can see where the money goes.

The problem with all of this at a fundamental level is that homelessness is not really connected to a lack of homes. Some case yes, but the majority no. There is a lot of mental health issues (both medical-mental and behavioural-mental) and drug issues at hand. These issues the government and public has not shown a great ability to fix, sadly, and it's not clear that a lack of money is making the issue worse.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I don't think anyone said anything like that. Simply, the cash is going into a black hole. The CTA tax increase is example #1.

So where did they get the money when they started running more trains during rush hour starting around 2011 or 2012 (every 2-3 minutes on some lines), all the station rebuilds on red line back then, track replacements, etc?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I HOPE the money gets used for the construction of affordable housing. At least then we can see where the money goes.

The problem with all of this at a fundamental level is that homelessness is not really connected to a lack of homes. Some case yes, but the majority no. There is a lot of mental health issues (both medical-mental and behavioural-mental) and drug issues at hand. These issues the government and public has not shown a great ability to fix, sadly, and it's not clear that a lack of money is making the issue worse.

So I am pretty YIMBY, but the funniest but saddest takes I've seen on Twitter/X are those who actually claim that building more housing is what will automatically fix homelessness and nothing else. My sister...is a character. She actually dated a homeless guy awhile ago, had other friends who were homeless, etc. She would take in some homeless people she became friends with to her house (one of them even wanted to live in her garage instead of the house). I used to volunteer my time at food shelfs growing up too and used to cook dinners at some homeless shelters in Chicago awhile ago, a few times a month. Taught some classes on basic computer skills too at some shelters. Had a friend who became homeless after surviving cancer but getting addicted to drugs. He had a lot of mental illness issues unfortunately. I've met enough homeless people in my life to know that mental illness is a major part of it unfortunately. Kind of pisses me off when I see people think that building more housing is going to magically fix everything, and nothing else.

Now if BJ & co's plan actually includes expansion of mental health specifically for the homeless and at risk, then that's great. But I'm going to be pissed if I see mostly only the construction of new housing and not a major mental health/illness push (despite me selfishly wanting vacant lots to be developed).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Handro

Does anyone doubt it will be a gussied up slush fund for a bunch of disparate community groups and non-profits to get payouts based on how well they lobby the city? I would bet everything I have that we are not given a concrete plan of how the city will spend the money to directly address the needs of the homeless.

No one with a brain would disagree with you. This will accomplish nothing but pad the pockets of BJs "progressive" goons

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by marothisu

So I am pretty YIMBY, but the funniest but saddest takes I've seen on Twitter/X are those who actually claim that building more housing is what will automatically fix homelessness and nothing else. My sister...is a character. She actually dated a homeless guy awhile ago, had other friends who were homeless, etc. She would take in some homeless people she became friends with to her house (one of them even wanted to live in her garage instead of the house). I used to volunteer my time at food shelfs growing up too and used to cook dinners at some homeless shelters in Chicago awhile ago, a few times a month. Taught some classes on basic computer skills too at some shelters. Had a friend who became homeless after surviving cancer but getting addicted to drugs. He had a lot of mental illness issues unfortunately. I've met enough homeless people in my life to know that mental illness is a major part of it unfortunately. Kind of pisses me off when I see people think that building more housing is going to magically fix everything, and nothing else.

Now if BJ & co's plan actually includes expansion of mental health specifically for the homeless and at risk, then that's great. But I'm going to be pissed if I see mostly only the construction of new housing and not a major mental health/illness push (despite me selfishly wanting vacant lots to be developed).

Well, there's the "chronically homeless" (the people sleeping on the streets), who are very likely to be mentally ill or have addiction issues. Free housing (ala housing first) may help them deal with their other issues but "affordable housing" is not going to move the needle. But there are also a bunch of transiently homeless people (who typically sleep in shelters, rather than outside, or perhaps in vehicles), for whom affordable housing really might help. Though people usually think of the former because they are much more visible...

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

So where did they get the money when they started running more trains during rush hour starting around 2011 or 2012 (every 2-3 minutes on some lines), all the station rebuilds on red line back then, track replacements, etc?

that was all 2008 financial crisis stimulus money from the federal government

CTA budget are currently dependent on COVID stimulus from the federal government

CTA has no way to maintain current level of operations without federal stimulus money... they will be nearly 1 billion short starting in 2025

#blackhole

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by marothisu

So I am pretty YIMBY, but the funniest but saddest takes I've seen on Twitter/X are those who actually claim that building more housing is what will automatically fix homelessness and nothing else.

I don't think there's anything funny/sad about these takes. California has the most expensive real estate in the country and it has the highest homeless rate, about 15x the homeless rate of the lowest state--Mississippi. It's a multivariable problem. But the availability of cheap housing is most of the problem.

Anecdotally, I'm aware of someone who was a normal college student in Indiana. Moved to California for fun when classes went online during COVID. Lost her job and couldn't pay rent in her shared apartment and started living in a nice van. Van got too expensive so moved into a car. Got chased out of San Diego because sleeping in a car is vagrancy. She was now a marginal person and had a mental breakdown and got briefly institutionalized. Now couch surfing and doing drugs. If a 20 year old didn't need to cough up $1,500/mo for a room in California she would probably have a college degree and a job in an office. This person was prone to mental health problems and made some poor choices. But that's exactly what a safety net is for! It pays for itself by turning people like that from being drags on society into contributors.

Most homeless people aren't feces-encrusted, shambling, shouting vagrants. They are marginally employed and might stay in vehicles, on couches, shared hotels and whatnot. In the 50's these folks would be in SROs, crummy shacks and flophouses. There are plenty of crummy shacks in rural Michigan where I was raised and people who would be homeless there can easily pay for rent out of their disability check or whatever. It's not possible where housing costs are very high.

Serious mental health issues like schizophrenia aren't a simple on/off switch. Symptoms and progression often occur at thresholds and having a safe place to sleep, keep your stuff and eat quite literally keeps people who are near the edge from going over it.

[moorhosj1]

Worth calling out that the biggest complaint about Johnson during the campaign was that crime would run out of control and cops would quit en masse. Neither has happened so far, although other decisions have certainly been poor/questionable.

However, the size of the Chicago Police Department was essentially unchanged on Johnson's 100th day in office as compared with his first day in office. CPD had 12,360 employees on Johnson’s first full day in office and 12,363 employees on Monday, according to a city database. The number of sworn officers has also remained steady, with 11,720 officers on duty as of May 1, and 11,722 on the force as of Aug. 1, according to a database maintained by the Chicago Police Department.

Murders have dropped 6% during the first seven months of 2023, as compared with the same period a year ago, according to police data. The number of shootings, carjackings and crime on the CTA are also down, officials said.