26 Comments - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:04 pm: He should pipe down and see if he can get Mayor Lightfoot on board first. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:11 pm: I’m totally flabbergasted. - Smalls - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:14 pm: I know in past comments a lot of people are turned off by Fritz. Frankly, I think it is refreshing. Similar to Lightfoot. Stop accepting how things have worked in Illinois in the past, and challenge them to do what is the right thing to do regardless of whose toes you step on. - twowaystreet - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:34 pm: I understand Kaegi’s frustration. I believe he tried to work with opposition and made multiple amendments to address their concerns which did little to move the opposition. I really like his intent and would love to see how that would change the appeals process. - Moe Berg - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:35 pm: Snarking to glory. Can’t fail. - OutOfState - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:37 pm: ===He should pipe down and see if he can get Mayor Lightfoot on board first.=== He’s had his job since December and known he’d have it since last March. She’s been in the job for 10 days. Why should he wait for the new mayor to back a reform measure for a different level of government while she has more pressing concerns to worry about on her own level of government before the end of session? - Wildcat Wayne - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:40 pm: So the Democrats are not overreaching after all. - Great IDea - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:41 pm: The Mayor was on-board so I don’t know where you are coming from - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:45 pm: OutOfState, you raise a good point. I just think he shouldn’t have gone public in this manner regarding his concerns. He doesn’t have the influence Mayor Lightfoot has right now. - Concerned Dem - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:45 pm: Level of effectiveness of Mr. Kaegi’s statement: 0 If the last four years taught us anything it’s the fastest way to find your bill/idea six feet deep with a stake through its heart is to be confrontational with the GA leadership. - Greenpeace - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:45 pm: Number of Cook County businesses and residents that will see a property tax increase because of Kaegi’s bill: 0 - Multifamily - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:47 pm: This is the only outlet that highlighted the problems and infirmities in this terribly drafted bill. In the process the new Assessor repeatedly misled legislators and the other side, and they called him out. For God’s sake, despite all the editorial fawning over Fritz, his own team could not explain or justify the many horrible holes in his bill. Unfortunately, drafting bad legislation then dancing the keystone cop hustle is not a great way to start your lobbying career in Springfield. - Sonny - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 4:48 pm: Self awareness: Priceless. - wordslinger - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 5:03 pm: I’m not sure which way to bounce on this. Last week, Kaegi’s office said he’d reached agreement with a bunch of stakeholders, and five of them, if I recall, came back and said that was not true. - James - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 5:11 pm: The change from property with an assessed value of 100,000 or more to property with a market value of $500,000 sweeps in hundreds of smaller apartment and mixed use buildings assessed at 10% of market value–everything with 7 units or more from 50,000 assessed value and up. The owner-occupied exemption only applies to buildings with 100% owner-occupancy. But if, for example, there is only 90% owner-occupancy and a vacant 10% or a rented 10%, the language requires, not only the income (lease) regarding the 10% and the entire building expense data, but also the business returns of the owner-occupant’s business, eg. gross receipts and business expenses, which the Assessor is already requesting on his tax appeal forms for 100% owner-occupied properties. Business income of the owner-occupant is not particularly relevant to the value of the real estate, as you could have anything from a dollar store to a high-grossing grocery or restaurant occupying the same space. The Assessor wants to impose annual fines on the building owners he selects and notifies, for failure to disclose this income data, whether or not they appeal their tax assessment. The Assessor’s office has many years of income/expense data and appraisals on file provided by tax appellants. Under the previous Assessor and the current Assessor based on an examination of his 2019 commercial reassessments so far, this trove of data doesn’t appear to be getting any use. There are enough tax appellants that are required to disclose, as a condition of their appeal, to provide a large sample of building income and expense data that can be used to estimate market values. Requiring self-selected non-appellants to also disclose significantly increases the volume of data, but is largely duplicitous to information already in the possession of the Assessor. So, in my opinion, there are portions of the bill that greatly overreach their mark and invade the privacy of owner-occupants, in the attempt to gather income/expense information relevant to estimating fair market values. A better use of an increased office budget would be to hire some appraisers to establish valuation standards using information currently submitted with appeals, and also that which is sitting in recent-year appeal files in the office. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 5:15 pm: Oh! You strenuously object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider. - Boone's is Back - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 5:15 pm: Maybe this will teach his team to stop putting the cart before the horse on announcing “deals”… - Chicagonk - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 5:19 pm: There are two sets of books. The books the real estate tax attorneys share with assessors to get the assessed values significantly reduced and the actual books. No wonder so many property owners want this bill killed. - Emanuel Collective - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 5:50 pm: Give me a break re: “Kaegi was too confrontational with the GA!” and “Kaegi didn’t get the stakeholders committed!” comments. This bill has almost every single Cook County house dem as a co-sponsor, several of whom have signed on within the past week. Being confrontational with the Speakers office =/= being confrontational with the GA - samev9 - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 6:12 pm: Maximum penalty Kaegi can assess taxpayers under the revised stalled proposal: $100,000 Maximum penalty assessed against Kaegi or his office for misuse of the data provided under the bill: $7,500 Protections for data in the bill: 0.1 (.1 allocated to language exempting FEINs and SSNs from FOIA disclosure) Lies/mischaracterizations in Kaegi’s whitepaper circularized in connection with garnering support for the bill: 12+ For once Springfield gets it right. Kaegi should look at the bright side: now he will have more time to focus his efforts on shifting the tax burden onto retailers and apartment dwellers… - Jane Burn - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 6:37 pm: Fredrick has never danced, cried, played, planned, dreamed or bonded with fed up overwhelmed property taxpayers —at least not the ones who are mom pop small or middle sized —so why should Fritz be so shocked that his wedding proposal is rejected ….until the suitor grows up ? - Soccermom - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 7:52 pm: Business income is commonly considered in assessment in jurisdictions across the country. - Soccermom - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 7:59 pm: James — if you don’t think income should be considered in property valuation, you should get out more. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-07-030 https://www.thebalance.com/how-are-property-taxes-calculated-3193261 And I would love to see the neighborhood in which it is equally likely that a storefront would house a dollar store or a high-grossing restaurant. Part of a property’s value is founded on the commercial area where it is located; when you include income in the assessment process, you can use data to calculate the difference in value between a storefront on one commercial strip and an apparently identical storefront in a different neighborhood. - Tim - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 8:04 pm: Fritz has no interest in being fair. His only goal is to transfer assessments from residential to commercial property, which in most cases is already over assessed. This isn’t scientific or fair. It’s just more of the same old stuff from a Democrat. Burden businesses until they can’t stand it anymore and act surprised when they leave. - James - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 8:34 pm: Soccermom Neither of the links you supplied support looking at an owner-occupant’s business income. Those links refer to rental income received and building expenses incurred by a building owner who leases out its space to tenants. No question rental income and building expenses are used by appraisers to value real estate. - DougChicago - Thursday, May 30, 19 @ 8:35 pm: Illinois just ain’t ready for reform. This is the good ol’ fashioned bipartisan combine at work. Together with the folks who slop the trough that the pigs feed at. No doubt that the pigs Madigan and Burke and Berrios and Preckwinkle benefit the most. But pigs Durkin and Brady and the rest will be there hat in hand when IRMA and The Chamber and IMA start handing out the slop checks. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.