Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » 2010

Tenaska’s Taylorville Energy Center MYTHBUSTERS

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department

[The following is a paid advertisement.]

Part 1, Electric Rates.

Myth: Taylorville will put an “enormous economic burden” on consumers

Fact: The Clean Coal Portfolio Standard caps residential rate increases at 2.015%, or $1.67/month, according to the ICC.

Myth: Taylorville means rate increases now, when we can least afford it

Fact: Between now and 2015, the project will invest billions in Illinois, employ nearly 2,500 construction workers and purchase supplies from all corners of the state. The cost to ratepayers between now and 2015? ZERO. NOTHING. ZILCH.

Myth: Taylorville will dramatically increase electric rates for large business customers

Fact: Big business customers currently pay 40.5% less for electricity than residential and small business consumers. Even under their worst case scenario, large customers would still pay 37.1% less.

Myth: Illinois has plenty of electricity. No new plants are needed.

Fact: As Crain’s and others have reported, environmental regulations are expected to force 25-40% of Illinois coal plants to shut down by 2020. Since Illinois still relies on coal for half of our electricity, less supply and more demand means higher electric rates if cleaner supplies of reliable electricity, like Taylorville, are not built. And who benefits from that?

SAY YES TO TENASKA’S TAYLORVILLE ENERGY CENTER!

Learn the facts. For more information, visit cleancoalillinois.com

Comments Off

Kirk: Somebody else should’ve done what I could’ve done myself, but didn’t

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Oh, for crying out loud…

U.S. Senator-elect Mark Kirk is implying that politics has something to do with his not being seated right away in the Senate. […]

Kirk told Don and Roma he’s upset that state Democratic leaders did not work to make sure he be seated right away after his win over Alexi Giannoulias.

“You know, you would have hoped that Illinois leaders would have gone back to Judge (John F.) Grady that ordered this election, and said ‘now that we’ve had a clear victory, and that my opponent conceded, we can seat the new Senator’,” Kirk said.

In case he didn’t realize it, Mark Kirk is actually an “Illinois leader” himself. Kirk or the Republican Party or pretty much anybody else could’ve asked the judge to allow the state not to count military and other absentee ballots and not to conduct the official statewide canvass.

They didn’t.

And, just to repeat myself here, there is no current vacancy in the US Senate. Roland Burris is the Senator, which is why Kirk cannot be appointed to the seat right now. That vacancy does not occur until the results are certified as legal, per the judge’s orders. Burris could step down, but he has the right to remain in place until the judge’s order is fulfilled.

53 Comments

Question of the day

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Sen. Bill Brady was back at the Statehouse yesterday. He’s staying in the Senate for now…

He said he plans to serve out the remaining two years of his term in the Senate, but is not sure whether he will try to carve a different role out for himself in the chamber.

“There’s a lot of dynamics left to look at,” Brady said.

There are even rumors going around that Brady might be interested in running for governor again.

* The Question: What should Bill Brady do now?

PS: Let’s try not to get too snarky, OK? Thanks.

66 Comments

Catholics increase their pressure against civil unions, death penalty

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The Catholic Conference of Illinois is turning up the heat against the civil unions bill, and urged action by its adherents this week…

Please call your state representative and state senator next Monday, Nov. 15 or Tuesday, Nov. 16 and ask him or her to vote NO on Senate Bill 1716. We expect a vote next week! Senate Bill 1716 enacts civil unions and grants those in civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Under this bill the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the name. Your message is simple: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.

It’s not completely clear what that “significant impact on the Church’s social service missions” means. Washington, DC’s archdiocese originally threatened to close homeless shelters and end various social service programs if the city enacted a gay marriage ordinance. Instead, they simply transferred a foster care program to another group and stopped paying for new employee spousal health insurance.

Fran Eaton has her own translation…

Forcing the Catholic Church to consider civil unions in its qualifications for adoption and other family-oriented ministries would force state policy onto religious doctrine, a possible First Amendment infringement.

* Robert Gilligan, the executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, penned a recent op-ed that provides some clues…

The November 12, 2010 editorial “Time for Civil Unions” stated that civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage. You should have read the legislation more carefully because they are the same.

The bill describes a “party to a civil union” as the legal equivalent of a “spouse” under Illinois law. The bill then states that a “party to a civil union” is entitled to the same legal obligations, protections and benefits as are afforded by the law to a spouse. Proponents of civil unions know lawmakers do not have the political will to pass same sex marriage in Illinois, so they have created the pseudonym of civil unions in order to get the same benefits of marriage by calling it something else.

The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life. More attention needs to be directed at how this legislation presents a clash with established principles of religious liberty. Real concerns remain about how this bill could require faith-based employers to grant benefits to same sex civil partners and how it would impact social service agencies by mandating placement of foster or adopted children with same sex civil partners. Do not be fooled. Civil unions are same sex marriage and there are real problems with this legislation for religious entities.

So, it appears that the Catholics may no longer be in the foster child, adoption game if this passes.

* Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael Madigan not only claimed that the civil unions bill has a good chance of passage, he also appeared to endorse it…

“There’s a good chance it’ll pass,” he said. “. . . It’s an appropriate thing to do.”

* Sen. James Meeks is probably hoping the bill never arrives in the Senate. He’s a social conservative and has opposed the idea in the past. He wouldn’t tell Chicago Tonight what he would do if he does have to vote, but said as Chicago’s mayor he would have a duty to uphold all the laws. Have a look…

* The Catholic Conference is also urging abolition of the state’s death penalty. From its website…

Legislation to abolish the death penalty in Illinois may be considered during the fall veto session in Springfield (November 16-18 and November 29-December 2). The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI) supports this legislation. The use of the death penalty when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without parole, weakens the respect for all human life. Now is the time to end the death penalty in Illinois. Here are a few things you can do to take action.

1) Call your legislators.

Please call your state representative and state senator and ask him or her to vote YES on legislation to abolish the death penalty. Tell your legislators that:

“The death penalty is not necessary when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without the possibility of parole. Please support legislation to abolish the death penalty.”

You can go to the Illinois State Board of Elections to look up your elected officials or call our office at (312) 368-1066 or (217) 528-9200.

2) Participate in the November 29 Lobby Day.

You can also participate in the “People of Faith Lobby Day” in Springfield on November 29. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is providing transportation (for a fee, lunch included) from Chicago and Glen Ellyn. Go to ICADP or contact CCI at (312) 368-1066 for more information.

3) Promote educational efforts on Catholic Social Teaching & the abolition of the death penalty.

* Related…

* Meeks swipes the cone!

* VIDEO: In their own words

* Exposé Hits Hard At Death Penalty System: Since 2000, she learned, $100 million in taxpayer money has been spent via the Capital Litigation Trust Fund. That honey pot was meant to ensure defense counsel in capital cases, especially in places where public defender offices aren’t staffed adequately and must enlist private lawyers. But prosecutors made sure that the fund would also pay for their often-ample nonsalary expenses, including those for investigators, not just for private defense counsel and the nonsalary expenses of public defenders.

* VIDEO: Scott Turow — End the Death Penalty

* VIDEO: Rob Warden — End the Death Penalty

* VIDEO: Karen Yarbrough — End the Death Penalty

46 Comments

Bean concedes

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* As you most likely know by now, Congresswoman Melissa Bean has conceded to Republican Joe Walsh. Bean lost by just under 300 votes. She didn’t do nearly well enough when absentees and provisionals were counted yesterday…

In McHenry County, Walsh picked up 17 votes to Bean’s 12 votes Tuesday.

In Cook County, Walsh received 59 votes Tuesday to Bean’s 105 votes, Cook County Clerk spokeswoman Courtney Greve said.

As of 5:37 p.m., the Lake County Clerk’s website said Walsh had received 459 votes and Bean received 474.

With the counts from Tuesday added in, Walsh stood at 98,115 to Bean’s 97,825.

* Walsh won despite being massively outspent…

Over the course of the race, Bean out-fundraised Walsh $1.9 million to $465,000.

* A big reason for his lack of funding was that the state and national GOP refused to help Walsh…

“Everybody would admit that it was a race that wasn’t on anybody’s radar,” said Illinois Republican Party chairman Pat Brady. “We made a mistake.”

The other issues included a campaign manager who quit and then sued Walsh for $20,000 in nonpayment and two more staffers who quit and accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public.

Unlike other Republicans who won districts held by Democrats on Nov. 2, Walsh didn’t receive an invitation to the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Gun” programs.

They didn’t think he could win because of his long history of personal problems. And those problems meant they didn’t really want to help him win.

* Illinois now has 11 Republican members of Congress out of 19 total. They haven’t had a majority since 2004, and I’m not sure when they’ve ever had this many members here.

28 Comments

Joe Ricketts thought he had a sure thing

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Joe Ricketts talked earlier this year about why he forked out all that money to buy the Chicago Cubs. Check it out…

The most interesting part of the video was Ricketts’ description of a conversation he had five years ago with his son, Tom, who is now the Cubs chairman.

“Why would I want to buy a baseball team?” Ricketts said he asked his son.

“They sell every ticket, every game, win or lose,” Tom replied.

“Now you’re talking about a business,” the elder Ricketts said. “Now you’ve got my interest.”

Cub fans have changed a bit since that fateful conversation. Attendance is down the last two years, even though it’s still abnormally high for such an awful team. Fan dissatisfaction appeared to grow this year with every horrific loss. They have a ton of overpaid, underperforming players and they can’t find the right managerial mix.

“If you take my money, and you start this business, you buy this baseball team, you have to come over and run it because I don’t want to be exposed to risk,” Ricketts told his son Tom. Well, the risk has injected itself anyway.

* Reading a Tribune story this morning about the proposed Wrigley Field renovation plan gave me an idea…

Ricketts said the more than $200 million in proposed ballpark renovations and another $200 million the family would commit to redevelopment surrounding the historic ballpark would create 1,000 construction jobs and hundreds more permanent jobs in the next five years.

Here’s the layout of the proposal. Click the pic for a larger image. Notice the “Triangle Building” to the west and “Cubs Alley” between the triangle and the park…

The Triangle Building will include parking, concessions, shopping, dining and Cub offices. It may also include a hotel. Cubs Alley will have a retractable roof and will feature shops, restaurants, etc…

The Ricketts see that development as a way to make more money. Understandable. But they can apparently afford to spend $200 million. So, how about they just put their cash into the stadium and find private investments for the ancillary stuff like the Triangle Building and Cubs Alley? There’d be no need for a government bailout and the park would be remodeled.

* Anyway, back to the Statehouse, where things got a bit confusing yesterday…

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D- Chicago) told reporters in Springfield on Tuesday afternoon that the team’s owners, the Ricketts family, withdrew their proposal to finance a $200 million stadium renovation with a state bond sale that would be repaid with the anticipated growth in the 12 percent amusement tax levied on tickets sold at Wrigley.

But a Ricketts family spokesman denied the family had scrapped the amusement-tax plan. […]

Later in the day, after Madigan’s comment, his spokesman, Steve Brown, seemed to leave the door open to more deliberations, but he did not elaborate on the state of negotiations.

“Mr. Ricketts has called the speaker … and the speaker has reiterated that he is prepared to try and be helpful,” Brown said.

When even the Speaker is confused, things aren’t going well.

…Adding… Joe Ricketts penned an op-ed for Politico this week…

The voters sent a clear message to stop reckless spending. Yet the earmarking system that perpetuates the power of incumbency, fosters a culture of dependency on the government, and produced the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and influence-peddling scandals that sent many to prison, still exists. Washington keeps borrowing and spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.

I suppose what Mr. Ricketts ought to explain is how government borrowing that allows him to build a big shopping mall and parking garage next to his ball park is something we really need, unlike those federal earmarks.

* Jon Greenberg at ESPN also took a look at the elder Ricketts’ ironic fight against federal earmarks…

“An earmark is something that’s appended onto a federal bill which is never debated, never discussed, just thrown in,” [Tom Ricketts] said. “The fact is, what it does is it jeopardizes the integrity of the federal budgeting process. You can tell by the people in the room today this isn’t a private process we’re going through. We’re trying to be as open as possible. This is a decision that will be made by elected officials and the people in this room.”

No this project isn’t an earmark, per se, but it’s close. If you bend the meaning a bit, you can see how some people would see that above statement as an exercise in semantics and this plan as hypocrisy.

After all, who would benefit the most by the Cubs getting a new park? The owners, of course. This isn’t a nonprofit. While Ricketts has claimed he wants the team and the park to stay family-owned for a century, a new Wrigley Field would increase the team’s value significantly. Astronomically, even.

According to [Taxpayers Against Earmarks, the group funded by Joe Ricketts], the point of railing against earmarks isn’t really the way they’re put together, it’s that they’re tailored to benefit the people who are sponsoring them. Sound about right?

Here’s what it says on the website: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”

Now, you can see the similarities.

Yes, we can.

61 Comments

Madigan: No tax hike mandate

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* When your own Democratic House Speaker says you don’t have a mandate for a tax hike, then you don’t have a mandate for a tax hike…

“I just didn’t consider the result of the election to be a mandate for a tax increase. I didn’t see it that way,” Madigan said.

Well, that’s it then.

* Madigan also reiterated his desire to move a tax hike bill when he has Republican votes…

The speaker, who leads a 70-member contingent in the House, said he would not muscle through a tax increase for Quinn using only Democratic votes: “That’s not my plan.”

When asked why not, given that he controls a majority large enough to provide the 60 votes needed to pass a tax increase in early January, Madigan said, “You know, that word ‘control’ is one usually abused by media people, severely abused by media people.

“You can walk out there,” he said, gesturing toward the House floor, “and ask those people . . . whether they’re under control, and I think they’d say no.”

They might say “no,” but they’re still a bunch of pretty controlled ducklings. Madigan could probably pass a tax hike if he really wanted to. It wouldn’t be easy. A lot of his members are opposed to or frightened of raising taxes. But most know that they’re going to have to do it sooner or later. Might as well do it now in a lame duck session and get it over with. It would be better than waiting a year when the bond firms might start demanding it and a remap election is just around the corner.

More…

Madigan said paring down that deficit could take “three to five years” and will “require an increase in revenue and a reduction in spending. It’s going to have to be a balanced approach.

“Hopefully, now that we’re beyond the election, the Republicans in the Legislature will join and work with the Democrats to craft an intelligent solution,” Madigan said.

Barring a massive and unprecedented economic recovery, he’s most likely right about the timeline. But you can’t dig yourself out of the hole until you pick up a shovel.

* Madigan also offered up some advice for Gov. Pat Quinn…

“I would think that he’s going to learn from his experience,” Madigan said of Quinn. “I would think he would.”

Reporters asked Madigan what Quinn needs to learn.

“Be like me,” Madigan responded. “Learn day by day. Try and make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today.”

Asked about any advice for the governor, who has been accused by critics of not being able to close the deal on major issues, Madigan was even shorter.

“Stay focused. Stay focused,” Madigan said.

A flat learning curve and lack of focus are two of Quinn’s greatest problems.

* Roundup…

* Pantagraph: Quinn needs to make a break with Blago past

* Simon, White talk teamwork with leaders

* Mayors Plead For Pension Reform From Lawmakers

* Mayors want help with police, fire pensions

* 2-tiered pensions proposed for police, firefighters

* Daley calls on General Assembly to change police, firefighter pension plans

* Politicians helped bring Chicago’s public pension funds to the brink of insolvency

* Mayors of Cities Targeted for Casinos Run Hot, Cold, Lukewarm on Proposal

* Gambling expansion plan hits snag

* Gambling bill would allow East Peoria casino to move

* Slots at the track: Will it save horse racing in Illinois?

* Illinois pondering returning smoking to casinos

* Health-care reform creates opportunities for Illinois, officials say

* Death penalty foes press Illinois lawmakers to act

* The signpost up ahead: Redistricting

* Farnham files another funding fix bill

* U-46 seeks 2nd bite at funding change

* Schools Ask Lawmakers For Driver’s Ed Wiggle Room

70 Comments

Morning Shorts

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Illinois motorists urged to prepare for winter

* 3 Illinois counties sue FEMA over flood mapping

* Midnight deadline for FEMA flood applications

* Ameren: The price you pay for electricity, gas is going up

* Bean concedes; Walsh wins seat by 291 votes

* Bean concedes; Walsh wins 8th District

* Rep. Bean concedes 8th Congressional District race

* Blagojevich retrial stalls (again) ethics committee inquiry into Jesse Jackson Jr.

* FDIC issues report on Broadway Bank closure

* Aldermen to vote on Mayor Daley’s 2011 budget

* City Council to vote on Daley’s last budget

* Cook County to pay $55 million to inmates at county jail

* Taxpayers on the hook for strip searches

* Daley names interim CPS chief

* Philanthropist chosen as interim chief of Chicago schools

* Daley names interim head for Chicago schools

* Sun-Times: Mazany a good pick for interim CPS chief

* Testy Stroger defends transition efforts

* Stroger ally says Preckwinkle should ’shut up’

* CTA board could lose pay: Daley names new school chief; Metra deal?

* Tribune: A dog with teeth

* Lengthy jail term sought for Jon Burge

* Feds want Burge to serve at least 24 years

* Rosenthal: WGN-AM changes weekend lineup

* Batavia mayor: city ‘on the upswing’

* A few bright spots dot Palatine’s bleak 2011 budget

* SD159 looking to trim $2.7 million budget deficit

* Naperville residents protest police layoffs

* Ottawa closing in on creating port district

* Tribune: U of Ay-Yi-Yi

* Peoria council endorses natural gas tax

* Woodford passes $6.6 million budget

* McLean Co. Board approves $76M budget

* Clinton mayor submits his resignation

* EIU president says layoffs, furloughs unlikely

* Sangamon County GOP holds off on on mayor pick

* More cuts in store for city, mayor says

* Four candidates seek three trustee seats in Chatham

* 6 sites bid to host FutureGen’s carbon storage

* Fairview council backs term limits; mayor plans veto

2 Comments

What the ICC Report on Tenaska-Taylorville Said

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department

[The following is a paid advertisement.]

“After careful review of the FCR, the Commission concludes that the TEC facility features high costs to ratepayers with uncertain future benefits, and uncertainties that potentially add to already-significant costs.” – ICC Report, September 2010

Other Key Findings:

• “The cost associated with electricity generated by the TEC is substantially higher than that which is associated with other types of generation facilities.” – Page 2
The cost of wholesale electricity from TEC is 400-700% higher than current market prices.

• “…above market costs of energy produced from the TEC and potential cost overruns could stifle the competitive market and create significant economic impacts.” – Page 3

• “‘the true cost of the clean-coal portion of the plant is masked by the fact that approximately 46% of the electrical capacity is actually from natural gas’ and the clean-coal portion of the Taylorville facility is ‘approximately $10,641 per kilowatt’” - Page 18

• The report identifies serious “open issues” that should be addressed before the project proceeds.

These include…

• A disproportionate risk borne by consumers for cost overruns.

• Lack of technical clarity and cost estimates for carbon sequestration.

• Constantly changing plant design and configuration.

• The plant’s true “clean coal” electricity generating capacity.

For more information, visit www.stopcoalition.com

Comments Off

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

This just in… Cubs say they’re moving forward

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* 2:03 pm - House Speaker Michael Madigan just told reporters that it was his understanding that the Cubs have withdrawn their stadium proposal.

No word yet on whether we’ll see a new plan.

* 4:00 pm - From the Cubs: “Nothing has changed and we are hard at work.”

53 Comments

Davis is hardly a “consensus” candidate - Meeks’ mouth - Emanuel leads in new poll

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Mark Brown is his usual astute self…

Noticeably absent from all three [weekend mayoral candidate announcements] were other elected officials. […]

While their hesitancy could prove a factor in all the campaigns, it was particularly noticeable for Davis, selected as the “consensus candidate'’ of a group that had hoped to winnow the field to avoid splitting the black vote.

Ald. Ed Smith (28th), who isn’t seeking re-election, was the only member of the City Council to stand with the veteran congressman, a further indication of a lack of true consensus among the group that had initially narrowed its endorsement to two finalists — former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Board of Review Commissioner Larry Rogers Jr. — only to pull the rug out from under them and throw its support to Davis.

Davis needed a large turnout of elected officials from both the South Side and West Side to give a clear indication of widespread support and remove any confusion. His backers said that will come later, but they lost a chance to get off to a big start.

I still don’t understand the Danny Davis choice unless I look at it as yet another in the endless skirmishes between the oldtimers and the up and comers. The oldtimers have won almost every one of those battles. Obama is the exception, not the rule. And even he lost to Bobby Rush, remember.

* Although Rev. Sen. James Meeks’ habitual use of racial epithets probably didn’t do him much good…

On “Chicago Tonight,” State Sen. Meeks said for the first time that he regrets his repeated use of the N-word to describe African-American allies of Mayor Daley.

“Sure, I regret it,” Meeks said. “I don’t regret being passionate about the subject of education. And for those who would accuse me of using the N-word, I would just want to find any speech they’ve made about education, period.”

Yeah, that makes sense. Sheesh. A refresher…

* Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union commissioned a poll of likely Chicago voters Nov. 8 through 14 with a +/-3.7 percent margin of error. Rahm Emanuel has a big lead…

36 Rahm Emanuel
14 Rep. Danny Davis
13 Moseley Braun
10 Attorney Gery Chico
7 State Sen. James Meeks
4 City Clerk Miguel Del Valle

Among African-Americans…

29 Emanuel
22 Davis
18 Moseley Braun
14 Meeks
2 Chico
1 Del Valle
14 undecided.

Emanuel also leads among whites and Latinos and in all of the city’s congressional districts, according to the poll.

* Emanuel head-to-heads…

Emanuel 54% / Davis 33%
Emanuel 55% / Moseley Braun 32%

* Check out Carol Moseley-Braun’s unfavorables. Not great…

• Gerry Chico 31% Favorable / 16% Unfavorable - 47% Name ID
• Danny Davis 55% Favorable / 24% Unfavorable - 79% Name ID
• Miguel Del Valle 24% Favorable / 13% Unfavorable - 37% Name ID
• Rahm Emanuel 58% Favorable / 29% Unfavorable - 87% Name ID
• James Meeks 34% Favorable / 39% Unfavorable - 73% Name ID
• Carol Moseley Braun 48% Favorable / 42% Unfavorable - 90% Name ID

Her fave/unfaves among blacks are better, but not outstanding at 61-33. But her fave/unfaves among whites are quite bad at 36-55. It’s amazing that she is so disliked after all these years. But, then again, she completely blew it when she had her shot.

Meeks’ unfaves among African-American voters are also relatively high at 36 percent.

* It appears that the residency issue is actually working a bit in Emanuel’s favor…

Chicago voters are aware of the recently-raised residency issues involving Rahm Emanuel, but an overwhelming majority believes he should be allowed to run.

• Almost two-thirds of the electorate is aware of the press reports involving Emanuel’s residency (63%), and - by a greater than 3:1 margin (62% Yes / 20% No) - Chicago voters believe Emanuel meets the residency requirements to run for mayor. In fact, Emanuel’s lead is actually slightly greater among voters who are aware of the residency issues than among those who are not aware.

• Just 24% agree that “because he has spent so much time living outside the city, Emanuel just doesn’t understand the city well enough to be a good mayor”. Almost three-quarters (72%) disagree. [Emphasis added]

The theory is that attacks on his residency are “Machine style” politics, so it helps paint him as the non-Machine guy. That ain’t reality, but it could be the perception.

* TV ads might be able to turn these numbers around, but nobody yet has shown they can raise the cash to do that…

Only 36% of voters agree that, “Emanuel is an opportunist. He left his seat in Congress to work in the White House. Then he abandoned the President to run for Mayor before the difficult mid-term elections. Now, he wants to run for Mayor even though he has not lived here.” A solid majority (59%) disagrees.

Voters also disagree that “Rahm Emanuel’s personality would make it hard for him to get things done as Mayor” (37% Agree/ 50% Disagree).

* Roundup…

* Chicago mayoral filing: Not quite a free-for-all

* Gery Chico Asked for John McCain to Fundraise: GOP Source

* Fire and ice, Meeks and Emanuel, begin the campaign

* U.S. Transportation Secretary on Chicago’s mayoral race: Rahm Emanuel will win

* Burke: Next mayor will be less powerful

42 Comments

Utter, rank hypocrisy

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Back in October of 2009, Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts told the Tribune that his family saw the Boston Red Sox as a model for their organization. I’ve set the embed to start at that point in the conversation. Watch…

But the Red Sox revamped their stadium without any taxpayer financing. The owner put $200 million of his own money into the place. And the investment has paid off…

Revenue has grown to $266 million today from about $180 million in 2002. The team’s market value has also risen, to $870 million from $617 million in 2005. All without building a new stadium or asking for a dime of taxpayer money.

* Yesterday, I showed you a video of Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts deriding government borrowing as a “crime” and a Ricketts website that labels US Sen. Dick Durbin and others “hooligans” for supporting projects just like what the Ricketts family wants to do here.

The elder Ricketts, who controls the family cash, is also a board member of the American Enterprise Institute. Ironically enough, an article published a couple of years ago in AEI’s magazine derided publicly financed sports stadiums. The conclusion…

Of course, even if the benefits of stadiums and arenas cover the subsidies, the subsidies still may not be sound policy. First, there may be enormous variation in the distribution of the consumption and public-good benefits. It is clear that not all citizens in a community benefit equally from the presence of professional sports franchises in their city. Indeed, because the tax revenues used for the subsidies are often generated from lotteries and sales taxes whose burden falls disproportionately on the poor, while the consumption benefits go mostly to relatively wealthy sports fans, the net benefits are distributed regressively.

Second, we should consider the net benefits to the community of alternative uses of the funds spent subsidizing sports facilities. Good policy means using the money where the net benefit is greatest, not simply where the net benefit is positive. That’s something state and local governments should keep in mind before pledging millions of dollars to fund the next new stadium project.

This proposed Wrigley Field deal is so anathema to the Ricketts family’s political and ideological history that it just reeks of rank hypocrisy.

Taken as a stand-alone, the renovation plan has plenty of merits. But this family has literally spent millions of dollars stoking hatred of government subsidies for just about everything. To see them now eagerly run to Big Brother with an out-stretched hand kinda makes me ill.

* Meanwhile, an added dynamic is injected into the political debate whenever a sports team wants something from the government. Sports columnists become part of the mix, and they’re far more brutal than political columnists…

Can’t you see the Cubs’ lightweight battle for stadium financial support shaping up like the Bears’ mess did? I don’t know if the respective pols will act the same, but the respective owners are stumbling along similarly, not to mention the way Ricketts has seemingly adopted McCaskey’s elfin voice.

Except, the Bears actually got their stadium rehab. It wasn’t everything they wanted, but they did get something. Right now, the Ricketts family isn’t faring nearly as well.

Still, though, “elfin voice”? Oof.

* The other thing that happens is city reporters are often given the assignment to cover the story rather than Statehouse reporters. From the Sun-Times…

The mayor said he likes the concept of a stadium renovation plan that would keep the Cubs at Wrigley for at least 35 years and free up the money the Ricketts family needs to develop a triangle building promised to Wrigleyville residents in exchange for a bleacher expansion.

But Daley said he’s not about to saddle his successor with a deal that requires Chicago taxpayers to forfeit 35 years of amusement-tax growth needed to bankroll basic city services

Daley is a lame duck. His Statehouse power is pretty much gone. And the bill will preempt his home rule powers, so he’s been written out of the script.

* Admirably enough, the Tribune editorialized against the Ricketts plan, but as usual they got their facts wrong…

Perhaps the strongest argument of all: The Civic Federation’s Laurence Msall warned against taking on debt for non-essentials with a $15 billion deficit looming. “The state of Illinois faces an enormous financial crisis and will be needing all of its borrowing power just to pay its bills and continue to operate,” he said.

The bonds won’t be backed by the state whatsoever, so it wouldn’t impact the state’s borrowing abilities.

* The governor’s petulance at not being consulted is completely understandable, but perhaps he ought to tone it down a bit…

“They haven’t shown it to me. Apparently they don’t think I’m as important as some others, and I am important in this matter because I’m a goalie for the people of Illinois to make sure they get their priorities addressed.”

All true, I suppose, but the bill will require a three-fifths vote, meaning that even if he vetoes it the General Assembly will have enough built-in votes to override.

* Whatever the Ricketts family did, this would probably not go well. People are naturally averse to using tax money of any kind to build stadiums.

But there’s no doubt that they completely screwed up this process. It’s mind-boggling, in fact. And in the end they may get far less than the Bears did if they don’t make some adjustments very soon.

In that October, 2009 interview posted above, a Ricketts family member told the Tribune that “hope is not a strategy any more.”

He was talking about the team’s on-field play, but it could just as easily apply to this stadium revamp.

89 Comments

Question of the day

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* It seems pretty clear to me since the election that Gov. Pat Quinn didn’t learn much, or grasped the wrong lessons from his victory.

Before proceeding, let’s review Paul Lis’ wise words of advice from a previous newspaper column of mine…

“Strength,” Lis says, “Is the ability to advance your agenda.” And when you fail to get things done, you look weak, no matter the reason.

So, what does Gov. Quinn do right after the election? He claims a “mandate” and insists his victory means that voters want an income tax hike.

Look, he campaigned on the issue and was mercilessly drubbed for proposing the tax hike, so he has an obligation to move it forward. But actually moving it forward is far different from holding press conferences.

And what happens if and or (more likely) when his tax hike fails to pass during the veto session? He’ll look weak before he’s even sworn in for a full four-year term.

* And the tax hike vote isn’t the only dead duck Quinn is supporting during the lame duck session. He wants a civil unions bill to pass, for instance. He will also be defending an amendatory veto that created an open primary system. Another AV would force the General Assembly to vote on citizens ethics initiatives.

* The bottom line here is that Quinn needs some veto session wins to balance out his inevitable big losses or he’s going to enter the spring session as a hobbled incumbent.

* The Question: Any suggestions for the governor?

63 Comments

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

Morning Shorts

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Zell: ‘I don’t envision any role’ at Tribune after Chapter 11 exit: “As soon as the bankruptcy proceedings are done, I’ll turn it over to whoever the creditors decide they want to run it.”

* Big turnover likely on City Council

* Ald. Levar will not seek re-election

* Affordable housing plan advances despite Daley opposition

* Sun-Times: City water revenues down the drain

* Chicago ATF boss nominated as national director

* Sneed: The 411 on privatizing the 911 call center

* Call for Illiana bids could go out this month

* Kadner: No one can explain Property tax bills

* Schaumburg Taxpayers Ticked About Tax Bills

* Arlington Hts. votes for smaller property tax increase

* Batavia council picks future site of bridge

* Rutherford’s replacement candidates pitch their ideas

7 Comments

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

« NEWER POSTS