Bad news vs. happy TV talk
Friday, Sep 21, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Residents of Cook County have been getting a major taste lately of what us Statehouse types have been dealing with all year. First, it was the CTA/RTA fight that featured hot-dogging by the governor, intransigence by Mayor Daley, intense battles between the two legislative chamber leaders and partisan gridlock. Now it’s the property tax assessment cap…
Now, Cook County homeowners may be the ones caught in the middle of the intensifying political feud between Gov. Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan.
The Democratic governor used his veto pen Thursday to rewrite Cook County property-tax relief legislation, radically reworking plans by Madigan (D-Chicago) to phase out property tax assessment caps in three years. […]
But the move and likely House rejection of it leave in question whether any property tax relief will come from Springfield this year and whether the flow of taxes to school districts and local governments could be disrupted.
Less than an hour after the governor took action, the House appeared poised to block Blagojevich’s move amid questions the governor may have overstepped his legal authority in changing the intent of legislation that passed the General Assembly overwhelmingly.
* And…
Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, however, supports the changes, a signal that his chamber will likely approve them.
If the two chambers split, the bill will die altogether, leaving no tax relief whatsoever for Cook County residents.
Oy.
* As usual, the TV news led with the happy stuff, which only serves to get everybody’s hopes up…
Homeowners in Cook County could be in line for some property tax relief. Governor Rod Blagojevich’s plan would give individual homeowners a break, and cost big business big bucks.
* And…
There’s good news for homeowners in Cook County who could be getting some property tax relief. Governor Rod Blagojevich announced he’s making a current property tax cap permanent.
* The Tribune did a good job of looking at the impact of what is really at stake…
In taking action, the governor stood in front of a bungalow in Lincoln Square that saw its property value increase 75 percent between 2002 and 2006. But as a result of the 7 percent cap, the house’s tax bills between 2002 and 2005 have increased less than 1 percent, or $27.
Blagojevich pointed out that under the Madigan version the 2006 tax bill due this fall would have increased 4.8 percent, and an additional 22 percent over the following two years.
Under the governor’s version, that house’s taxes will drop 1.8 percent this fall and increase 9 percent over the next two years.
Business groups, say the 7 percent legislation has gone far beyond its original intent of acting as a shock absorber against rapid assessment increases and instead has unfairly shifted burden away from homeowners who are benefiting from rising values.
* By the way, yesterday’s veto also imperils a wind farm assessment proposal.
* Meanwhile, the Tribune editorial board pierces the governor’s spin on mass transit today…
Gov. Rod Blagojevich rode up on his white horse last week with a $91 million loan to postpone mass transit cuts and a promise to work hard to solve the funding crisis before that loan was spent. Since he also repeated his promise to veto a very good bill already on the table, you might be tempted to assume he had a germ of a reasonable alternative up his sleeve.
Dream on. […]
Blagojevich says the $200 million will “buy some time,” but what it would really do is buy more trouble. […]
If Blagojevich or Jones has an actual idea to fix the transit system, let’s hear it. If not, they should get out of the way.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 9:45 am:
The Tribune banging Blagojevich — what a shocker!
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:05 am:
This is not just between business and homeowners. It’s also among homeowners. In particular, the Houlihan/Blagojevich plan subsidizes homeowners whose property has dramatically increased in value on the backs of those whose property has not. Basically - reverse Robin Hood. Homeowners in Harvey get screwed so homeowners in Kenilworth can get a tax break. Houlihan originally sold his plan 3 years ago as “temporary” until a permanent solution could be devised. Now, his “permanent” solution is more reverse Robin Hood. He’s a fraud.
- anon - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:13 am:
Here’s what I don’t understand about this issue:
If property values are increasing so much, why aren’t the tax rates being lowered so the overall tax bill is essentially the same rather than turn to Springfield for an artificial cap on home values.
- MOON - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:23 am:
Every study done by any responsible party shows the primary beneficiaries of the ” 7% solution ” pushed by Houlihan are those in the more affluent areas such as the north shore, lincoln park (where Houlihan resides ), etc. Why doesn’t Houlihan quit all the gimmicks and posturing and do his job the way he is suppose to. If real estate taxes are to high than Houlihan should be pointing a finger at the taxing bodies that just spend, spend, spend. The reason he fails to lay the blame where it belongs is his fear of Daley and other high placed officials responsible for the high taxes. Houlihan is gutless; he has been a total failure in his job ( a job he was handed and not earned)
- Independent - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:23 am:
Because then local governments would not see rising revenues from property taxes. The cap is not meant as a revenue-neutral solution. It simply shifts the burden to owners of commercial properties and homeowners in areas that are not experiencing rapid appreciation.
- zatoichi - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:47 am:
If the value of my house has gone from $200,000 to $400,000, why shouldn’t my taxes also double? Does this make for unaffordable homes for long term owners who paid the mortgage off years ago? Yes and that is the problem. Do you grandfather them through or let them cash out and move elsewhere? My mom’s house has doubled in value in the last 5 years. She has only lived there 50 years. If she sells, where does she buy that is affordable if all the prices have gone up. Where I grew up, homes are selling for $250,000-$300,000. My parents bought their home for $19,000 years ago. These are a far cry from the Kenilworth mansions. Economically you cannot be giddy from getting “rich” from value increases (or flipping for profit) and then get mad because the taxes go up with the increased value. The stuff those taxes pay for also go up in price/value/cost and you need more taxes to cover the same items from 5 years ago. You can only use the “Big Business Should Pay More” rationale so many times. “Big Business” (and small business) just raises prices to cover inceased costs or moves away taking salaries with them. Either way costs go up or become unaffordable.
- Gus Frerotte's Clipboard - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:55 am:
The Tribune knocks the Governor for trashing the Hamos bill without an alternative. In fairness, though, the Governor did propose an alternative: closing corporate loopholes. The Trib’s response would be that that proposal is probably DOA in the House, which is surely true. But it does seem that when the House proposes something that the Governor objects to, that’s seen as leadership, and when the Governor proposes something the House objects to, that’s seen as not having a plan.
I definitely respect the work Rep. Hamos has done to put together what seems like a very fair bill, and the Tribune could appropriately say that it prefers her plan to the Governor’s (as many people surely do). But it’s not quite right to say that she has a plan and the Governor doesn’t. They may not like his “actual idea,” but it’s misleading to deny that he has one.
- Fan of the Game - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:56 am:
When those who have their taxes capped sell their homes, will they cap the capital gains on the sale or send the surplus to those who footed the bill for their lower taxes?
- In the Know - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:57 am:
This is an increased tax break for the rich. The 40,000 in possible exemption amount equals 250,000 in market value. (40K assessed value divided by 16% level of assessment for Cook County).
How many homes in Cook County have a total market value of 250,000 or less? What Blago and Houly are saying is that the rich folk should get a tax break equal to the value of many homes in Cook County. So much for looking out for the little guy.
- Gene Parmesan - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 11:22 am:
Remember, in 2006 when Rod’s home was reassessed, the average increase in his neighborhood was 36% whereas he only received a 1% increase. Nice to be tight with the Assessor.
https://capitolfax.com/2006/10/03/truth-please/
- plutocrat03 - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 11:35 am:
Does not make sense to apply the property tax differently to Cook County than in anywhere else in the state.
Develop a new formula if needed, but it does not make sense to tax Cook County at a lower assesed value and then spread the burden for things like mass transit among the collar counties, and education over the entire state.
Voters by local initiative may be able to change their respect tive tax rates, but the taxable assessed value should be calculated the same way. All residential values should be treated uniformly as should commercial properties within their cohorts.
Chicago’s efective tax rate 1.1% (2000, data from State of Illinois) ranks 521 out of 533 reporting communities. Bloomingdale which ranks in the middle in 283rd position comes in a an effective rate of 1.9% That would produce 72% more revenue for the schools, parks and CTA.
These figure do not support any sppecial ‘need’ the Chicago taxpayer has for tax relief which is superior to anyone else’s
A moment of silence to the intrepid residents of Park Forest living in Rich Township whose effective propery tax rate is 3.19% a whopping 2.9 times what our Chicaago residents pay.
- unbiased - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 11:54 am:
Gene,
If his reassesment only went up 1%, doesn’t that mean that the 7% “cap” will force him to pay more on his tax bill? Maybe he should re-think his vetoe
- The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 12:07 pm:
As I was listening to the newscast, what stuck out to me was his testament this CAP was comparable to biblical proportions.
- ANON - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 12:14 pm:
According the testimony at hearing, the 7 percent bill created a huge shift in school aid from downstate to Cook County.
- Gene Parmesan - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 12:42 pm:
unbiased- yeah, Rod will pay more because of 7%, but he is still paying less than he would have if he had received the same assessment increases as the rest of the neighborhood.
- FED UP - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 1:05 pm:
Blago governs by soundbites. His plans will cost the state many many millions in the future but he doesnt care he will be gone.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 1:06 pm:
Just heard a radio clip, Blago: “This is a move of Biblical Proportions”. So now he’s back to claiming Divine guidance. He keeps invoking the Higher Power, rocks are liable to fall on his head, or lightning will strike!!!!!
- Up North - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 1:29 pm:
I’m not a Blago fan, but good for the governor on this one. Madigan has held Daley and the city hostage on the property tax issue. The Blago amendatory veto ensures the tax relief will apply over the life of the three-year assessment. Madigan’s would result in a big tax increase in year’s two and three.
- Papa Legba - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 2:54 pm:
“- Anon - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 9:45 am:
The Tribune banging Blagojevich — what a shocker!”
What? Should they praise him for being a complete fraud and screw up?
One doesn’t win awards for being a putz.
- Lula May - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 3:14 pm:
“This is a move of Biblical Proportions”. Rod only does this to get under peoples skin. He takes none of this serious. It’s all a big joke to him. He’s laughing at all of you and especially Madigan.
- Truthful James - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 4:58 pm:
Another thing it does is keep scrutiny off the taxung bodies — especially he home rule units.
Freeze the valuations until sale or improvements, ditch the State Multiplier which is a farce.
When the property is sold it the owner will get less that he thought as the new owner factors the effect of higher property taxes into the price.
Nobody gets foirced out of their house, everybody can estimate early what next year’s tax bill will be based on budget hearings. At that time he has a basis for voting the rascals out.
We should not reward ignorance and sloth. Right now the County officials have got a great deal going. The Treasurer says, don’t blame me I just collect the money, the Clerk says, don’t blame me I just add up the valuations, look at the levy request and set the tax rates. The Assessor says, all I do is screw everybody uniformly and blame the State for the multiplier. The State says, our ratio studies show how egregiously low the valuation ratios are relative to the price of properties recently sold. Ideally your Assessor should reach a valuation for property equal to that in the statute. Instead he is uniformly 280% low — thus a multiplier of 2.80.
The txng body says, blame everybody else, we have to keep givving our employees raises above the rate of inflation. The employee says, I need the money to make campaign contributions.
Hello, suckers.
The State
- Lee - Saturday, Sep 22, 07 @ 10:26 am:
Pluto — Chicagoans pay lower property taxes because we *share* our infrastructure — it doesn’t cost as much per person because of the density. You also make it sound as if Cook County residents are paying property taxes to the state. Illinois doesn’t have a state property tax.