25 Comments - Upstate - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 2:57 pm: The GA should keep its hands off home rule units, regardless of how unpopular an action is. Local voters can toss out the perpetrators of the tax and repeal it, just as Cook County did seven years ago with the sales tax increase. Home rule and local autonomy are meaningless if Springfield pols can grandstand and interfere every time they see a political opportunity to score points. - Chris Widger - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:01 pm: I think the soda tax is the worst kind of regressive tax that will disproportionately hurt the poor and exacerbate the class shaming we see too much in the world. I also think that it is not remotely “ironic” that the General Assembly, for its various woes, both did not “pass a responsible budget in a timely fashion” and introduced this bill. With all of that said, I voted for the GA to bow to local control. If Cook County wants to pass awful policies, it gets to (as long as they don’t otherwise contravene the state constitution, US Constitution, federal/state law, etc). It’s bad policy when states like North Carolina try to override minimum wage hikes, and it’s bad policy here. - Ghost - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:05 pm: Leave it to home rule unless the state is going to prohibit or regulate sales tax. If locals have other taxing autonomy for water districts libraries, school, gas, sales etc this is no different. - Anon - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:06 pm: So counties are forbidden from having a sweetened beverage tax, but municipalities aren’t? Makes sense. - IRLJ - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:11 pm: Don’t let the tyrrany of the anecdote drive policy. To put it another way, quit chasin’ the headline du jour. - Winnin' - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:21 pm: There is not enough time to do anything until spring anyway. So yes, by all means, they should introduce a bill so they can get their press pops. - Commonsense in Illinois - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:22 pm: I’m not sure this would meet a judicial review since it attempts to carve out specific actions a local unit of Home Rule would be prohibited from taking. Local officials should be held responsible for their actions by the electorate; the state should not be riding to the rescue based on opposition to an action lawfully taken by local elected officials. I voted NO on the poll. Let President Preckwinkle respond to the voters of Cook County. - notsosure - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:26 pm: Interesting that they assigned it to Revenue so quickly, rather than letting it languish in Rules. - Suburban Hillbilly - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:32 pm: If you pass this bill then why have home rule at all. Leave the locals to their own stupidity and voters rath. - PJ - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:39 pm: Home rule except when it’s politically convenient to go after specific unpopular proposals, I guess. No doubt all the folks who preach the gospel of “local control” will vote to have the state force localities to bend to their will. And they’re unlikely to see the irony in that. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:45 pm: I’m not sure this would meet a judicial review since it attempts to carve out specific actions a local unit of Home Rule would be prohibited from taking. Local officials should be held responsible for their actions by the electorate; the state should not be riding to the rescue based on opposition to an action lawfully taken by local elected officials. The GA can pre-empt home rule authority even on matters of local concern, whenever it wants. The only limitation is that it must do so expressly. - A guy - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:46 pm: Tough one for me because I hate this tax. I also hate that Cook is the only Home Rule County in the State. I voted no, because fundamentally the state should stay out of the business of home rule entities and let their elected officials live or die with the votes they cast. This is terrible policy, which shouldn’t have even had a chance to pass. But it did. - Earnest - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 3:48 pm: I voted for local control, unless the state government would like to pass a tax themselves to make up the revenue they’re taking away. - Responsa - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 4:06 pm: I voted no because local issues are local issues and local pols need to face the consequences of their actions. But the fact that the GA is even considering this shows how worried they are about the fallout from this Cook County tax on other politicians and on other taxing plans in the state, - Roman - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 4:06 pm: Yes, because it’s been proven that regardless of whether or not it’s a sound concept, it is nearly impossible to administer. Makes sense for the state to forbid it on those grounds alone. BTW, interesting that Mussman’s bill only applies to counties and not municipalities. - Just Observing - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 4:15 pm: Commenters seem to forget that the state already places a number (albeit less than non-home rule governments) of restrictions on home rule government. Local governments, including home rule, are creatures of the state and its perfectly reasonable (and best) for the state legislature to put limits on their powers. I for one would like to get rid of home rule entirely, but that’s, I guess, a different topic for a different day. - Amalia - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 4:20 pm: Luking would warn that this is dangerous for home rule. And then he would give a master class in how Toni should have structured a tax to fit her “needs.” - Flapdoodle - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 4:58 pm: Bad idea for lots of reasons, but two stand out. First, it undercuts the principle of home rule and local control. Second, it is politically motivated, intended not to provide tax relief but embarrass a specific office holder. That’s a bad way to make public policy. (I have no love for Preckwinkel, who is clearly capable of embarrassing herself all on her own.) - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 5:43 pm: If it is passed, people will stop buying soda pop to take to Cook County in my local Jewel. So, keep the law the way it is. - Perrid - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 5:49 pm: Not much new to add; It’s too much of a political attack, I’m not sure the state should have the right to change county taxes, and frankly I think its important that the county have an oppurtinity to make itself heard on the issue, instead of having the state step in for them. If Michelle Mussman wants to dictate County policy, let her run for that office. - Leslie K - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 6:28 pm: My default position is pro-local control, and that home rule should only be preempted if there is an extremely compelling basis for doing so. But I voted yes. This is complicated because it is one home rule entity (Cook County) imposing it’s decisions on other home rule entities (all of Cook County, including home rule municipalities). Maybe it just highlights the folly of baking Cook County’s home rule status into the constitution. - anon2 - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 6:57 pm: It’s a good move for Mussman. If it passes, she becomes less vulnerable in future elections. Mussman isn’t a former county or municipal official, however, unlike many of her colleagues. In their former offices, I suspect most of them favored local control. That was then. - anon2 - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 6:59 pm: I voted No. Let voters in Cook County make the decision. If the anger is sufficient, then Preckwinkle and her pals will get the boot. - walker - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 7:32 pm: Easy No. This is just pure political pandering that is an overreach of state power over local govt. — just like any state- imposed property tax freeze. - Just Me - Wednesday, Aug 16, 17 @ 8:43 pm: When home-rule units abuse their authority, it makes sense to take it away. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.