* The Sun-Times editorial board asked the city’s candidates for mayor what they would do about Tax Increment Financing Districts if elected…

Candidates Toni Preckwinkle and Ja’Mal Green would get rid of TIF districts altogether.

“We’ve really got to look at unwinding as many of those TIFs as we possibly can and turning the resources back to Chicago Public Schools,” Preckwinkle said last Monday, a day before she won the Chicago Teachers Union endorsement. She said she would give all annual TIF surpluses to the schools until all 144 TIF districts are phased out. […]

Lori Lightfoot, Robert “Bob” Fioretti and LaShawn Ford called for a moratorium on creating new TIF districts. […]

Paul Vallas vowed to “implement a new paradigm” with “clearer TIF guidelines for developers.” Vallas would dedicate a third of TIF revenue to a Chicago Equity Investment Fund to be used in blighted areas.

Click here to see all the answers.

* David Greising at the BGA…

Lightfoot touched on a topic during a mayoral debate last month that merits more attention: the issue of regressive taxation in the city of Chicago.

“We live in one of the most taxed cities and the most taxed county, unfortunately, in the country,” she said at a debate in November. “And low-income families and individuals and working families have shouldered far too great a burden because our tax system, our levies and fees have been completely regressive.”

Technically, Lightfoot’s wording was a bit overstated, as my colleagues at the Better Government Association recently pointed out. But her larger point—about the inequity of how taxation in Chicago affects the rich and the poor—is one that deserves consideration. It would be useful to hear more on this from all the candidates hoping to occupy the office on the fifth floor of City Hall.

I agree that, “technically” she might possibly have “a bit overstated” the facts, but Greising’s BGA colleagues rated her claim “mostly false” in yet another example of the BGA’s attempt to police political rhetoric instead of hard facts. Maybe the group should follow its leader and focus on policies and not goofy little click-bait gotcha pieces.

* Greg Hinz bemoans the lack of proposals about crime…

But most of the contenders so far are barely touching this issue. Like businessman Willie Wilson, No. 2 on the February ballot, who says on his website that he wants to “create safe neighborhoods” and “end carjackings . . . (and) police brutality”—along with letting seniors ride free on the Chicago Transit Authority. I appreciate that, sir. This senior just loves free stuff—providing the CTA doesn’t slash service to pay for it, that is. But what specifically are you going to do to make the streets safe?

Ditto Bill Daley, who says in his new TV ad that he’ll “make getting gangs and guns off of our streets priority No. 1″ but doesn’t give a clue as to how. […]

As usual, the most detailed policy plans come from Paul Vallas, and I give the former Chicago Public Schools chief lots of credit for daring to open himself up to critics rather than peddling bromides. Among ideas from him: bringing back—perhaps part time—retired but experienced detectives who could help the Police Department clear up a huge backlog of unsolved cases, and offering a city witness protection program for those who are worried about gang retaliation if they help prosecutors. Of course, it’s not clear Vallas has a plan to pay for that and other proposals. But his ideas are worth a look.

Then there’s Toni Preckwinkle, who calls herself a progressive but lately has been focused on trying to knock foes off the ballot on technicalities and lining up endorsements from powerful labor chiefs. On her website, she talks not about cutting crime but cutting the number of nonviolent drug offenders in the county jail and the number of children tried as adults. There’s some merit to both, but what does Preckwinkle want to do about crime? What would she do to those who run around with guns, terrorizing people?

* Another good question…

Where are the mayoral candidates on Rahm's plan to let this guy try to bore a tunnel to ORD from the Loop? https://t.co/B18mr238dw

— Dan Mihalopoulos (@dmihalopoulos) December 10, 2018

The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board has the heft to put all of these questions and more to the candidates. What they did with TIF districts was a good start.

…Adding… Sounds like I hurt the BGA’s fee-fees…

My name is Bob Secter and I am the senior editor at the Better Government Association. I realize that it has become fashionable these days for people to elevate themselves by trying to diminish others, so I usually laugh off your gratuitous commentary about us and others as well. Today’s ridicule of our recent Lori Lightfoot seemed particularly ill-informed, however. Here we have a candidate for Chicago mayor who is making sweeping assertions about complicated tax policy that are ill informed. The irony was that she could have made a compelling point had she simply stuck to the facts about how the tax system was particularly unfair to low-income residents. But she didn’t do that, and our job is to provide context for the claims politicians make. One of the reasons tax policy is so difficult to fix is that its too easy to demagogue rather than deal with the nuance. Your ill-informed attack on us simply reinforces that problem.

Politifact does not allow us to slap any old rating we feel on a statement we are vetting. There are a strict set of guidelines we are required to follow in rating comments, and all ratings are decided on by a jury of three editors. We are not doing this by the seat of our pants. In case you are interested, here are the guidelines: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/

The definition of Mostly False is: “The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

And that’s exactly where Lightfoot’s claim fell. She didn’t just “overstate things” as you contend. She got a little bit right, but a lot a bit wrong.

As for your snark about “goofy little click-bait gotcha pieces,” have you read your blog lately?

Pot meet kettle.

“I” didn’t originally “contend” that she “overstated” things a bit. That was David Griesing, the president of the Better Government Association, for crying out loud. I therefore have no choice but to rate this Bob Secter reply “Pants on Fire!” /s

Also, I don’t sell ads based on clicks. Never have. So, the senior editor is wrong once again. Is there a double “pants on fire” rating allowed?