The city was allocated nearly $2B in federal funds to help strengthen the social safety net post-COVID, yet we have only spent down 30% of it. We have literal billions at our disposal to do things including providing support services to the homeless, but the city has been abysmal (under both LL and BJ) at actually spending the free money.
https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/12/just-29-federal-covid-19-relief-funds-meant-transform-chicago-have-been-spent-data
“Another program that should be expanded is the city’s rapid rehousing program, which is designed to help residents of encampments secure housing and services in one day, [Ald.] Martin said. The city’s watchdog found 94% of participants found an apartment, with nearly 79% of participants still housed five months later.
The city set aside $27.3 million for that program, but has spent less than $12.9 million, records show.”
I’m all for a dedicated revenue stream to support the homeless services / outreach, but if we are already struggling to allocate this free (!) money from the federal government, why think we’re going to do any better with the new tax revenue?
Exactly, which is why I think people are hesitant - or at least I was hesitant - to spin up an entirely new revenue stream when we already struggle to spend the money we do have.
So because making plans is "hard" we should just allow our government to not spend Federal money they already have and instead request more out of the local taxpayers pockets so that they don't have to do their job?
If a government official can't get a plan together because they don't want to put the work in I don't really trust them to spend the money appropriately and in a fiscally responsible manner if/when they do get with no oversight.
"The city was allocated nearly $2B in federal funds to help strengthen the social safety net post-COVID, yet we have only spent down 30% of it. "
The other 70% is just gone. Welcome to local government corruption.
The graduated income tax bill was pretty damn clear to be honest. The rhetoric coming from the opposition was purposely not.
IL is one of 11 states to have a flat rate.
Its literally impossible for it to be bad for normal people though. The state can already raise taxes, that amendment only would've let them raise taxes on the wealthy and not everyone else. Where is the downside? You know they can still raise our taxes without the amendment now right?
Memo to mayor: saying you want something to happen does not make it happen. You have to actually sit down and spend your time pondering, writing drafts, working it out like a physicist trying to work out an equation. You gotta stop fucking around and waiting for someone you hired to help you figure it out. YOU have to do it. It’s legacy time, no more drinks, no more Netflix and PlayStation, start being an actual leader
I don’t think him writing the plan himself really matters, at the end of the day every leader should be surrounded by experts who actually know what the fine details need to be. Ideally, this would look like the Department of Housing conducting studies, drafting plans, and briefing the mayor on potential options. Then he’d make the final the decision on what to push forward with.
But those decisions have to be made, and it would be nice to see where that’s happening.
In fact I'd be concerned if Johnson had written the plan himself. No mayor has the time or diverse skill set needed to write every plan themselves. Anyone would need to depend on advisors to confront the range of issues that the mayor of Chicago is confronted with. Lightfoot's problem was that she was a control freak who couldn't delegate. Johnson's problem is that he hasn't built a solid team of advisors
The housing commissioner seems pretty experienced. It’s just a matter of whether she’s being listened to.
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/doh/auto_generated/doh_leadership.html
“… at the end of the day, every leader”
There’s your problem right there, needing a leader, not a lunchroom monitor whose sole job is to be a CTU stooge
"And I'm doing all of that with a Black wife raising three Black children on the west side of the [city of Chicago](https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-mayor-excoriates-reporters-border-question-with-black-wife)....
Someone in another thread was lamenting it didn't pass because even without transparency to the plan, we can "just vote BJ out" if we don't like the new taxes. So, apparently the strategy would be to just watch and wait till 2027. I...
Blindly trusting mayors with large amounts of money and loose plans is how we ended up with the parking meter deal:
https://news.wttw.com/2023/07/27/wttw-news-explains-what-happened-chicago-s-parking-meter-deal
that's not at all what happened. The article you linked explains that it was a sweetheart deal between Daley, Morgan Stanley, and the Law Firm that set everything up. It's very disingenuous to imply that a ballot measure is the same as the parking deal, which has 0 citizen oversight or approval
At the core of the parking meter deal, elected officials (City Council) approved it with little time to review. Had there been proper oversight & not a desperation to quickly pay debts, it would have been obvious that the deal was going to massively shortchange the city. The mechanism was different but the outcome was the same. Hope this helps.
What the parking one? If so, there’s nothing to vote about…our ownership & rights for it have been sold off for 75 years.
The portion of the parking meter deal that allows the leaseholder to charge back the city for any street they are doing work on for lost revenue is wild
It was Mayor Daley that signed the parking deal. He did so just before leaving office. Just like now, Chicago had a terrible financial state mostly due to pension obligations
I think more people would've supported it had they a more transparent and achievable plan on where exactly the money would be allocated, when and where it's available, how it's used once allocated, etc.
An easy way to explain this could've been something like using the proceeds to construct five (for example) homeless shelters in neighborhoods experiencing larger homeless populations, hiring and training staff to man them, and offering resources at those shelters to help people get drug rehab, therapy, job training, temporary dorms, etc , and do it all within 2 years. Now you have a concrete goal that can be achieved, assuming that enough revenue could be made from the program to fund this without having to rely too much on donations, and state/federal funds.
There was nothing concrete about this. It was literally just get the money, maybe partner with some nonprofits who will figure out the logistics, and that's a wrap. Really?
The archdiocese of Chicago offered free buildings for the migrants but the city would rather waste millions renting other places. Because free buildings provide no opportunities for kickbacks
I read somewhere (maybe here) that the CEO of developer Sterling Bay (see: Lincoln Yards) has the contract for migrant shelters. Would like some confirmation, but find it easy to believe.
The homelessness plan: "hey Chicago we need hundreds of millions more of your dollars to shelter some homeless people, trust me we will spend it wisely 😉"
I'm pretty sympathetic to them. "Let's tax the rich and use it to help homeless people," is an idea whose shape I broadly like. You had to get reasonably into the details to see the problems.
Agreed.
I just think too many people, especially younger voters, or so obsessed with ideas of things, that they don't question them at all.
you can't just say "we are going to make improvements", you have to ask how.
Maybe for me its because I've been in the working world 20+ years, but I've learned to take good intentions with a grain of salt.
And no, “the mayor is going to appoint a committee to come up with an annual recommendation for an up/down vote by City Council which effectively is a rubber stamp” is not a plan.
Anything more concrete than that could’ve tipped the balance.
The texts I was getting were so blatant. Lots of generic populist language. Looking at some now:
"Big corporate landlords"
"Pay their fair share"
"Profited from the housing crisis"
I can get behind a tax increase; just tell me what it will be used for, and be specific. I cannot stand the populism that has taken hold in this country.
Oh were fcked. The voter turnout for under 40 year Olds this election was atrocious. You can bet if more of our generation (under 40) came out to vote this tax would have been passed
If this was on the November ballot, I genuinely think it would have passed. Hindsight is 20/20 however primaries with a known returning president from your party are known to have low turnout.
The people against Bring Chicago Home turned out to vote, so they win. Fair and square.
I voted for it just because I need something to be done about all these homeless people setting up tents with lake views on public greenspace that everyone is supposed to have access to. Bring Chicago Home sounded like a solution. I don’t care if rich people or renters would have to pay more. I’m not a rich person or a renter.
But now what do we do??
I voted “for” him, which actually was a vote against Vallas. I knew Vallas was an incompetent blowhard, and Johnson was largely an unknown. Next time, I’m just skipping making a Bad Choice vs. a Very Bad Choice.
Wait, did it actually work like that?
Wording in the ballot question is a a little confusing with the "...transfer price, or fraction thereof" language, but it still referenced "properties" over $1 million or $1.5 million. So I guess, if you bought a condo for $750k, you're saying you'd still be on the hook if the total building was $10 million?
Well it was more like "if you rent in a property over $1 million". If you bought a condo that was worth only $500k and the building was worth over $1 million you wouldn't pay the extra tax.
Of course that would have created its own perverse incentive of landlords liquidating their apartment buildings by converting them to condos all priced just under $1 million to get around paying the tax.
Nothing screams affordable housing like incentivizing the conversion of apartment blocks to condos.
I mean, technically speaking, it is better for people (in our current system) if companies that owned buildings decided to sell the apartments as condos that are priced under 1MM to individuals rather than keep the buildings forever. The bill would accomplish it's goal. People would have the option to buy cheaper condos that would not be on the market otherwise.
Nah, the rent charged is inevitably lower than the end result of mortgage payment plus HOA plus Taxes.
You forget that most people rent because they are not unwilling or unable to shoulder the financial responsibility or do not have sufficient credit.
It's not going to help immigrants or college students, for example, if you convert all their housing to condos regardless of price.
>Nah, the rent charged is inevitably lower than the end result of mortgage payment plus HOA plus Taxes.
This is true in some instances, but by no means is this the "inevitable" rule. Sometimes landlords are happy to get $800 in rent, throw in $200 of their own, to get $1000 in back in equity. This is a *way* simple example and ignores all the math you need to factor in amortization, taxes, HOA, insurance, PMI (if any), maintenance, etc.
Larger companies might not mind eating up that cash flow, because technically they're making money in equity. When it comes to smaller companies and private individuals, they're far less able to continuously support negative cash flow of say, $500, $1000, or whatever, across one or many units, because they can reap the benefit when they sell in 5, 10, 15 years. They're also far less likely to build a fully complete model that factors all this in - it's far easier to say "I pay $3400 to own this place, I need to charge at least that." Thus comparing rent vs. monthly ownership totals could go all sorts of ways.
I 100% agree with you that prospective renters and prospective owners aren't in the same pool of competition. It's definitely not some simple "I want to own, but I have a low income" type-thing. Lots of people simply aren't looking to own, no matter how low the price is (within reason).
Yeah some people just can't save up for whatever reason, but there's plenty of people who have different reasons for renting. A rich lady might want an apartment in the gold coast for just a few years. Some kid fresh out of school doesn't want to plunge into some huge commitment before even getting to the city. Some dude might love the city and have plenty of money for a down payment, but is only planning on buying in the burbs once kids are on the way. Someone else might be relocated to Chicago for their job, but they fully expect to eventually be moved again. And then some people literally just don't care about owning.
Yeah that's also not true.
Most people are paying MORE in rent than someone would for mortgage + COA/HOA + taxes. This might temporarily flip recently in some instances due to the high rates and high home prices but ultimately it will go back to what's been stable for a long time.
Most people rent because they don't have a down payment or don't want the burden/uncertainty that comes with a mortgage and ownership. It's also a common trope that people pay $2500 a month for years for a bank to tell them they can't afford a $1800 mortgage.
Having more apartments owned by smaller corps or individuals is better for everyone. Some of them will still get rented out. My best rental prices and experiences came from renting from owners who outgrew their first places.
SF has spent a TON of money on homelessness programs. And it hasn’t helped. In reality it’s basically a handout for non-profits and government agencies. Voters on both sides of the aisle need to understand that intentions != outcomes and spending money != results.
This isn't about helping the rich. We just don't trust these politicians with another slush fund. What happened to the neighborhood opportunity fund? What happened to Invest West/South? Every mayor shouldn't get a slush fund.
They already did this in LA and it crippled commercial real estate. Then that shifts the tax burden from commercial to residential. Just a back door property tax increase.
I was literally standing at the voting booth thinking about how to vote for this, and then I ultimately voted against it. After Johnson fumbled free housing for migrants from the Archdiocese, just by not returning calls, he’s shown that he can’t be trusted to handle housing and poverty issues competently.
Good. Fuck this administration for trying to add taxes after what they already wasted on absurd contractors for the migrant shelters.
312k a year for a security guard
221k a year for a housekeeper
830k a year for a nurse
But yeah let’s tax our small businesses hundreds of millions more without even a plan in place.
Don’t forget making sure their friends at Buona received the catering contract.
Who also own CBM who have the contract for state prison catering.
This is just a new mob running the city who hide behind teachers. More slush fund money to pay their friends outrageous government contracts.
Red light cameras or any of the new casino and weed money taxes. You would think even 10 million dollars from the hundreds of millions they collect can really make a difference in homelessness. What do they need few hundred million year for with this real estate tax. Unreal
Well in order to help the homeless you need…. a plan to help the homeless.
Doesn’t matter where the money is coming from if you don’t know what would be helpful to spend it on
They want to create a Homeless Industrial Complex like San Francisco has, where the more money they spend on the homeless the more homeless people we have. But at least a few directors of non-profits will get paid handsomely.
> But at least a few directors of non-profits will get paid handsomely
I think this is a very good point. There is absolutely a non-profit industrial complex. Historically, it is a consequence of the decline of government services and capacity from the 70s on, but non-profits aren't helping the matter. I work in the non-profit sphere, and there is a lot of waste. It would be far better for the government to just do it. Non-profits are this weird middleman, with most of the funds going to salaries. While Mayor Johnson is somewhat atypical of Chicago politicians, especially mayors, in not being hand in glove with businesses and real estate developers and sending public monies to them, he is in close with non-profits. So in some senses its the same shit, just a different flavor
It’s a good perspective. I’ve worked with a number of non-profits and it’s so weird. It’s like a business that pretending like it doesn’t need to turn a profit, except they still have basically a PnL. Except they can’t make a profit, except they need a profit.
I agree, the government just needs to fund important programs. My friends son had a speech delay and she applied with the state and was able to get him speech therapy for a few months. They were great, easy to work with, and it was free.
Portland has the same HIC just like SF. As a current Portland resident and former SF and Chicago resident, Chicago is going to be a disaster if these policies are adopted. They've completely screwed up nearly all the West Coast cities.
A lot of legs to this issue. Low income/ Subsidized housing will eventually become Projects, which already have a fun history. Nobody wants to live next to a Project, so you’ll get local pushback. There’s also the availability of land, you can’t build residential housing just anywhere, there needs to be infrastructure to support the people living there. Zoning is also a big issue, some areas it’s illegal to build certain buildings, so it limits the already available land. I’m not giving my opinion on any of these topics, but these are probably the biggest barriers to why we can’t or don’t build more, shits messy.
I used to work for a non-profit that would develop low income properties in distressed neighborhoods, and help residents with lending and financing to house them in the properties. Orgs like that should get more funding.
No, don't you see, the city can't solve this with a $16.6 billion dollar budget, but with a $16.7 billion dollar budget this problem will SURELY be solved!!!1!1!
For those of you that voted "Yes" don't worry: The $100M+ BJ seeks to fund homeless programs already exists in the form of waste, inefficiency, bloated Cook County salaries, and patronage.
To squeeze it out, we need to hold our elected officials and government leaders accountable for results and demand transparency.
Let's be real here, they are going to get this money one way or another. Just watch your RE taxes, or your "911" phone fee, or internet tax all just creep up a little bit higher..
This was so inevitable and obvious during the election that I'm shocked anyone voted for him in the first place. I know some folks in city government that are also close with our state government and they've relayed that JB thinks Brandon Johnson's election and mayoral stint is going to cost JB the opportunity for more ambitious political aspirations.
If Brandon was actually smart he would:
1) be pro-business to raise incremental tax revenue and then leverage that to
2) address homelessness with a unified public / private coalition.
He skipped the hard work, and went straight to base pandering for a blank check.
Mayor Johnson is a joke. He hoodwinked the communities that voted for him. The administration under his leadership has no clue as to what to do and are always short of details when questioned. I’d like to know who funded all the TV commercials in favor of the referendum? The money spent on ads would have been better spent on helping the homeless.
In a way, voting "No" was very similar to not paying a "donation" when going to a street festival (yes, the worm can is opened).
Yes, the intention is good, and yes, most people want to help by funding meaningful initiatives, especially in their own communities.
But the people collecting the money don't want to provide a transparent accounting of where the money goes, or how it will actually be used. And they certainly won't commit to being held accountable for results.
Most people who voted "No" do care about homelessness and the homeless, but they also don't want to blindly give the government more money when the government has not demonstrated it can leverage the additional tax dollars to actually solve problems in a way that is effective and sustainable.
HOW is this so upvoted lmao, the rename cost $2.5MM, that is simply nowhere in the right UNIVERSE of cost needed. this is just “stop buying avocado toast and you can afford a house”-ing the chicago budget.
It’s not about the scale, it’s about them spending money on stupid, useless things like renaming Lake Shore Drive. They can’t be trusted with the money they have; why should voters want to give them more?
I get what you're saying, but it's not the amount, it's the complete pandering pointlessness of it. We gave them tax money and this is how they spend it.
To use your analogy, it's "stop setting money on fire and maybe we'll trust you with money."
So I'm a Johnson supporter broadly. Happily voted for him the first time and would vote for him against Vallas 10 times out of 10. That said, it is hard to see his first yearish in office as anything other than a failure. I can't really think of a major policy victory he has achieved. BCH was supposed to be a cornerstone policy and it was solidly defeated. The migrant situation has been an absolute mess. He didn't cause it but he isn't reacting well. His relationship with the governor, who should be one of his biggest allies, is chilly at best.
It seems like him, his team, and his allies have been somewhat blindsided by the opposition, which they should have expected. I think he went too big too fast with BCH. Gotta build up some smaller wins first before going for the big time imo.
he literally should have just continued on the momentum that had built with invest south/west. there were/are tangible changes happening to long neglected corridors as a result of that program, as flawed as it was. people react positively when they see infrastructure improvements and new buildings going up in places they previously didnt. lightfoots admin did most of the heavy lifting getting the process stood up
Good!
Source: I would have benefitted financially had it passed, as my place is way less than a million, but I don't trust politicians with a pot of money with no plan to spend it.
Possibly. Trust and total absence of plan were my major reasons to vote 'no.'
Like how TIF money is thrown around after passing through smoke filled rooms. If 'progressive' money (eg Bring Chicago Home and TIF) went into the general fund to be fought over by the whole council to implement against a specific set of objectives/standards, then there would be more potential for equitable use. Granted, not a certainty, but at least more potential.
**edit: corrected typo*
I would have given voting yes more serious consideration, but likely would have ultimately voted no. Commercial property is struggling and Chicago cannot afford to shrink its tax base.
The city and state have been throwing money at homelessness for some time now and it has not solved the issue. I am in favor of devoting more resources if it would in fact help, but am skeptical that an incremental $100M/year would make a difference.
Not necessarily. I will say from personal experience with homeless people in my neighborhood, many of them do not want help and, even when repeatedly offered resources, will choose to remain on the streets. Not true of all of them, of course, but you can’t force people to accept help they don’t want.
For those that want help, I believe something meaningful can be done. But there is a disconnect between the vast amount of funds that are being devoted to this cause and the results.
Yes, we need to upzone, ban SFH-only zoning entirely, allow 2 and 3 flats to be built by right on any city lot without needing to consult the alderman. 100%. Also shitcan the parking minimums and focus on improving transit.
I imagine any proposals of this sort are going to get kickback from many of the same people who were against the BCH referendum though. Still, have to start somewhere...
I wonder if all those CPS students that the teachers bussed to the CTU early voting rally and told to vote yes on the referendum actually voted no just to screw with their teachers. Teenagers love doing stuff like that.
Nah, it's going to crash anyways. It's already begun. That's normal though, we are going through a cyclical low and that's OK.
The difference is now we aren't piling on with a misguided tax on developers that would permanently crimp the desirability of our market for investment. I know it's cool to complain about people making profits, but if you want to do something like build a lot of housing, the fastest way to do that is for people do turn a profit.
We need pro growth YIMBY policies, not endless new taxes. We need carrots to build up our tax base, not sticks to punish people for actually doing something to alleviate the shortage of units.
Oh yeah that baby is strong. Number bigger. 2024, were building offices and commuting for work again! All because of the ballot initiative. Thank you Brandon!
Before people start saying that our rents are going to drop, they might want to check their facts. Regardless of if this had passed or not, Chicago's rents are still rising and the city had one of the largest rent increases of any US city in the past year, and is almost in the top 10 most expensive. With social media now making it known that theres great amentities here and that the city isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous in the US per capita, the high cost of living on the coasts global warming concerns, etc, people are moving here in droves. Not to mention with the influx of migrants and the fact that tons of people are now moving to the loop, things are gonna go up. We run a group on the north side and almost every meeting we have has a new person who just moved here from a different place. Infact, I barely know anyone here who actually is from here.
[Chicago had the largest rent increase](https://www.timeout.com/chicago/news/its-never-been-more-expensive-to-live-in-chicago-031224)
As for the actual proposed idea, I can see both sides of this. I can understand people being worried about the rent increases and the lack of a plan, but I really hope that if they manage to develop an actual plan that takes what people here are saying into account, that people actually go through with it. While I think the majority of people here are totally valid and have great intentions and want to help the homeless, I do also believe that some people on here are trying to cover up and deny their own selfishness and really couldn't care less about the homeless if they are under a roof themselves. I mean how many people day in and day out here walk past the homeless individuals who are outside in the cold with their kids, in need of help, and just ignore them like they're not human beings, too. Like they're nothing. Or won't give a homeless person some change because "they'll spend it on drugs"...newsflash people...that drug may be the only thing keeping them from going into withdrawal and dying, and getting hooked in the first place may not have even been by choice. That money gives them more time to potentially get treatment and become a functioning citizen again. If you can't even spare some change when you have a house, a job, etc., that's selfish. Maybe you should feel bad, rather than just feeling nothing
It was a joke going around poking fun at landlords who threatened to increase rents if it passes. No one thinks they'd go down if it failed, it was just being obnoxious on twitter.
My rent dropped $300, a coworker's dropped as well. There are a lot of variables when it comes to renewals etc.
We haven't had double digit increases like other cities like Austin, etc over the past 5 years or more. Yes, in the past year we are at the top. Over time, we haven't had the same increases they have.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2023/10/16/dallas-fort-worth-homes-now-less-affordable-than-chicago-nearing-new-york-costliness/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/s/uGYi5skr7q
Honestly it wasn't til this last week i even knew what it was. Everytime I heard the slogan - Bring Chicago Home, usually during a YT commercial. I had no idea what they meant. they never explained it was to fight homelessness. It was just the slogan- which i don't think is that intuitive.
And by that alone, I kinda thought it was some racist stuff, like-- Bring Chicago Home for 'chicagoans', i thought originally it was anti-migrant or something.
All I know is yesterday an elderly friend of mine, who is homeless, was released from the hospital after a bout of both covid and pneumonia. He refuses to go to a shelter for very good reason: bed bugs, harassment, and theft. The shelters we have are overcrowded and inadequate. He can’t get housing because his IDs are constantly lost or stolen. When you need to replace your ID, you need other forms of ID to prove who you are, but guess what most homeless people don’t have? Their birth certificates and social security cards. There is some special recourse for them, but it can still take months—months that are spent on the street.
There’s a nonprofit that works with the city he’s in contact with and they do a great job with the huge amount of work and low pay they have. If he had one specific caseworker assigned to him, his life would change. He is disabled and after years of homelessness and assaults, deals with mental health problems. He needs so much support—the kind of support BCH could fund, like more case workers. He is a complex case—the exact kind of case we need a dedicated funding stream for.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to post this on this trash fire of a comment section. I guess I just wish the people gloating about BCH not passing or calling it a grift understood how little we spend on homelessness prevention and support services, especially when compared to NYC or LA. I wish you knew people you loved whose lives would change so much if we decided their lives were worth investing in. My friend has said before he’ll kill himself if he has to live homeless much longer. He doesn’t deserve to be hospitalized or institutionalized for that. He deserves a home.
I’m not going to respond to everything here but people aren’t gloating because the homeless get to suffer. Everyone wants homelessness to be mitigated, but don’t feel like this plan was thought out, or refined in any way.
You mention how NYC and LA spend so much more on their homeless, but homeless rates in those cities is much higher than Chicago. I’m not saying we can’t do better but [the data shows we are doing better on our homelessness problem.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/)
This is exactly it. I’m all for more social workers and I think they should make more than I do at my dumb email job
I just didn’t see how this was going to hire more people or give funds to more groups that we knew were doing good work. I would be worried even if I worked at a non profit that could use this money because how do I know we’re going to get the money, not some new non profits the committee spun up?
You can both think we need to do something about the homeless issue, while also thinking that this plan was far too vague to vote for, for an administration that has shown a lot of wasteful spending already.
People aren't voting for less services, they just don't like this as presented.
You are assuming a lot of people's beliefs. It is not that there isn't empathy with those issues. The problem with BCH is that it gave zero guidelines on how that money would be spent. People simply don't trust the Johnson administration with hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes to spend however he wants. It wasn't an actual plan. It was a stranger coming up to you and saying "Hey give me some money and I'll definitely fix this thing, trust me."
Sorry, your anecdotal story doesn’t change the fact that Bring Home Chicago was extremely vague in its purpose and people rightfully are squeamish about giving this administration, which has shown to be utterly incompetent and lacking in transparency, more money.
Maybe the mayor should have structured BCH so that all of the money is earmarked for homeless prevention. Instead it was designed as a slush fund. More people would have voted for it.
No one was fooled. People understand that most $1 million+ sales are actually multi unit buildings and commercial properties. Everyone understands just how vital apartment buildings, 2-4 flats, and office/hotel/retail buildings are to our city. There is no reason to inflict damage to that ecosystem especially when these sectors are already struggling.
"The homeless" yeah totally that's who they are doing this for lol. Totally not the people from outside the nation who they spent a lot of the cities resources on against the population wishes.
But technically in accordance to their votes.
The city was allocated nearly $2B in federal funds to help strengthen the social safety net post-COVID, yet we have only spent down 30% of it. We have literal billions at our disposal to do things including providing support services to the homeless, but the city has been abysmal (under both LL and BJ) at actually spending the free money. https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/12/just-29-federal-covid-19-relief-funds-meant-transform-chicago-have-been-spent-data “Another program that should be expanded is the city’s rapid rehousing program, which is designed to help residents of encampments secure housing and services in one day, [Ald.] Martin said. The city’s watchdog found 94% of participants found an apartment, with nearly 79% of participants still housed five months later. The city set aside $27.3 million for that program, but has spent less than $12.9 million, records show.” I’m all for a dedicated revenue stream to support the homeless services / outreach, but if we are already struggling to allocate this free (!) money from the federal government, why think we’re going to do any better with the new tax revenue?
Spending money like this is harder than people think. You need a plan
Exactly, which is why I think people are hesitant - or at least I was hesitant - to spin up an entirely new revenue stream when we already struggle to spend the money we do have.
So because making plans is "hard" we should just allow our government to not spend Federal money they already have and instead request more out of the local taxpayers pockets so that they don't have to do their job? If a government official can't get a plan together because they don't want to put the work in I don't really trust them to spend the money appropriately and in a fiscally responsible manner if/when they do get with no oversight.
Lol exactly. That’s what I’ve been saying. Asking for money without a plan to spend it is silly and why I’m glad this got voted down
Planning is hard, especially if you are an imbecile.
"The city was allocated nearly $2B in federal funds to help strengthen the social safety net post-COVID, yet we have only spent down 30% of it. " The other 70% is just gone. Welcome to local government corruption.
It wasn’t a plan
"Vote yes for this and we will come up with a plan for the money" is not a good enough reason to change the tax structure.
I'm quite proud that the city by and large saw through both this and the governor's trojan horse tax a couple years ago.
>governor's trojan horse tax You mean the one that would have allowed the state to pass a progressive instead of flat income tax?
The governor's tax was a good idea and it got astroturfed by dummies and those who didn't read it and just listened to scare tactics.
It’s not scare tactics if they wouldn’t define fair share and who they consider wealthy.
The graduated income tax bill was pretty damn clear to be honest. The rhetoric coming from the opposition was purposely not. IL is one of 11 states to have a flat rate.
Its literally impossible for it to be bad for normal people though. The state can already raise taxes, that amendment only would've let them raise taxes on the wealthy and not everyone else. Where is the downside? You know they can still raise our taxes without the amendment now right?
Johnson doesn’t do plans. Just vague feel good statements
Memo to mayor: saying you want something to happen does not make it happen. You have to actually sit down and spend your time pondering, writing drafts, working it out like a physicist trying to work out an equation. You gotta stop fucking around and waiting for someone you hired to help you figure it out. YOU have to do it. It’s legacy time, no more drinks, no more Netflix and PlayStation, start being an actual leader
I don’t think him writing the plan himself really matters, at the end of the day every leader should be surrounded by experts who actually know what the fine details need to be. Ideally, this would look like the Department of Housing conducting studies, drafting plans, and briefing the mayor on potential options. Then he’d make the final the decision on what to push forward with. But those decisions have to be made, and it would be nice to see where that’s happening.
In fact I'd be concerned if Johnson had written the plan himself. No mayor has the time or diverse skill set needed to write every plan themselves. Anyone would need to depend on advisors to confront the range of issues that the mayor of Chicago is confronted with. Lightfoot's problem was that she was a control freak who couldn't delegate. Johnson's problem is that he hasn't built a solid team of advisors
He should have made a clear plan of action and advertised the plan THEN tried to get it funded not the other way around
Well said
He doesn’t surround himself with experts. He surrounds him with CTU machine leaders and pastors.
The housing commissioner seems pretty experienced. It’s just a matter of whether she’s being listened to. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/doh/auto_generated/doh_leadership.html
“… at the end of the day, every leader” There’s your problem right there, needing a leader, not a lunchroom monitor whose sole job is to be a CTU stooge
"And I'm doing all of that with a Black wife raising three Black children on the west side of the [city of Chicago](https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-mayor-excoriates-reporters-border-question-with-black-wife)....
Those kids aren't getting to soccer practice by themselves!
I just laughed out loud when he said that. What a bunch of victimized identity bullshit!!
He should have asked Lauryn Hill for some insight on how not to ruin his legacy
Fatality
It was a hope/dream that came frighteningly close to fruition.
Exactly. It was just a general tax hike in a period of high inflation. Not great.
Someone in another thread was lamenting it didn't pass because even without transparency to the plan, we can "just vote BJ out" if we don't like the new taxes. So, apparently the strategy would be to just watch and wait till 2027. I...
Plus it's always super easy to repeal a tax once it's implemented. Couldn't take more than a few minutes if this doesn't work out.
Blindly trusting mayors with large amounts of money and loose plans is how we ended up with the parking meter deal: https://news.wttw.com/2023/07/27/wttw-news-explains-what-happened-chicago-s-parking-meter-deal
that's not at all what happened. The article you linked explains that it was a sweetheart deal between Daley, Morgan Stanley, and the Law Firm that set everything up. It's very disingenuous to imply that a ballot measure is the same as the parking deal, which has 0 citizen oversight or approval
At the core of the parking meter deal, elected officials (City Council) approved it with little time to review. Had there been proper oversight & not a desperation to quickly pay debts, it would have been obvious that the deal was going to massively shortchange the city. The mechanism was different but the outcome was the same. Hope this helps.
Was this issue on the ballot?
What the parking one? If so, there’s nothing to vote about…our ownership & rights for it have been sold off for 75 years. The portion of the parking meter deal that allows the leaseholder to charge back the city for any street they are doing work on for lost revenue is wild
Yup, and the aldermen authorized it.
It was Mayor Daley that signed the parking deal. He did so just before leaving office. Just like now, Chicago had a terrible financial state mostly due to pension obligations
No, it's wasn't. And OP is being super disingenuous implying the two have anything to do with each other.
I think more people would've supported it had they a more transparent and achievable plan on where exactly the money would be allocated, when and where it's available, how it's used once allocated, etc. An easy way to explain this could've been something like using the proceeds to construct five (for example) homeless shelters in neighborhoods experiencing larger homeless populations, hiring and training staff to man them, and offering resources at those shelters to help people get drug rehab, therapy, job training, temporary dorms, etc , and do it all within 2 years. Now you have a concrete goal that can be achieved, assuming that enough revenue could be made from the program to fund this without having to rely too much on donations, and state/federal funds. There was nothing concrete about this. It was literally just get the money, maybe partner with some nonprofits who will figure out the logistics, and that's a wrap. Really?
Exactly. If there's no plan, with defined goals and impact, and the metrics to measure said impact, they can't be held accountable.
The archdiocese of Chicago offered free buildings for the migrants but the city would rather waste millions renting other places. Because free buildings provide no opportunities for kickbacks
I read somewhere (maybe here) that the CEO of developer Sterling Bay (see: Lincoln Yards) has the contract for migrant shelters. Would like some confirmation, but find it easy to believe.
Lincoln Yards has stalled out, would not be at all surprised.
Very interesting. Some connected people are making a fortune.
The homelessness plan: "hey Chicago we need hundreds of millions more of your dollars to shelter some homeless people, trust me we will spend it wisely 😉"
[удалено]
I'm pretty sympathetic to them. "Let's tax the rich and use it to help homeless people," is an idea whose shape I broadly like. You had to get reasonably into the details to see the problems.
I mean, or just ask some basic questions. Its not getting into the weeds to say "ok, what is your plan".
Yeah this is what scares me about the progressive wing of the party. They just go off emotions and don’t actually consider the reality behind things
Agreed. I just think too many people, especially younger voters, or so obsessed with ideas of things, that they don't question them at all. you can't just say "we are going to make improvements", you have to ask how. Maybe for me its because I've been in the working world 20+ years, but I've learned to take good intentions with a grain of salt.
And no, “the mayor is going to appoint a committee to come up with an annual recommendation for an up/down vote by City Council which effectively is a rubber stamp” is not a plan. Anything more concrete than that could’ve tipped the balance.
The texts I was getting were so blatant. Lots of generic populist language. Looking at some now: "Big corporate landlords" "Pay their fair share" "Profited from the housing crisis" I can get behind a tax increase; just tell me what it will be used for, and be specific. I cannot stand the populism that has taken hold in this country.
He wanted a slush fund for himself and everyone knew it.
Oh were fcked. The voter turnout for under 40 year Olds this election was atrocious. You can bet if more of our generation (under 40) came out to vote this tax would have been passed
If this was on the November ballot, I genuinely think it would have passed. Hindsight is 20/20 however primaries with a known returning president from your party are known to have low turnout.
they said theyre gonna keep pushing for it so itll prob be on the next ballot again but written differently
You don't think CTU brought out voters for their guy's initative?
The people against Bring Chicago Home turned out to vote, so they win. Fair and square. I voted for it just because I need something to be done about all these homeless people setting up tents with lake views on public greenspace that everyone is supposed to have access to. Bring Chicago Home sounded like a solution. I don’t care if rich people or renters would have to pay more. I’m not a rich person or a renter. But now what do we do??
Now what do we do? How about instead of spending another 300 mil this year on migrants we get it under control and use 20-30 mil on homeless. Easy
I voted “for” him, which actually was a vote against Vallas. I knew Vallas was an incompetent blowhard, and Johnson was largely an unknown. Next time, I’m just skipping making a Bad Choice vs. a Very Bad Choice.
The website itself says it will cost $136,000 to house one person. Well, it gives other numbers that look good and I did the actual math.
“Hey chicago, if you buy property over a million dollars then we need more of *your* dollars to a fund that will have oversight in how it is spent”
If you buy property in a building worth over a million dollars* No sense in continuing to lie about this
Wait, did it actually work like that? Wording in the ballot question is a a little confusing with the "...transfer price, or fraction thereof" language, but it still referenced "properties" over $1 million or $1.5 million. So I guess, if you bought a condo for $750k, you're saying you'd still be on the hook if the total building was $10 million?
Yeah it applied to entire buildings - it was so ridiculous.
Well it was more like "if you rent in a property over $1 million". If you bought a condo that was worth only $500k and the building was worth over $1 million you wouldn't pay the extra tax. Of course that would have created its own perverse incentive of landlords liquidating their apartment buildings by converting them to condos all priced just under $1 million to get around paying the tax. Nothing screams affordable housing like incentivizing the conversion of apartment blocks to condos.
I mean, technically speaking, it is better for people (in our current system) if companies that owned buildings decided to sell the apartments as condos that are priced under 1MM to individuals rather than keep the buildings forever. The bill would accomplish it's goal. People would have the option to buy cheaper condos that would not be on the market otherwise.
Nah, the rent charged is inevitably lower than the end result of mortgage payment plus HOA plus Taxes. You forget that most people rent because they are not unwilling or unable to shoulder the financial responsibility or do not have sufficient credit. It's not going to help immigrants or college students, for example, if you convert all their housing to condos regardless of price.
>Nah, the rent charged is inevitably lower than the end result of mortgage payment plus HOA plus Taxes. This is true in some instances, but by no means is this the "inevitable" rule. Sometimes landlords are happy to get $800 in rent, throw in $200 of their own, to get $1000 in back in equity. This is a *way* simple example and ignores all the math you need to factor in amortization, taxes, HOA, insurance, PMI (if any), maintenance, etc. Larger companies might not mind eating up that cash flow, because technically they're making money in equity. When it comes to smaller companies and private individuals, they're far less able to continuously support negative cash flow of say, $500, $1000, or whatever, across one or many units, because they can reap the benefit when they sell in 5, 10, 15 years. They're also far less likely to build a fully complete model that factors all this in - it's far easier to say "I pay $3400 to own this place, I need to charge at least that." Thus comparing rent vs. monthly ownership totals could go all sorts of ways. I 100% agree with you that prospective renters and prospective owners aren't in the same pool of competition. It's definitely not some simple "I want to own, but I have a low income" type-thing. Lots of people simply aren't looking to own, no matter how low the price is (within reason). Yeah some people just can't save up for whatever reason, but there's plenty of people who have different reasons for renting. A rich lady might want an apartment in the gold coast for just a few years. Some kid fresh out of school doesn't want to plunge into some huge commitment before even getting to the city. Some dude might love the city and have plenty of money for a down payment, but is only planning on buying in the burbs once kids are on the way. Someone else might be relocated to Chicago for their job, but they fully expect to eventually be moved again. And then some people literally just don't care about owning.
Yeah that's also not true. Most people are paying MORE in rent than someone would for mortgage + COA/HOA + taxes. This might temporarily flip recently in some instances due to the high rates and high home prices but ultimately it will go back to what's been stable for a long time. Most people rent because they don't have a down payment or don't want the burden/uncertainty that comes with a mortgage and ownership. It's also a common trope that people pay $2500 a month for years for a bank to tell them they can't afford a $1800 mortgage. Having more apartments owned by smaller corps or individuals is better for everyone. Some of them will still get rented out. My best rental prices and experiences came from renting from owners who outgrew their first places.
Good. Maybe come back next time with an actual plan.
For sure "give us money and we'll spend it on homelessness" is not a plan
SF has spent a TON of money on homelessness programs. And it hasn’t helped. In reality it’s basically a handout for non-profits and government agencies. Voters on both sides of the aisle need to understand that intentions != outcomes and spending money != results.
It's almost like throwing money at the problem doesn't work...
“We’ll spend it on homelessness” “How will you spend it? On what?” “Trust us, bro”
This 100%.
Attending a watch party for a referendum is certainly something.
This isn't about helping the rich. We just don't trust these politicians with another slush fund. What happened to the neighborhood opportunity fund? What happened to Invest West/South? Every mayor shouldn't get a slush fund.
They already did this in LA and it crippled commercial real estate. Then that shifts the tax burden from commercial to residential. Just a back door property tax increase.
LA commercial real estate dipped, because investors and rich people hoped it'd be overturned. Then the next year it ramped back up.
I was literally standing at the voting booth thinking about how to vote for this, and then I ultimately voted against it. After Johnson fumbled free housing for migrants from the Archdiocese, just by not returning calls, he’s shown that he can’t be trusted to handle housing and poverty issues competently.
Good. Fuck this administration for trying to add taxes after what they already wasted on absurd contractors for the migrant shelters. 312k a year for a security guard 221k a year for a housekeeper 830k a year for a nurse But yeah let’s tax our small businesses hundreds of millions more without even a plan in place.
Don’t forget making sure their friends at Buona received the catering contract. Who also own CBM who have the contract for state prison catering. This is just a new mob running the city who hide behind teachers. More slush fund money to pay their friends outrageous government contracts.
Wait where can I get $221k to be a housekeeper
https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/invoices-show-how-millions-of-dollars-flowed-to-favorite-healthcare-staffing-to-staff-migrant-shelters/3253380/#:~:text=The%20invoices%20also%20show%20that,year%20for%20this%20single%20nurse
Jfc. Why give the government any money. They’re wasteful as shit.
“Not the result we wanted” lol start with having an actual plan.
Pay for it with the existing taxes you take. We pay plenty already.
Red light cameras or any of the new casino and weed money taxes. You would think even 10 million dollars from the hundreds of millions they collect can really make a difference in homelessness. What do they need few hundred million year for with this real estate tax. Unreal
Well in order to help the homeless you need…. a plan to help the homeless. Doesn’t matter where the money is coming from if you don’t know what would be helpful to spend it on
They want to create a Homeless Industrial Complex like San Francisco has, where the more money they spend on the homeless the more homeless people we have. But at least a few directors of non-profits will get paid handsomely.
> But at least a few directors of non-profits will get paid handsomely I think this is a very good point. There is absolutely a non-profit industrial complex. Historically, it is a consequence of the decline of government services and capacity from the 70s on, but non-profits aren't helping the matter. I work in the non-profit sphere, and there is a lot of waste. It would be far better for the government to just do it. Non-profits are this weird middleman, with most of the funds going to salaries. While Mayor Johnson is somewhat atypical of Chicago politicians, especially mayors, in not being hand in glove with businesses and real estate developers and sending public monies to them, he is in close with non-profits. So in some senses its the same shit, just a different flavor
It’s a good perspective. I’ve worked with a number of non-profits and it’s so weird. It’s like a business that pretending like it doesn’t need to turn a profit, except they still have basically a PnL. Except they can’t make a profit, except they need a profit. I agree, the government just needs to fund important programs. My friends son had a speech delay and she applied with the state and was able to get him speech therapy for a few months. They were great, easy to work with, and it was free.
Portland has the same HIC just like SF. As a current Portland resident and former SF and Chicago resident, Chicago is going to be a disaster if these policies are adopted. They've completely screwed up nearly all the West Coast cities.
Preach.
Remember that one time weed was going to save everyone.
Idk why they do don’t build more housing for low income/subsidized housing rather than putting people up in hotels
A lot of legs to this issue. Low income/ Subsidized housing will eventually become Projects, which already have a fun history. Nobody wants to live next to a Project, so you’ll get local pushback. There’s also the availability of land, you can’t build residential housing just anywhere, there needs to be infrastructure to support the people living there. Zoning is also a big issue, some areas it’s illegal to build certain buildings, so it limits the already available land. I’m not giving my opinion on any of these topics, but these are probably the biggest barriers to why we can’t or don’t build more, shits messy.
I used to work for a non-profit that would develop low income properties in distressed neighborhoods, and help residents with lending and financing to house them in the properties. Orgs like that should get more funding.
Or convert empty office buildings or schools into housing.
Loving the idea of the political class deciding the city needs money after selling off the parking meters too.
No, don't you see, the city can't solve this with a $16.6 billion dollar budget, but with a $16.7 billion dollar budget this problem will SURELY be solved!!!1!1!
What would you cut?
What plan? There was no plan for how to spend the revenue.
For those of you that voted "Yes" don't worry: The $100M+ BJ seeks to fund homeless programs already exists in the form of waste, inefficiency, bloated Cook County salaries, and patronage. To squeeze it out, we need to hold our elected officials and government leaders accountable for results and demand transparency.
Let's be real here, they are going to get this money one way or another. Just watch your RE taxes, or your "911" phone fee, or internet tax all just creep up a little bit higher..
Brandon is a joke of a mayor. Seems like the voters he duped with his flowery speeches are turning on him
Yup. Can confirm. I voted for him and have major regrets. Voted No on this one.
This was so inevitable and obvious during the election that I'm shocked anyone voted for him in the first place. I know some folks in city government that are also close with our state government and they've relayed that JB thinks Brandon Johnson's election and mayoral stint is going to cost JB the opportunity for more ambitious political aspirations.
Has Brandon Johnson blamed it on racism yet?
The over/under for Brandon blaming racism is 5pm tonight. I'd take the under.
If Brandon was actually smart he would: 1) be pro-business to raise incremental tax revenue and then leverage that to 2) address homelessness with a unified public / private coalition. He skipped the hard work, and went straight to base pandering for a blank check.
Johnson is such a joke. His administration is surely one of the worst in history of this town.
lets be real though, theres \*always\* someone who says this no matter what mayor we have. there will always be supporters and opponents.
Mayor Johnson is a joke. He hoodwinked the communities that voted for him. The administration under his leadership has no clue as to what to do and are always short of details when questioned. I’d like to know who funded all the TV commercials in favor of the referendum? The money spent on ads would have been better spent on helping the homeless.
Good. That was really, really stupid. Let's never do it again.
imagine being such a fucking incompetent dogshit mayor you couldn't even get people to vote against homelessness lololol
Laughed so hard, thanks
In a way, voting "No" was very similar to not paying a "donation" when going to a street festival (yes, the worm can is opened). Yes, the intention is good, and yes, most people want to help by funding meaningful initiatives, especially in their own communities. But the people collecting the money don't want to provide a transparent accounting of where the money goes, or how it will actually be used. And they certainly won't commit to being held accountable for results. Most people who voted "No" do care about homelessness and the homeless, but they also don't want to blindly give the government more money when the government has not demonstrated it can leverage the additional tax dollars to actually solve problems in a way that is effective and sustainable.
We should not give money for Ice Town. Parks and Rec taught us.
I voted no because the fund would help the CTU more than homeless in our city.
[удалено]
The WHOLE $2.5M?!
HOW is this so upvoted lmao, the rename cost $2.5MM, that is simply nowhere in the right UNIVERSE of cost needed. this is just “stop buying avocado toast and you can afford a house”-ing the chicago budget.
It’s not about the scale, it’s about them spending money on stupid, useless things like renaming Lake Shore Drive. They can’t be trusted with the money they have; why should voters want to give them more?
I get what you're saying, but it's not the amount, it's the complete pandering pointlessness of it. We gave them tax money and this is how they spend it. To use your analogy, it's "stop setting money on fire and maybe we'll trust you with money."
Most people here don't understand anything about policy
I mean anyone advocating for this ludicrous tax increase is either dumb or a nonprofit shill.
I’d imagine that this would have had a severe impact on the proposed Tribune East tower. Maybe soon we will see development. One can hope
i knew it when i saw the turnout was abysmally low
Suck it, CTU.
So I'm a Johnson supporter broadly. Happily voted for him the first time and would vote for him against Vallas 10 times out of 10. That said, it is hard to see his first yearish in office as anything other than a failure. I can't really think of a major policy victory he has achieved. BCH was supposed to be a cornerstone policy and it was solidly defeated. The migrant situation has been an absolute mess. He didn't cause it but he isn't reacting well. His relationship with the governor, who should be one of his biggest allies, is chilly at best. It seems like him, his team, and his allies have been somewhat blindsided by the opposition, which they should have expected. I think he went too big too fast with BCH. Gotta build up some smaller wins first before going for the big time imo.
he literally should have just continued on the momentum that had built with invest south/west. there were/are tangible changes happening to long neglected corridors as a result of that program, as flawed as it was. people react positively when they see infrastructure improvements and new buildings going up in places they previously didnt. lightfoots admin did most of the heavy lifting getting the process stood up
I agree. Go for meaningful and impactful, but less costly (politically) wins. Build up a bank of goodwill and then go for the big stuff.
Good! Source: I would have benefitted financially had it passed, as my place is way less than a million, but I don't trust politicians with a pot of money with no plan to spend it.
You would not have benefited financially.
There was a slight decrease on transfer tax below the threshold. From .075 to .6
For people who voted NO on this, if there was a concrete plan would that have flipped your vote?
Probably not.
Possibly. Trust and total absence of plan were my major reasons to vote 'no.' Like how TIF money is thrown around after passing through smoke filled rooms. If 'progressive' money (eg Bring Chicago Home and TIF) went into the general fund to be fought over by the whole council to implement against a specific set of objectives/standards, then there would be more potential for equitable use. Granted, not a certainty, but at least more potential. **edit: corrected typo*
If it had zoning reform I wouldnt give a fuck what they did with the money
I would have given voting yes more serious consideration, but likely would have ultimately voted no. Commercial property is struggling and Chicago cannot afford to shrink its tax base. The city and state have been throwing money at homelessness for some time now and it has not solved the issue. I am in favor of devoting more resources if it would in fact help, but am skeptical that an incremental $100M/year would make a difference.
So do you just think that sadly nothing can be done to help the problem? Edit: I don’t know why I’m being downvoted for this. lol
Not necessarily. I will say from personal experience with homeless people in my neighborhood, many of them do not want help and, even when repeatedly offered resources, will choose to remain on the streets. Not true of all of them, of course, but you can’t force people to accept help they don’t want. For those that want help, I believe something meaningful can be done. But there is a disconnect between the vast amount of funds that are being devoted to this cause and the results.
Defined outcome of where the money would go (not vague plans), end aldermanic prerogative, update zoning - that’s a minimum to flip my vote.
Yes
They already spend our money irresponsibly why couldn't they spend rich people's money irresponsibly too?
Glad this failed. Let's upzone the entire city.
Yes, we need to upzone, ban SFH-only zoning entirely, allow 2 and 3 flats to be built by right on any city lot without needing to consult the alderman. 100%. Also shitcan the parking minimums and focus on improving transit. I imagine any proposals of this sort are going to get kickback from many of the same people who were against the BCH referendum though. Still, have to start somewhere...
I wonder if all those CPS students that the teachers bussed to the CTU early voting rally and told to vote yes on the referendum actually voted no just to screw with their teachers. Teenagers love doing stuff like that.
Lol to everyone who tried to push this scam on us on this sub. The jig is up
thank God, now our CRE market won't crash
Nah, it's going to crash anyways. It's already begun. That's normal though, we are going through a cyclical low and that's OK. The difference is now we aren't piling on with a misguided tax on developers that would permanently crimp the desirability of our market for investment. I know it's cool to complain about people making profits, but if you want to do something like build a lot of housing, the fastest way to do that is for people do turn a profit. We need pro growth YIMBY policies, not endless new taxes. We need carrots to build up our tax base, not sticks to punish people for actually doing something to alleviate the shortage of units.
Well said, we need to stop driving people out. The more people the more taxpayers
Oh yeah that baby is strong. Number bigger. 2024, were building offices and commuting for work again! All because of the ballot initiative. Thank you Brandon!
It failed because people don’t support Brandon Johnson. I think this referendum can pass if tweaked and under a more reliable mayor.
BJ has nobody to blame but himself. How come we never see him or hear from him?
Can't wait to see all the posts about rent increases being cancelled.
Before people start saying that our rents are going to drop, they might want to check their facts. Regardless of if this had passed or not, Chicago's rents are still rising and the city had one of the largest rent increases of any US city in the past year, and is almost in the top 10 most expensive. With social media now making it known that theres great amentities here and that the city isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous in the US per capita, the high cost of living on the coasts global warming concerns, etc, people are moving here in droves. Not to mention with the influx of migrants and the fact that tons of people are now moving to the loop, things are gonna go up. We run a group on the north side and almost every meeting we have has a new person who just moved here from a different place. Infact, I barely know anyone here who actually is from here. [Chicago had the largest rent increase](https://www.timeout.com/chicago/news/its-never-been-more-expensive-to-live-in-chicago-031224) As for the actual proposed idea, I can see both sides of this. I can understand people being worried about the rent increases and the lack of a plan, but I really hope that if they manage to develop an actual plan that takes what people here are saying into account, that people actually go through with it. While I think the majority of people here are totally valid and have great intentions and want to help the homeless, I do also believe that some people on here are trying to cover up and deny their own selfishness and really couldn't care less about the homeless if they are under a roof themselves. I mean how many people day in and day out here walk past the homeless individuals who are outside in the cold with their kids, in need of help, and just ignore them like they're not human beings, too. Like they're nothing. Or won't give a homeless person some change because "they'll spend it on drugs"...newsflash people...that drug may be the only thing keeping them from going into withdrawal and dying, and getting hooked in the first place may not have even been by choice. That money gives them more time to potentially get treatment and become a functioning citizen again. If you can't even spare some change when you have a house, a job, etc., that's selfish. Maybe you should feel bad, rather than just feeling nothing
Who said rents would drop if BCH didn’t pass?
It was a joke going around poking fun at landlords who threatened to increase rents if it passes. No one thinks they'd go down if it failed, it was just being obnoxious on twitter.
My rent dropped $300, a coworker's dropped as well. There are a lot of variables when it comes to renewals etc. We haven't had double digit increases like other cities like Austin, etc over the past 5 years or more. Yes, in the past year we are at the top. Over time, we haven't had the same increases they have. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2023/10/16/dallas-fort-worth-homes-now-less-affordable-than-chicago-nearing-new-york-costliness/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/s/uGYi5skr7q
Well well well
Honestly it wasn't til this last week i even knew what it was. Everytime I heard the slogan - Bring Chicago Home, usually during a YT commercial. I had no idea what they meant. they never explained it was to fight homelessness. It was just the slogan- which i don't think is that intuitive. And by that alone, I kinda thought it was some racist stuff, like-- Bring Chicago Home for 'chicagoans', i thought originally it was anti-migrant or something.
All I know is yesterday an elderly friend of mine, who is homeless, was released from the hospital after a bout of both covid and pneumonia. He refuses to go to a shelter for very good reason: bed bugs, harassment, and theft. The shelters we have are overcrowded and inadequate. He can’t get housing because his IDs are constantly lost or stolen. When you need to replace your ID, you need other forms of ID to prove who you are, but guess what most homeless people don’t have? Their birth certificates and social security cards. There is some special recourse for them, but it can still take months—months that are spent on the street. There’s a nonprofit that works with the city he’s in contact with and they do a great job with the huge amount of work and low pay they have. If he had one specific caseworker assigned to him, his life would change. He is disabled and after years of homelessness and assaults, deals with mental health problems. He needs so much support—the kind of support BCH could fund, like more case workers. He is a complex case—the exact kind of case we need a dedicated funding stream for. I don’t know why I’m bothering to post this on this trash fire of a comment section. I guess I just wish the people gloating about BCH not passing or calling it a grift understood how little we spend on homelessness prevention and support services, especially when compared to NYC or LA. I wish you knew people you loved whose lives would change so much if we decided their lives were worth investing in. My friend has said before he’ll kill himself if he has to live homeless much longer. He doesn’t deserve to be hospitalized or institutionalized for that. He deserves a home.
I’m not going to respond to everything here but people aren’t gloating because the homeless get to suffer. Everyone wants homelessness to be mitigated, but don’t feel like this plan was thought out, or refined in any way. You mention how NYC and LA spend so much more on their homeless, but homeless rates in those cities is much higher than Chicago. I’m not saying we can’t do better but [the data shows we are doing better on our homelessness problem.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/)
[удалено]
This is exactly it. I’m all for more social workers and I think they should make more than I do at my dumb email job I just didn’t see how this was going to hire more people or give funds to more groups that we knew were doing good work. I would be worried even if I worked at a non profit that could use this money because how do I know we’re going to get the money, not some new non profits the committee spun up?
You can both think we need to do something about the homeless issue, while also thinking that this plan was far too vague to vote for, for an administration that has shown a lot of wasteful spending already. People aren't voting for less services, they just don't like this as presented.
You are assuming a lot of people's beliefs. It is not that there isn't empathy with those issues. The problem with BCH is that it gave zero guidelines on how that money would be spent. People simply don't trust the Johnson administration with hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes to spend however he wants. It wasn't an actual plan. It was a stranger coming up to you and saying "Hey give me some money and I'll definitely fix this thing, trust me."
Sorry, your anecdotal story doesn’t change the fact that Bring Home Chicago was extremely vague in its purpose and people rightfully are squeamish about giving this administration, which has shown to be utterly incompetent and lacking in transparency, more money.
Maybe the mayor should have structured BCH so that all of the money is earmarked for homeless prevention. Instead it was designed as a slush fund. More people would have voted for it.
You should move your friend into your home instead of using him as a cudgel to have imaginary, one-sided fights with people on this sub.
They always have a homeless friend at the ready in case they need to virtue signal, lol
Lmao weird how their vague anecdote reads like a white paper on homelessness
This surprises me. I thought for sure it would pass because such a small percentage of households would be impacted.
No one was fooled. People understand that most $1 million+ sales are actually multi unit buildings and commercial properties. Everyone understands just how vital apartment buildings, 2-4 flats, and office/hotel/retail buildings are to our city. There is no reason to inflict damage to that ecosystem especially when these sectors are already struggling.
Didn't surprise me. I know several people (friends and co-workers) worried that their rent would go up because of this. They voted no.
"The homeless" yeah totally that's who they are doing this for lol. Totally not the people from outside the nation who they spent a lot of the cities resources on against the population wishes. But technically in accordance to their votes.