Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup is about the news that the House approved a bill that would require legislators to formally approve the sale of Thomson prison to the federal government. The feds, of course, want to use the prison to incarcerate Guantanamo detainees, among others. Anyway, this is from the debate…

The legislation would allow lawmakers to vote on the sale of any state surplus property valued at more than $1 million, but the Thomson prison issue was the main topic of debate Wednesday.

Supporters of the Thomson deal argued loudly against the plan because it could prevent or delay the sale of the mostly unused maximum-security facility to the federal government. Local officials want the jobs that fully staffing the prison could create. […]

But others argued that because lawmakers had to approve the spending to build Thomson years ago, they should get to vote on whether the state sells it.

* The Question: Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? Explain.

We’ve had many, many debates here about the merits of the Thomson sale. Let’s just stick to the bill today, OK? Thanks.

[Shortened because long setups tend to make for fewer answers. Also, this question may not have enough pop, but oh well.]

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:30 am

Comments

i disagree with the policy aspects of the proposal (changing the rules in the middle of the game is fundamentally unfair, and did anyone mention that illinois needs all the additional revenue it can get?), but i understand the political aspects of the proposal and the need to put everyone (who wants to be) on record so that they can mollify constituents who get riled up by inflammatory campaign rhetoric at home…

Comment by bored now Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:44 am
I missed the debate in the House so I apologize if my question was covered extensively, but it wasn’t addressed in either of the linked articles. Other than Thomson, how common are these asset sales? Is this something that happens all the time, or is it just once every couple of years? I ask because in normal years (not that those ever happen anymore) for about 7 or 8 months of the year the GA isn’t in town. So if an opportunity to sell some property came about in June and the GA isn’t scheduled to be in town again until the fall veto session, how practical is the legislative approval?

Comment by Scooby Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:07 pm
I support the sale of Thomson and the legislature’s belief that property sales should be approved.

However, they’re bill is about a year to late.

As for the politics of it and the poll, Republicans may think they’re seizing a populist issue, but the only place where voters are going to be making a determination about whom to vote for based on this issue is in Northwestern Illinois.

This bill is a boon to Governor Quinn, especially because Brady will be forced to vote for it in the Senate.

What a great campaign ad for the region: Bill the Job-Killer.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:11 pm
The GA is not able to coordinate a budget plan (last year they let the Gov. decide what to cut). Why should they insert themselves here?

If they could effectively execute the duties they already have, then I might consider giving them more.

With respect to Thompson, they did allocate money for its construction, but not for its operation. So, I think that part of the argument falls flat.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:12 pm
My gut says that $1 million is far too low of a threshold to have to bring in the legislature for a vote. I am not sure what the right one would be - $50 million? - but I feel, like Scooby, that that low of a dollar amount requiring full legislative approval would get in the way of routine, non-controversial state business.

Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:14 pm
So, the General Assembly thinks selling Thomson to the federal government needs more scrutiny, but Chicago selling 99 years of future parking revenue for 50% of value doesn’t need more scrutiny.

We are governed by fools, albeit fools who have charisma and the favor of the various political bosses in the state.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:14 pm
Can someone clarify to me why the state legislature should be given this additional power? In general, I am against adding to the list of powers the legislature has because, well, they have plenty, and they tend to muck up things that involve a property in someone’s district (note all the failed attempts to close a prison). In fact, it seems like it would be good to keep this out of their hands, and let the executive branch evaluate such a decision by analyzing the needs of the whole state, and their agencies. I am open to hearing why the legislature should give themselves this power….but, as of now, it appears to be a blatent power grab, and referendum on the Thompson sale.

Comment by Patr K. Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:15 pm
It does not seem logical that the legislature has to vote to fund a project, but the executive can sell the proceeds at a price that the legislature has no input on, nor whether there is a guarantee that the bonds used in the construction will be paid and whether any follow on project will cost the same or less.

I have not seen how a ‘fair’ price was determined and do not believe that it is fiscally prudent.

Seems like a smart proposal.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:19 pm
Carl, please stick to the question.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:25 pm
I support it. This way the individual members of th elegislature become responsible for the impact of any decision to keep or sale valuabl State property.

I agree with the proposition that since th elegislature oversses spending, it should oversee large asset sales as well.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:30 pm
YDD has it about right.

Comment by Greg B. Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:31 pm
Selling state tollways. Selling the JRTC, only to lease it back. Selling the lottery. All similar kinds of crackpot ideas. Those all got stopped without needing this law. Didn’t they?

At the risk of sounding like a conservative republican, it seems bad policy to create such very specific law and expand government to deal with one particular case, unless the law was to immediately sunset after that case was settled. I see this as just another tool to increase gridlock and to be wielded as a weapon against a governor the legislators don’t like.

I think funding capital projects is rightly the legislative branches’ jurisdiction. Disposing of funded assets however seems to me to be a function of the executive, and should be so that that kind of decision can be made in a prompt and efficient manner under rapidly changing conditions.

I think the prison issue should stand on its own merits, and if the republicans in the legislature really want to try and stop it, they should put their jobs on the line for that and not try to hide behind a made-up rule.

Comment by Some Guy Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:38 pm
==but the only place where voters are going to be making a determination about whom to vote for based on this issue is in Northwestern Illinois.==

I don’t agree with this at all. There is a lot of public sentiment against selling this prison and bringing more federal prisoners here,particularly terrorists.
Policy wise, I think it is a good thing to limit the discretionary powers of the governor whenever possible based on past performance, if for no other reason. Who knows what he will try to sell next?
I support the bill.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:39 pm
The bill is about the Thompson Prison, I thought it was about the Senate Seat?

First YDD. Brady does not want to kill jobs. He wants to open the prison because we need to to create jobs and minimize risk to corectional staff around the state. We need the facility. If you sell it we will have to release more prisoners or build a new facility anyway. Look at the DOC numbers.

Second, Obama has already pulled the plug on this idea because he knows he cannot try these guys and convict them on US soil no fed prisoners are coming to Illinois.

Third, I do not like the bill. Considering the total assets of the state of IL, a million bucks is the drop in the bucket. It is about like saying the CEO of Ford cannot sell a dealership without going to the stockholders. Too intrusive on executive authority. The number should be around 50 or 100 million.

Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:43 pm
What current state statutes and rules provide for oversight of selling, buying, or renting state property? Does this bill enhance or detract from that process?

Comment by really? ? Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:48 pm
There should be some level at which the leg has to approve the sale of an asset. Not sure if 1 Million is right, but there needs to be some sort of leg review.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:53 pm
I agree with the bill. The GA appropriated the funds for Thomson. If Thomson is to be “sold” to the Feds, the GA should approve the new use/arrangement. Governor Quinn may not appreciate this and may see it as limiting his constitutional powers, so we may see a veto if the Senate approves it.

But as I said yesterday, this is such an emotional thing for so many people, the demogogues are going to have a field day smearing anyone who supports the idea of moving terrorists to Thomson. That’s what galls me, the shameful fear-mongering that swirls around this question of where to house these terrorists.

Guantanamo Bay is closing. These bad guys are coming to the United States. I think Illinois is up to the challenge of handling this in a safe and secure manner.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:54 pm
Once again, Mike Madigan sticking his power obsessed nose in where it doesn’t belong.

Comment by Dem observer Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 12:55 pm
The Thomson debacle shows why we NEED the legislature involved.

We know that Quinn wants to sell the prison.
We know the feds want to buy it.
We know Quinn has already decided it will be sold.

Here is what we don’t know:

What are the feds paying for it
What are the feds going to do to renovate it
How many prisoners are they going to hold there

In short, we know NO basic information about the sale before the decision was made to sell it. Imagine selling your house and signing the papers without knowing the sale price. It’s just that ludicrous.

Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:01 pm
With all do respect 47th…Quantanamo is not closing. If you listen to the President he is on hold because he cannot get funding from Congress for a trial. Once you bring them to the US you have to try them or release them. We do not have admissible evidence for convictions so Congress will not approve the money for trials This bill is over a dead issue with Thompson as the President has killed this option. This is Mike Madigan making a power grab over the Governor in a jab at Quinn and in case he has to deal with a Republican.

Does the authority over state property derive from legislative act or the Constitution. Does the Legislature have the power to restrict the Governor in this manner or does it have to be an amendment. Unless it is legislative act it is a separation of powers issue, and I would argue that the Legislature does not have the power to restrict the Governors Constitutional power.

Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:04 pm
There needs to be a new set of procedures in the era of selling/leasing public assets which were paid for once by the taxpayer to a private entity for the pleasure of paying for it again.

Chicago’s parking deal should be a national symbol of shame for an inept deal. Leasing the airports, toll roads or other assets should be taken off the table permanently.

Just another reason for more oversight.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:15 pm
I agree with allowing the GA to approve the sale of Thomson or any other state facility, but $1 million threshold is far too low. Can’t see how the Department of Corrections could function if they needed approval for every bulk food purchase

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:15 pm
tough call - I trust the state legislators’ collective competence just slightly less than I do folks appointed by the governor, so I’d vote against this.

Comment by Robert Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:17 pm
@Bill -

There may indeed be alot of public sentiment against bringing Gitmo inmates to Illinois, but opposition is a mile wide and an inch deep.

I’ve seen lots of polls that list Job Creation as voters top issue.

I have YET to see a poll that shows keeping Thompson closed is any voter’s top priority.

When voters step into the polls, they make decisions to vote based on which of their issues are most important to them, because no candidate is going to be better on ALL their issues.

If you’re not talking to voters about their #1 issue, you’re not just wasting your breath, you’re letting them know just how out-of-touch you are when it comes to the issues they care about.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:45 pm
There should be a vote on this absolutely. Why should it be any other way. Open, transparent and a good out in the open debate. Illinois is well equipped to handle these people and lets face it people need the jobs. vote it up or down democracy in action.

Comment by g man Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:47 pm
Agree with the Bill. It’s not surprising that the Legislature didn’t think of the need for it before a situation arose that illustrated the need. Do they ever?!

As for YDD’s theory, stick with that. If Quinn had cared about jobs in that area, they would already be utilizing the prison that’s been sitting there since he and Blago took over the state. They wouldn’t have waited for Obama to start throwing money at them. Johnny come lately on the issue of jobs. Brady’s stand has been sound, that’s why he won the area handily in the primary and will again in the fall.

Comment by Amuzing Myself Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:48 pm
This roll call is not a good sign for the Governor’s legislative staff, although I do give them credit for picking up a few GOP votes here and there.

Comment by Keeping Score at Home Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:49 pm
Seems like another attempt to stick a finger in the process and look busy on small stuff for a sound bite while avoiding the 800 pound gorilla that is trashing the room. I agree with Pluto. Keep hands off the assets, come up with specific ways to fix the big problem.

Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:54 pm
The legislation would allow lawmakers to vote on the sale of any state surplus property valued at more than $1 million

Of course.

Have you ever heard about the governor who didn’t have to go around this kind of legislation, so pretty much sold or leased state assets to bidders willing to kickback cash to him?

Forget about it being about Thomson.

Think of it as a Post-Blagojevich reform proposal.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:09 pm
Reasonable people can differ on the politics and/or the policy of the Thomson sale, but it’s hard to see how any reasonable person should not find fault with the mechanics of the prison sale effort. By mechanics I am referring to the apparently secret negotiations with the Feds and then the “fait accompli” aura of the announcement by Sen. Durbin and Gov. Quinn despite a lack of pertinent details. Perhaps the House approved bill’s one million dollar threshold is too low to be practical and should be upped, but the concept of much greater oversight and more people being responsible for key decisions concerning state owned assets is one most Illinoisans will appreciate. GA members should think twice before voting against this.

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:19 pm
Robert said: tough call - I trust the state legislators’ collective competence just slightly less than I do folks appointed by the governor, so I’d vote against this.

If you flip his statement, that’s where I sit. I am for the legislation.

Comment by Prognosis Negative Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:26 pm
@YDD

-If you think Homeland Security is not a major issue in voters minds, take a look at some recent Presidential poll results

Comment by Frank Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:42 pm
I don’t agree with the specific proposal. $1 million is too low. It could be way too easy for a gang of legislators to hold things hostage for their own causes.

It would be great if it were used to ensure the best fiscal outcomes, but the Governor needs to have SOME power of authority during negotiations. This undercuts any power he might have, and just adds a whole gaggle of squawk and awe to the table.

Comment by Served Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:43 pm
This is a bad idea on so many levels. $1 million, as many have said, is too low a threshold. The lege can’t take care of the important business at hand. Why give them more distractions?

Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:50 pm
I have to ask you guys this, because I don’t know much about the courts. Would this bill even be ruled constitutional?
I ask becuase the supremes keep ruling against Med-Mal, but then again, they say that it takes away from the courts own power to set numbers in judgements. I don’t know if they would even care about a tug-of-war between the legislature and the Governor’s power to sell assets. Quinn also doesn’t seem to me like the Blago type that would force the issue in court, so it may be a moot question. Anyone have a guess?

Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:58 pm
@Frank

Its the ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. They aren’t running for President, or even Congress or the United States Senate.

Voters don’t elect their mayors based on their foreign policy positions, and they don’t elect state lawmakers based on “Homeland Security.”

And just for the record, Illinois’ Homeland Security is ranked on of the tops in the nation by the federal government.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:58 pm
The current process for selling State “surplus assets” of any kind is defined in the State Property Control Act. That Act says in part, regarding surplus real estate, that CMS must determine after an Agency has deemed real property to be surplus that no other agencies have a need for the property. Assuming no State Agency interest in the property, CMS may then secure appraisals and attempt to sell the property at bid, with the average of the 3 appraisals as the minimum acceptable bid.

CMS is to issue an annual report on transactions involving surplus real property.

To the extent that the Quinnies largely ignored many of these requirements in the Thomson case, one could make an argument for more GA involvement. However, in the few instances where the State has a marketable, valuable piece of ground or building that it wants to sell, I’m not sure in the long run that GA approval is a value-added step. Considering this is Illinois, the GA approval could be withheld if a member or Leader ah, er, “had an issue,” shall we say with the highest bidder.

AA would prefer a bill more specific to the Thomson project. FWIW, most of the surplus real estate CMS tends to inherit from the agencies is not exactly Mag Mile Prime. The range has been everything from unneeded highway right-of way to shuttered State institutions with multiple buildings.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:59 pm
It just might behoove our ‘fine legislators’ to be more concerned with the impending financial catastrophe than this. Oh, they may be - behind closed doors - right.

1) Selling Thomson brings cash to IL to pay some long overdue bills.
2) Selling Thomson brings in more new jobs, all of which pay taxes in IL.
3) No terrorist has escaped from a US prison.

Dear Legislature:
Get real; HELP IL for a change.

Comment by sal-says Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 3:00 pm
It’s the Executive Branches’ call to take action within guidelines set by the Legislature. A Legislative Branch with authority to veto the Executive on substantial administrative issues does not seem consistent with a proper balance/separation of powers.

In a related matter, we also saw a topsy turvy imbalance of power with the proposed liquidation of Blagojevich hires still in the Quinn administration. These just aren’t kosher legislative actions.

Comment by COPN Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 3:00 pm
I agree that creating a law to deal with a one time deal makes for bad policy. I don’t want the prison sold and it seems there are other ways of killing the deal than this law. Who is looking for cover? Who wants to hide behind the legislation?

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 3:46 pm
YDD,

But isn’t the sale of Thomson considered by some (not me btw) to be a Homeland Security risk? Average people could care less who’s making the decision if they think their safety is at risk. A politician is a politician in the mind of the uninformed.

Comment by Frank Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 5:09 pm
Many of you on here beat the crap out of the GA daily because of their inability to get important things done. Now you want to give them expanded power. If we are going to have arguments it’s only fair that you pick a point of view and stick with it.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 5:14 pm
Schnorf is spot on! Bravo for pointing out the hypocrisy.

This is a terrible idea. Any asset worth over $1M will have to be cleared by the legislature. Short of the obvious power grab (MJM voted against the measure by the way), this will devolve into fights over who gets to spend the proceeds on their pet project meaning nothing will ever get sold. If you want oversight (which I don’t have a problem with), give COGFA a binding vote to act as the check on the executive branch.

Comment by Unnamed For Now Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 5:48 pm
I don’t have a problem with the GA putting another set of eyes on a sale. In the great majority of cases, it will probably be routine.

If it somehow calls attention to itself, that gives everyone an opportunity to see the angles of all the players.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 6:23 pm
The last numbers I saw indicate IDOC is at somewhere around 117% capacity. This figure includes the fact that in the last year IDOC began double celling segregation units(the hole) So it is more like 130% capacity. We need the cell space for our own state prisoners. The money was allocated by the legeslature to build and the money to open and operate Thompson has been allocated several times only to be pulled by the Governor. I support the legislation but think in order not to create gridlock in the legislature the $ amount should be a little higher maybe 5-10 million.

Comment by thinkingred Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 6:31 pm
@arthur Anderson-
thanks for the explanation..
What if we lease it to the Feds?

Comment by really? ? Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 6:38 pm
If there is already a reasonable process in place for selling state property, bringing politics into via a general assembly approval would seem unwise for us taxpayers.

The marketplace is moving away from expensive housing for employees and towards freelancing, contracting and other modes of hiring to get the work done. Increasingly, folks work for themselves, and they work at home or in temporary office suites. Maintaining expensive, energy-consuming office buildings by the hundreds is not the future–although, this being Illinois, it’s probably the future here for a while.

The tail shouldn’t wag the dog but that’s what’ll happen if the legislature gets to approve building sales. State employee unions, with their massive campaign contribution clout, will see a loss of buildings as a prelude to a loss of unionized workforce to put in those buildings. They’ll weep and wail and threaten to pull their $$. The GA will cave and we’ll be supporting a whole bunch of white elephants far after they become extinct.

Comment by cassandra Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 6:39 pm
While I generally don’t agree with the notion of outsourcing a state asset, the legislation (as I understand it) ignores the fact that the Governor has the ability to transfer a percentange (I believe 3%) of expenditures to other areas without legislative approval. Clearly, $1M is less than 3% of most transfers which would appear to be somewhat hypocritical of budget management. If the GA truly wants to micromanage budget management of state assets, they should reduce the amount of money the Governor has authority to transfer. I’m not advocating that, but the logic model is the same. Either give the Governor the ability to manage the assets he’s entrusted to manage or reduce the scope of his budget authority. This is one step down a very, very dangerous and slippery slope. It could, legally, handcuff any future Governor and effectively reduce the role of the state’s CEO to manage. Do I think Quinn shoud sell Thompson? No, but only because of his lack of leadership, not because of the office and responsiblity he’s been entrusted to uphold.

Comment by dznuts Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 7:15 pm
The choice is whether we accept more of the same (nearly empty prison) or we take the federal government’s offer. Those are the two choices; folks who argue about a “third option” aren’t living in reality. That state has had nine years to do something else and hasn’t.

The choice is simple, really: either you want a nearly empty prison or you want 2,000 new jobs and up to a billion dollars in revenue for the NW IL region over the next four years.

In the just concluded State Rep race up there, candidate McNeil was hailed by the local media for offering up a unique proposal. Sell the Thomson Correctional Center to the federal government and use a portion of the proceeds to kickstart construction of the WIU-QC Riverfront Campus. That would have meant thousands of new jobs on the north and south ends of the 71st District.

Those playing national security politics with this are doing just that — playing the politics of fear. The fact is, under a federal government the entire region would end up safer and more secure than anywhere else in the state due to the influx of correctional officers, FBI agents and Department of Defense personnel.

Comment by 71st Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 8:15 pm
This would be lousy public policy, even if it is good politics. Did anyone notice that MJM voted No, even though his staff worked to pass it?

Comment by Reformer Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 8:27 pm
Bad bill because its sole purpose is to distract attention away from financial mess we’re in - it is and will be effective - note some of the comments tonight about national security, etc. Even if we weren’t in the shape we’re in, I don’t think it’s needed because the legislature has enough power to check a governor from acting imprudently in selling assets. They can use their position in the bully pulpit to create public opinion/poll sentiment against bad ideas, craft legislation that would punish the governor in other ways as a threat should she/he sell an asset in a manner that harms Illinois, or impeach (no longer a theoretical tactic.)

Comment by Treeboy Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:52 pm
Why now??? It doesn’t look like Madigan is inclined to be helpful with closing the Thompson sale, but rather, is willing to throw a little sand into the gears. His back door support for Rep. Boland’s replacement (Ahern) in the Democratic Primary, the only one of three democratic contestants opposed to the sale (even though Madigan’s staff knew the locals overwhelmingly supported selling Thompson), is another indication that Madigan has his own agenda.

Comment by Louis Howe Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 4:37 am