* These Tribune poll results are why it was such a big mistake for Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan to say he’d be open to leasing the tollway system…
Oof.
From the Trib…
Politicians who hope to gain traction with voters by urging that the Illinois Tollway be leased to a private company might want to rethink their strategy.
By overwhelming numbers, Republican and Democratic voters alike oppose privatization of the tollway system and believe it would lead to higher tolls, according to a Tribune/WGN-TV poll.
The statewide poll of likely primary voters, conducted Jan. 16 to 20, shows Democrats opposing privatization 72 percent to 14 percent, with 13 percent undecided. Republicans oppose the idea 65 percent to 16 percent, with 19 percent undecided.
Why? Among Democrats, 71 percent say tolls are certain to increase if the tollway is leased to a private company; 68 percent of Republicans feel the same way.
It’s a no-win idea.
This is what JRyan actually said…
[Ryan] said, if elected, he’d consider leasing the Illinois tollway system to a private operator. And he said that on the same day that rates were increased on parking meters leased by Chicago to a private operator in one of the most politically unpopular deals in recent city history.
“I want to consider and will consider every innovative approach possible to address our budget problems,” said Jim Ryan, (R) candidate for governor.
The former attorney general–who the Tribune poll suggested is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for Illinois governor– says leasing the suburban tollway system to a private operator might be the key to bailing out Illinois from its $13 billion budget hole.
“I’m willing to put everything on the table and take a look at it,” said Ryan.
Tollway users, however, have seen what happened when the Skyway was leased: Rates went up. And everybody has seen what happened to the price of Chicago parking meters when they were leased to a private company.
It could bring in big bucks, but it’s a killer issue. The Tribune didn’t post its crosstabs, so we don’t know how this breaks down by region, but I’d bet that the suburbs don’t love it.
* On another hot button topic, the Rockford Register-Star actually editorialized earlier this week in favor of video gaming for its city…
The revenue generated by these video games is for a specific purpose. It will go to help pay off the bonds for the state’s long-needed and often neglected capital construction plan. Video gaming makes up 25 percent of the revenue to pay those bonds and we’re worried that if revenues fall short, other taxes may be raised.
Video gambling is already going on illegally. The state is legalizing the activity and taking its share.
We believe there are social costs to gambling but also think that government should only go so far to protect us from ourselves. People who are susceptible to addictive behaviors will find an outlet.
It’s time to take advantage of new legal sources of revenue.
Common sense on an editorial page. Who woulda thunk it?
Whatever the case, the editorial appeared to work. The city council refused to opt out last night.
* Right next door in Machesney Park, the village zoning commission voted for strict restrictions on campaign yard signs…
The village’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 Monday to recommend approval of a law that would limit campaign signs to 6 square feet per side in residential areas and 9 square feet per side in all other areas of the village.
Only one political sign per candidate or issue would be allowed on any lot, with the exception of corner lots, which are allowed two signs. […]
Opposing candidates would be restricted from placing signs within 10 feet of each other, and signs would not be allowed to be displayed more than 60 days before an election.
Violators would have their signs removed and could be fined up to $50 per violation.
[Oops. Misread the darned story. But it’s still a goofy idea.] OK, for starters, that one sign limit is just goofy. What if the husband and wife are on different sides of a campaign? I can tell you from my own experience growing up, that happens a lot.
And candidates can’t place signs within 10 feet of each other? Who’s gonna get the fine? Both? So, what if a candidate complies with this rule and puts up a sign, then another candidate violates the rule and places the sign right next to it? This also happens all the time. Which one gets dinged?
Silliness.
* Related…
* Referendum to seek voter input about wind turbines in McLean, Livingston counties: Ballots in White Oak Township in McLean County will carry three referendum questions concerning the White Oak Energy Center. The advisory propositions seek input on whether a moratorium should be issued through Dec. 31, 2013, on issuing special-use permits for new wind turbines near Carlock. A second question asks voters if a requirement that new township road agreements should be finalized before extensions of special-use permits are granted for wind turbines in the township. The third question asks whether measures should be taken to protect the property values of White Oak Township residents before permits are extended.
- corvax - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 10:51 am:
I’m a little sensitive to this sign issue after a run-in with my local municipality during the 2004 senate primary over my Obma lawn sign.
How can these towns even begin to think about restrictions on political speech? the only legitimate concerns i can see are public safety if large signs impair drivers (but then the ordinances should be content-neutral, e.g., just as applicable to the local Realtor(c)(who certainly won’t stand for a time limit in this market!) and not targeted at campaign signs) and litter if the wind blows then away (for which there are already ordinances)
Plus, what’s a “campaign sign”? could I have had an “Impeach war criminal Bush” sign up for only 60 days of an 8-year term? or had to take down a “Dump Blago” (who is less Serbian than i am although I am not Serbian) sign after 2 months?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 10:51 am:
The idea of leasing the tollways is radioactive because, for the last 30 years, underdog office-seekers have tried to make noise by pledging to make them freeways.
Of course, the one thing Downstate Dem and GOPers can agree on is that they don’t want the tollway rolled into IDOT. So it will never happen.
- SweetLou - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 11:00 am:
That Machesney Park law would have to be unconstitutional. It’s a clear violation of political speech. Just absurd.
- frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 11:07 am:
so having wind turbines that generate clean electric and property tax dollars is bad how? give me a break. We don’t need a democratic state run government to keep jobs out of the State, only a bunch of NIMBY’s running around.
- zatoichi - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 11:13 am:
What do people think a lease arrangement does? Is the leaser coming in to do it for free? Of course rates will go up. The lease is simply a cover for ‘I did not raise taxes’. The profits that state could of had simply go to someone else.
So when will the lawsuit come in Machesney Park because Smith’s sign is 9 feet from Jones and Jones claims to have had their sign up first? Let’s see 12 signs will need 120 linear feet. Must be some big lots there.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 11:31 am:
This sounds similar to the yard sign ordinance in my city (Lake Forest). Only one sign per candidate. Restricted to small yard signs only with a height restriction. Must be a certain number of feet from the center of the road, making most sign postings on some residential side streets legal only if they are almost directly in front of your house. Limited to a certain number of days before the election and must be down almost immediately after the election.
Message signs can stay up forever. “Support the Troops. End the War.” is a fixture on some Democratic lawns, although after Obama announced we were staying longer in Iraq and would surge in Afghanistan, many of those signs suddenly came down.
So with my city lot type of front yard, I can put down one sign for each candidate. If 100 candidates are on the ballot, I can annoy our city officials and all the neighbors by putting up 100 signs, one for each of them.
Usually 4 is the maximum for common sense reasons.
- Kyle Boller's Clipboard - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 1:03 pm:
People are clearly against selling or leasing the tollway. They’re also against raising taxes and fees and cutting important services. They’re against the state going bankrupt. They’re probably okay with cutting pensions, unless they’re in a union, in which case they’re against it — and if they’re union, they’re more likely to vote, be involved in the political process, etc.
In other words, if you take each individual strategy that might help solve the state’s budget crisis, people are against all of them. Otherwise we would have done them already and not been in the crisis.
I’m not actively for selling or leasing the tollway in the abstract, but compared to some of the other options, it may start to look awfully appealing come mid-May.
- in the left lane - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 2:11 pm:
If we’re trying to raise general revenue by increasing tolls, why do we need to lease the tollways to a middleman? Can’t the state just raise the tolls itself? Why is everyone so eager to give up control of public infrastructure these days?
- b dogg - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 3:08 pm:
The arguments in the rockford editorial are relevant to the drug war as well. End the drug war!
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 3:32 pm:
The toll roads were intended to collect $$ to pay their own way. Seems fraudulent to change the laws to provide freeways to another group of people.
If the toll roads are proposed good enough for the residents of northern Illinois, then make the other proposed roads toll roads as well.
- Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:02 am:
The elephant in the room that everyone is skirting around is that almost all these privatization deals — the parking garages, the parking meters, the Indiana Toll Road — have been huge giveaways to the lessee. The only one where the public sector got anything like fair market value (considering where the tolls are set) is the Chicago Skyway, and that was a fluke; four bids close to the giveaway rate that was also the city’s estimate, and then Cintra-Macquarie coming in at more than double. And even they will make plenty of money on the deal.
These lease deals are robbing taxpayers, usually for short-term budget balancing. In the case of state-owned assets they additionally rob one part of the state for the benefit of another.
The best solution, in my view, is for the state to no longer fund superhighways but put what resources it has into repairing the basic road network and making it safe; reconstructing, adding shoulders, adding turn lanes and so on. Divided highways should be tolled — without exception — statewide.
- Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:05 am:
And to clarify; the superhighway network should still be state owned. With a tolled network, we’d have to decide whether we want something basic, along the lines of the 2.8 cents a mile I-pass/5.6 cents cash, to keep the superhighways maintained; or if we’d want a higher rate to subsidize other state capital projects, such as the two-lane road network, rail, schools and so on.
- remember the facts - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:06 am:
There was a vote to build the tollway (commonly called the tri state) when the bills were paid for the construction - IT WAS TO BECOME A FREEWAY - this vote was a long time ago - and we still have tollways - why have a referendum that will be ignored