* We’ve discussed some of this before here. My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

Before the House passed the megaprojects bill last month, we were told that the drafters didn’t want to just do some symbolic or “token” property tax relief. After the chamber passed the bill, we were told the property tax component will provide meaningful statewide relief for homeowners.

Well, the governor’s office ran the numbers on the statewide tax relief aspect of the bill and shared the results with Senate Democrats, which I obtained.

It ain’t good.

The tax relief component is built into the payment in lieu of taxes, or PILOT, part of the legislation. Megaprojects developers would negotiate with local governments what “special payments” they’ll pay on top of property taxes based on frozen assessments.

The House proposal would take half that “special payment” money from local governments and divert it to property tax relief, with 60% of the annual special payments going to local residential taxpayers in the megaprojects area. The other 40% would go to statewide property tax rebates for homeowners in their primary residences.

Illinois has 3.1 million “homestead owners,” according to the governor’s office analysis. A $20 million special payment for a “Large-Sized/Industrial Development” would result in a statewide pot of $4 million (40% of $10 million, which is half of $20 million) split 3.1 million ways, for a total of about $1.29 per homeowner.

A “mid-sized” $3 million special payment would net Illinois homeowners a whopping 24 cents.

And a “small” $1 million special payment would get you… wait for it… 6 cents.

In other words, that’s not even worth the mailing costs to send the checks. And even if the program is wildly successful beyond anyone’s imagination and produces a billion dollars in special payments, that’s about 60 bucks per homestead.

According to the governor’s office analysis, “Requiring a company to negotiate and pay for property tax relief would also be an added complication to negotiating a PILOT agreement. PILOT is a tool utilized by 35 states today, so this could risk the loss of projects and the revenue they would generate.”

Again, kudos to the House for passing a Bears/megaprojects bill. It wasn’t easy by any means. As with the Senate’s mass transit bill last year, it was one of those “whatever it takes” tasks. And it was a good time for House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch to start conditioning his members to vote for some tough bills as the session progresses. On all that, Welch succeeded.

But there have been consequences. As I told you last week, Senate progressives are up in arms about how the House took the time to pass a Bears stadium bill, but didn’t pass a constitutional amendment (or anything else) to tax the wealthy.

And this property tax relief analysis from the governor’s office won’t help matters with the progressives or pretty much anyone else. Turning this ship around will not be easy without the political cover of property tax “relief.”

The House’s brief burst of frenetic activity last month has also created another rift with the Senate.

The Senate, you will recall, refused to take up the House’s proposed constitutional amendment adding to the remap requirements, “to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race,” and “to create, where practical, racial coalition or influence Districts.”

The Senate’s refusal to move the proposal has led to some new problems.

Welch’s chief of staff Clayton Harris, III, wrote on his Facebook account: “I’m proud the House stepped up to strengthen voting rights through a constitutional amendment. That mattered. It showed who we are and who we aspire to be.” And then Harris added: “But seeing that effort stall… I’m not disappointed. I’m hurt.”

Harris went on to say, “As a Howard Law grad, as someone who teaches policing and race at the University of Chicago, and as a Black man fully engaged in this state’s political landscape, voting rights aren’t abstract to me. They’re about history, access, power and who gets a voice.”

That could’ve been an allusion to Senate President Don Harmon’s statement about why his chamber decided not to proceed: “I would ask for patience and time for our state’s top legal experts to work through this. The last thing we want is to act in haste and risk unintended consequences down the road. Too much is at stake for too many.”

A spokesperson for Harmon declined comment about Harris’ statement.