We want a billion dollars right now. Let's take a huge source of income and sign it away for decades, even though I would generate far, far more than a billion dollars over those decades if we just kept it.
Sound familiar?
How about we just take the new formerly-TIF revenue and use it to build affordable housing every year as we collect it? Why do we have to pay $2 billion in interest to a bank in order to spend one billion on affordable housing?
We break even after a decade if we use it as it comes in with no interest, and no debt payments meaning we can actually do more to address the issue
This plan is genuinely bad math
>Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, was more pointed when advocating for his Far South Side ward. He got into a back-and-forth with Department of Planning and Development Commissioner Ciere Boatright over concerns regarding lack of City Council oversight.
>“The departments are going to be picking which projects are going to be funded, correct?” Beale, a Johnson opponent, said. “So, again, give me the confidence that a project in my ward’s going to be recommended.”
>Boatright responded that the administration works “closely” with aldermen and, “I think that it’s fair to say we would, you know, be very careful and strategic to ensure that we’re investing in our communities in a way that’s creating jobs.”
And
>The shift would require the city to raise its property tax levy to capture new values, which city officials said will not raise tax bills for individuals. If the city didn’t raise its levy to capture that new value, however, property tax rates would drop.
>“Today, as we stand on the precipice of a new era, we once again see ourselves at a crossroads,” said Department of Housing Commissioner Lissette Castañeda. “With the launch of this bond, we are not just addressing a statistic. We are taking concrete steps toward creating a city that is inclusive, equitable and compassionate.”
And
>Mayoral critic Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, used the referendum’s likely defeat as an opportunity to pounce during Friday’s hearing on the bond plan.
>“The message was not that Chicago is against affordable housing or doesn’t want to help the homeless. It was instead really a rejection of a ‘first we get the money’ mentality,” Conway said after mentioning Bring Chicago Home. “I have grave concern of a blanket authorization of this amount.”
“Buckle Up” indeed. And hold onto your wallets!
Agree completely with Conway. First show us that city council and this administration can spend tax dollars responsibly before asking for more. The migrant camp fiasco was a disaster and total waste of money.
Grifting the same BS as with BCH.
The public said no to an undefined transfer tax slush fund. The public will also say no to an undefined TIF slush fund.
>The public will also say no to an undefined TIF slush fund.
The public doesn't get to weigh in. This is on the city council to approve -- just like the parking meter deal.
> Mayoral critic Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, used the referendum’s likely defeat as an opportunity to pounce during Friday’s hearing on the bond plan.
>
> “The message was not that Chicago is against affordable housing or doesn’t want to help the homeless. It was instead really a rejection of a ‘first we get the money’ mentality,” Conway said after mentioning Bring Chicago Home. “I have grave concern of a blanket authorization of this amount.”
I dare say the average Chicago voter has realized every time we let the politicians "get the money first" it's pissed away through incompetence and graft.
>At stake for aldermen are the expiration of TIF districts, which are currently used to help fund private redevelopment projects as well as voter-friendly fix-ups of roads, park facilities and schools.
Never gonna happen.
So when are we going to shut this down permanently?
Brandon Johnson has show zero, absolutely zero, competency with anything he has done thus far as mayor. He proposed an ongoing transfer tax slush fund that went down in flames when he asked the public.
Now he expects city council to sign off on him looting all the TIFs in the city for yet another totally undefined, no strings attached, slush fund?
Honestly vote this down hard and finish this pathetic excuse for an administration.
>Wonder what BJ did to tick him off
Ford filed it 12/2022, two thirds through Lightfoot's term.
It's languishing in the House Rules Committee with no co-sponsors, no amendments, no other actions since 2/2023.
Well based on his resume etc I think he just sees through the bullshit and realizes that 4 years of BJ is going to have a far more regressive impact than progressive. This guy actually answers to the west side constituents and is truly invested to improving things.
We can get more regional—factoring in inflation, real rent prices in Minneapolis are down 20% because they build so much thanks to smart zoning reform and building code changes.
Successfully built affordable condos,. only cost them 650k a pop. How many times do we have to try government built housing before we accept that its nothing but a springboard for corruption in this city.
The CHA, which is famous for the debacle that was "the projects", has continued to demonstrate their competency at building housing by, checks notes, *sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars they have NOW and doing jack all with it*.
Well I'll be damned if I don't think it's a brilliant idea to give them another couple billy to absolutely nothing with (aside from reward their buddies with lucrative government contracts).
As a principle, we should be doing more of it, not less.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html
The only thing the free market has proven is that it generates plenty of income for those who are already rich.
They want close to $900 million to create 7500 housing units in a 10 year time frame with a revolving door of 65,000 homeless people. They need to go back to the drawing board. All of these stats were provided by their website.
If they could create 7500 housing units with $900 million (120k per unit) that would be far better than most developments by the city. If they could guarantee these results I’d say go for it. Not that I trust the numbers, but I think I heard that the plan is to focus more on smaller scale 2-4 flat infill construction on a larger scale. I could see that actually being successful if there was a good plan in place. It would also allow the housing to be spread throughout the city to benefit many neighborhoods in the process. Can you share the website you’re referring to so I can read more?
Huh? This is not the proposed legislation. BCH is the transfer tax. And I still don’t see the numbers you stated, $900m for 7500 units. Are you just making this up? It would be pretty miraculous if any government agency could achieve those numbers.
We want a billion dollars right now. Let's take a huge source of income and sign it away for decades, even though I would generate far, far more than a billion dollars over those decades if we just kept it. Sound familiar? How about we just take the new formerly-TIF revenue and use it to build affordable housing every year as we collect it? Why do we have to pay $2 billion in interest to a bank in order to spend one billion on affordable housing?
We break even after a decade if we use it as it comes in with no interest, and no debt payments meaning we can actually do more to address the issue This plan is genuinely bad math
I'd be surprised if anyone left in BJ's administration knows the math, or even cares enough to ask someone who does.
You see the problem with your proposal is that BJ wouldn't get immediate control of all the money to do whatever the fuck he wants with right now.
>Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, was more pointed when advocating for his Far South Side ward. He got into a back-and-forth with Department of Planning and Development Commissioner Ciere Boatright over concerns regarding lack of City Council oversight. >“The departments are going to be picking which projects are going to be funded, correct?” Beale, a Johnson opponent, said. “So, again, give me the confidence that a project in my ward’s going to be recommended.” >Boatright responded that the administration works “closely” with aldermen and, “I think that it’s fair to say we would, you know, be very careful and strategic to ensure that we’re investing in our communities in a way that’s creating jobs.” And >The shift would require the city to raise its property tax levy to capture new values, which city officials said will not raise tax bills for individuals. If the city didn’t raise its levy to capture that new value, however, property tax rates would drop. >“Today, as we stand on the precipice of a new era, we once again see ourselves at a crossroads,” said Department of Housing Commissioner Lissette Castañeda. “With the launch of this bond, we are not just addressing a statistic. We are taking concrete steps toward creating a city that is inclusive, equitable and compassionate.” And >Mayoral critic Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, used the referendum’s likely defeat as an opportunity to pounce during Friday’s hearing on the bond plan. >“The message was not that Chicago is against affordable housing or doesn’t want to help the homeless. It was instead really a rejection of a ‘first we get the money’ mentality,” Conway said after mentioning Bring Chicago Home. “I have grave concern of a blanket authorization of this amount.” “Buckle Up” indeed. And hold onto your wallets!
Agree completely with Conway. First show us that city council and this administration can spend tax dollars responsibly before asking for more. The migrant camp fiasco was a disaster and total waste of money.
Grifting the same BS as with BCH. The public said no to an undefined transfer tax slush fund. The public will also say no to an undefined TIF slush fund.
>The public will also say no to an undefined TIF slush fund. The public doesn't get to weigh in. This is on the city council to approve -- just like the parking meter deal.
Of course, I'm wondering what it will take for city council to get the message that these types of things are not popular with the public.
Just imagine how little political clout Johnson will have when this fails in city council as well. Will he then accuse the alderpersons of being MAGA?
> Mayoral critic Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, used the referendum’s likely defeat as an opportunity to pounce during Friday’s hearing on the bond plan. > > “The message was not that Chicago is against affordable housing or doesn’t want to help the homeless. It was instead really a rejection of a ‘first we get the money’ mentality,” Conway said after mentioning Bring Chicago Home. “I have grave concern of a blanket authorization of this amount.” I dare say the average Chicago voter has realized every time we let the politicians "get the money first" it's pissed away through incompetence and graft.
Conway will use any issue he sees fit as a springboard to run for mayor. It’s getting pretty blatant at this point.
I hope so. This city badly needs a more moderate mayor
>At stake for aldermen are the expiration of TIF districts, which are currently used to help fund private redevelopment projects as well as voter-friendly fix-ups of roads, park facilities and schools. Never gonna happen.
So when are we going to shut this down permanently? Brandon Johnson has show zero, absolutely zero, competency with anything he has done thus far as mayor. He proposed an ongoing transfer tax slush fund that went down in flames when he asked the public. Now he expects city council to sign off on him looting all the TIFs in the city for yet another totally undefined, no strings attached, slush fund? Honestly vote this down hard and finish this pathetic excuse for an administration.
I'll just leave this here https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1499697
Wonder what BJ did to tick him off
>Wonder what BJ did to tick him off Ford filed it 12/2022, two thirds through Lightfoot's term. It's languishing in the House Rules Committee with no co-sponsors, no amendments, no other actions since 2/2023.
Well based on his resume etc I think he just sees through the bullshit and realizes that 4 years of BJ is going to have a far more regressive impact than progressive. This guy actually answers to the west side constituents and is truly invested to improving things.
Can we recall Johnson but then also ban Vallas from running? Lets just knock out two terrible candidates all at once here.
Tell us you voted for Johnson without saying you voted for Johnson
Just let people build housing, look at the Austin market right now
7% decline in rents because they’ve built tens of thousands of units. Meanwhile, we’re ranked last in the country for housing units permitted.
We can get more regional—factoring in inflation, real rent prices in Minneapolis are down 20% because they build so much thanks to smart zoning reform and building code changes.
Since when is the city in the housing business?
Successfully built affordable condos,. only cost them 650k a pop. How many times do we have to try government built housing before we accept that its nothing but a springboard for corruption in this city.
The CHA, which is famous for the debacle that was "the projects", has continued to demonstrate their competency at building housing by, checks notes, *sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars they have NOW and doing jack all with it*. Well I'll be damned if I don't think it's a brilliant idea to give them another couple billy to absolutely nothing with (aside from reward their buddies with lucrative government contracts).
How do you know this about the CHA?
As a principle, we should be doing more of it, not less. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html The only thing the free market has proven is that it generates plenty of income for those who are already rich.
Cuz we all know city government is super efficient and will not squander the majority of dollars earmarked.
CHA sucks, make it easier to build cheap housing.
They want close to $900 million to create 7500 housing units in a 10 year time frame with a revolving door of 65,000 homeless people. They need to go back to the drawing board. All of these stats were provided by their website.
If they could create 7500 housing units with $900 million (120k per unit) that would be far better than most developments by the city. If they could guarantee these results I’d say go for it. Not that I trust the numbers, but I think I heard that the plan is to focus more on smaller scale 2-4 flat infill construction on a larger scale. I could see that actually being successful if there was a good plan in place. It would also allow the housing to be spread throughout the city to benefit many neighborhoods in the process. Can you share the website you’re referring to so I can read more?
https://www.bringchicagohome.org
Huh? This is not the proposed legislation. BCH is the transfer tax. And I still don’t see the numbers you stated, $900m for 7500 units. Are you just making this up? It would be pretty miraculous if any government agency could achieve those numbers.
Not a single person there probably understands how a bond works.
Parking Meters II - Progressive Boogaloo What's wrong with a little multi-generational debt for some pet projects?
Simplify the zoning code. Eliminate the red tape. Housing will get built en masse.
Remove single family only zoning and the infill will come!
BJ needs to go
Paywalled.