23 Comments - Jaded - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:06 pm: If I remember correctly, Majority Leader Currie showed up in the Governor’s office because SHE is the lead negotiator on that issue. So I would say the question is mute, although the Speaker may want to vote present if his clients oppose the bill. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:08 pm: moot - Jaded - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:09 pm: Yea, moot. - Sponge! - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:12 pm: moooooot - Mr. W.T. Rush - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:14 pm: Pass that dumber than a box of rox to the BGA’s Jay Stewart. He notes the 7% bill will produce higher taxes and more appeals. No bill means even higher taxes and even more appeals Dah! - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:36 pm: This is Blagojevich just proving how much of a child he really is. Does anyone really believe that the Blago puppet from the PTAB really did this on his own. And oh, by the way Houlihan call tthe trip and ask them not to run the story - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:37 pm: Rod is fearing being marginalized by Madigan and is trying every tactic he can muster. Rod does not want to seemadigan pass a budget negotiated sans the gov. - OneManBlog - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:40 pm: Lets say she says yes…. She looks good, Mike gets a little egg on his face and proceeds to open a can of Whoop Rod on various other things. Don’t mess with someones daughter. - Mr. W.T. Rush - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 4:51 pm: Hmmm..Let’s see two hacks (Houlihan & Blaggo) get a state mope/crony to stir up some dirt on an opponents…let’s see what happens in another state…. Spitzer Aides Cited for Use of Police to Tarnish Bruno By DANNY HAKIM and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE ALBANY, July 23 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s aides, including one of his closest advisers, improperly used the State Police to gather information about the governor’s chief rival, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about Mr. Bruno and damage him politically, according to a report on Monday by the attorney general’s office. Spitzer aides, chiefly his communications director, Darren Dopp, concocted a false story for why the information was being gathered, saying the governor’s office acted after receiving a press request seeking details of Mr. Bruno’s use of state aircraft, the report said. Mr. Dopp later made misleading statements about the involvement of the governor’s office in the effort, the report indicates. The report concludes that Mr. Bruno’s use of the helicopters — on trips that included both political and legislative events — was proper. Minutes after the report was made public, Mr. Spitzer announced he was suspending Mr. Dopp indefinitely without pay. He said he was also dismissing his liaison to the State Police, the assistant secretary for public safety, William Howard, and moving him to an unspecified job outside the governor’s office. The report was a blow to Mr. Spitzer, a former prosecutor who came into office less than seven months ago with a reputation for integrity and who promised to bring a new ethical climate to Albany. And fallout from the report may endanger central elements of the agenda that Mr. Spitzer laid out at the beginning of his term. On Monday, some Republican officials signaled their intent to revisit a deal struck with the governor last week to overhaul the state’s campaign finance laws. - silentk - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 5:19 pm: Currie may be the lead negotiator, but as to SB13: 3/1/2007 House Alternate Chief Sponsor Changed to Rep. Michael J. Madigan - A Citizen - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 5:30 pm: The gov and his minions doing his bidding/dirty work are the real conflict of interest. - Bull McCabe - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 5:32 pm: Let’s look at the facts, shall we: The reason property taxes are too high is because Assessor Houlihan ASSESSES THE PROPERTY VALUES TOO HIGH! There is a direct relationship between his assessments and the taxes people pay. THE LOWER THE ASSESSMENT, the LOWER THE TAXES! Studies have been made that, under Houlihan’s proposal, the biggest benefactors will be the affluent homeowners, like Lincoln Park (where Houlihan lives), Winnetka, Kenilworth, Barrington, etc. The ones who will get the least relief live in the Joe Six Pack neighborhoods. Isn’t there a conflict of interest that Assessor Houlihan pulls out all the stops and raises all the money to stack the Cook County Board of Tax Appeals, the Board that reviews his assessments!?! Let’s ask Cook County States Attorney Devine to investigate if this relationship is too cozy (that is before Larry Rogers gets the States Attorney’s job!) And where did the PTAB Executive Director Messina come from? Jim Houlihan’s organization! Give me a break! People in glass houses (where the taxes are low) shouldn’t throw stones. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 5:52 pm: Lisa Madigan herself has a conflict of interest in responding to the July 3rd letter and she’s aware of that which is probalby why she hasn’t responded. She cannot rule on any legal issue involving her father. HELLOO…………. The letter itself can open up a can of worms on the conflict that Ms. Madigan and Mr. Madigan have in the Illinois Legislature. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 5:59 pm: “and one outside civic watchdog, Better Government Assn. Executive Director Jay Stewart, said the request for a legal opinion “is nothing out of left field. . . . It’s fair for (Ms. Madigan) to look at it.” One would think that Mr. Jay Stewart, BGA, would give a more ethical response and not merely a political one to savor political relationships with Attorney General Madigan. One would think that Mr. Stewart would have outlined the conflict of interest that Attorney General Madigan has in legal matter involving her father. If the BGA is truly a government watchdog, I don’t want it watching Illinois gov’t. - anon1 - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 6:01 pm: Bull - what an appropriate name considering your info is wrong. The affluent communities don’t get more relief they get less. If yu understood the issue, you’d know that. This argument that this bill is a “rich man’s” bill is, well, bull. Let’s say you live in lincoln park and your tax bill is $30,000 and you get $5,000 in relief due to houlihan’s bill. A nice chunk of change but relative to the total bill not much. Whereas, if you live on the southside and get $1000 relief on a $2000 bill - that’s a better deal. Sure, the guy up north gets more dollar savings but the guy on the southside gets more relief. so saying that houlihans bill helps the rich, isn’t true. That’s why churches from throughout west and south Chicago had their members send 100s of postcards to madigan asking him to support houlihans’ plan. I think the ministers know what’s going on in their community a little better than madigan. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 6:10 pm: Here’s the thing that bothers me the most about the PTAB letter. This is a citizen legislature. Should farmer legislators be prevented from participating in discussions about agricultural property tax rates? Heck no. That’s what a citizens legislature is all about. You bring your experience from everyday life into the General Assembly. Also, there are zero laws that I’m aware of that prohibts such an activity. For PTAB to request a ruling from the AG when no statutes exist is beyond ludicrous and smacks of a political pimp-job. And the BGA is just acting like goo-goos normally do when a reporter calls and asks about “ethics.” They always get hot and heavy. I think I’ll send the BGA an email about my farmer example and see what they say. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 6:29 pm: We have been through this one before. Higher assessed valuations result in higher tax rate only when the taxing bodies want more money. That the Cook County AV system is out of whack can be seen by the continuing rise in the State Multiplier which is supposed to equalize tax effort around the State. The high multiplier tells us that residential property is already being assessed at less that rate required by Cook County ordinance. In fact even after PTAB Cook County residential property has higher effective property tax bills than the collar counties. Higher multipliers result in higher taxable valuations on all property. Once again, higher valuations should result in lower tax rates, unless the taxing bodies want more money. The taxing bodies want more money to pay higehr salaries. The higher salaries are used to make contributions to the elected officials as well as to buy many tickets to political fund raisers. Double dipping has the same effect. It also adds to the shakedown of commercial property owners, who don’t have the benefit of PTAB. The PTAB has been a warping mechanism ever since it was originally established to ward off threats voter dissension with the Cook County machine. Every three years the Cook County wants to rebirth Rosemary’s baby. - South of I-80 - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 6:32 pm: Sorry guys, there is NO conflict!! An appeal can be filed for three reasons: 1)Contention of law (assessed contray to State Law) 2)Market Value (assessed higher than the property’s true market value) 3)Uniformity (over valued compared to similar type property) YOU CAN NOT FILE A COMPLAINT ON THE AMOUNT OF TAXES YOU PAY OR THE AMOUNT OF TAXES OTHERS PAY COMPARED TO YOUR TAXES!! SB13 and SB101, pertain to the amount of exemptions an individual is may be eligable to receive. The exemptions have nothing to do with the value of an individuals property, but the circumstances of the owner, household income, age, primary residence, etc. The so called 7% solution is an exemption, nothing more nothing less. This from the “Close Cover Before Striking School of Law”! - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 7:35 pm: Actually I think Rich Miller’s response is pretty well thouht out. Why are we suprised at anything Blago and Houlihan do. Pass the hairspray and scotch. - OneMan - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 9:00 pm: mmmmmm Scotch - dk57 - Tuesday, Jul 24, 07 @ 9:17 pm: Bull Larry Rogers? - Truthful James - Wednesday, Jul 25, 07 @ 8:05 am: The whole appeals process is based on hiring someone well known to the assessor and the boards above them. It was designed in Cook County for that purpose. In the old days, and I have direct experience of an offer, the only other out was the ‘plain envelope put in the Reviewer’s top left hand drawer’ never touching his hand. Now, if you know the right attorney and pay him 30% of the first year’s savings, you will likely get a a neat reduction from the Board of Review. BTW, ay one point people went to jail. The whole purpose of the State PTAB was to get it out of the County’s hands. Granted it was only useful for the large taxpayers, but the PTAB did order multi year reductions and refunds. The problem was that the refunds came out of the current collections of the taxing bodies, beggaring them. Granted that the taxing body had received the distributions and noyice that there were appeals pending. In most cases the taxing body did not put the money in reserve but spent it. The temptation was too great. The Assessor paid no penalty for the overassessments. The only way out is going to prove to be a reassessment of all peroperties in all counties to 100% of estimated market value and a freeze until the property is improved or sold. The purchaser will have foreknowledge of what his taxes can truly be expected to be and adjust his purchase price accordingly. We now have in Illinois a belt and suspenders method of tax extensions. Throw out the tax rate ceilings and keep the levy limits, incrasing at no more than a fixed percentage (say 2.5%) plus the cost of new state mandates, plus the increases approved at referendum. We will get transparency, an implicit limit on people on fixed income, expenditure control, and above all — clarity. Think of the money to be saved from the reduction in the bureaucracy. - Bull McCabe - Wednesday, Jul 25, 07 @ 10:19 am: To Anon1: You say I don’t understand how it works, but I have to question your understanding of the issue, as well as your math. A $5000 reduction on a $30,000 property tax bill equals a 17% reduction in taxes. Applying the same percentage to “Joe Six Pack”, his $2000 tax bill reduced by 17% is $340 not $1000. Under the Houlihan package, the southside property owner would not see a greater percentage reduction than the Lincoln Park owner. So how do you reach your conclusion that they receive a 50% reduction? What would you rather have, a $5000 reduction or a $340 reduction in your taxes? Yeah, I thought so. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.