Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign news (Updated)
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* An argument for the so-called “mega-projects” bill by Illinois Economic Development Corp. Chair John Atkinson…
Currently before the Illinois General Assembly, this legislation would give qualifying megaprojects — those investing at least $100 million and committing to stay for 20 years or more — the ability to negotiate long-term, predictable property tax agreements with local governments. These agreements would provide companies with stable costs as they grow in Illinois, while schools and municipalities would gain a reliable revenue stream they can plan around with confidence.
This is not a one-sided incentive. Built into the legislation is the requirement that agreements must be reviewed and approved by representatives of school districts, park districts and other taxing bodies, ensuring accountability and guaranteeing that communities benefit alongside companies. If no agreement is reached, neither side is obligated to proceed, which builds collaboration and transparency directly into the process.
The proposed legislation would also ensure the jobs created by these projects are held by those affiliated with the local trades, guaranteeing that Illinois workers will be the ones bringing these transformative projects to life. Beyond construction, these projects have the potential to generate a wide range of career opportunities in our state’s workforce pipeline and strengthen local economies even further.
Crucially, there are no state dollars in play and no impact on our balanced budget. Instead, it gives control to local authorities and allows us to unlock investment that might not otherwise be possible.
Without this tool, Illinois is at serious risk of losing out to one of the 37 other states that already offer similar programs. In Ohio, New Albany granted Intel a 30-year, 100% property tax abatement to land a $20 billion semiconductor campus. In Texas, Samsung secured a package of long-term abatements for a massive chip plant. And in South Carolina, state leaders approved a 40-year tax abatement via the state’s FILOT (Fee in Lieu of Tax) Program to secure a new Scout Motors electric vehicle manufacturing plant.
Not mentioned in the piece is that the Chicago Bears are pushing this bill to help build a stadium in Arlington Heights.
* An argument against the mega-projects bill by Americans for Prosperity-Illinois’ deputy state director Brian Costin…
Atkinson highlighted a state program in Ohio that allowed the city of New Albany to give a “100% property tax abatement” break for 30 years to land a $20 billion semiconductor campus. Left out of the Pritzker appointee’s pitch: The measure empowers local officials to cruelly dump the corporate tax discount onto working families and Main Street via a property tax shift. The megaproject bill’s crony giveaways are similar.
Here’s how it works. The bill locks in assessed values of designated megaprojects for 23 to 40 years, while the real property values continue to climb. A parcel bought for $200 million but later built into a $5 billion complex would still be taxed on just the $200 million figure. That’s approximately a 96% tax reduction.
A $5 billion development in Arlington Heights would normally owe about $238.5 million per year in property taxes. With its equalized assessed value frozen at $200 million, it would pay only about $9.5 million per year, resulting in a break of $229 million per year. Over a 40-year designation (excluding the seven-year “investment” period), the developer’s break could easily exceed $7.5 billion.
Local governments aren’t complaining about this bill because they are protected by the provision that values megaprojects at full fair cash value for the purpose of calculating tax caps and bond limits. This allows the $7.5 billion property tax break to be shifted onto other property taxpayers in each jurisdiction.
Why would local governments agree to such a raw and unfair deal for residents? Because the bill lets them strike special payment side deals with developers, cash they can tout as new revenue, while sidestepping the voter-approval referendums normally required for higher taxes. These special payments don’t have to match normal taxes, don’t have to fund essential services and can even flow back to the developer in disguised subsidies, such as paying for parking garages and infrastructure that would normally have to be paid for entirely by the developer.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:08 pm
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign news (Updated)
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How many times does President Warren need to be told m: No Welfare for the Bears. Quit mooching off of taxpayers and pay for your own stadium. Not. A. Dime.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:17 pm
Kind of like guns…I may not like them, but if everyone else has one, I better have one too.
Comment by NobodyAskedMe Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:19 pm
This is the key point in my opinion.
“Local governments aren’t complaining about this bill because they are protected by the provision that values megaprojects at full fair cash value for the purpose of calculating tax caps and bond limits. This allows the $7.5 billion property tax break to be shifted onto other property taxpayers in each jurisdiction.”
If local governments want to give a property tax break for a large development, they should be able to. However, local governments should not be able to shift the increase in the property tax levy onto all the other homeowners in the taxing district. If this provision were to be eliminated, no problem from me. But as implied in the article, I imagine the local governments would no longer be on board.
Comment by Numbers... Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:24 pm
I think the Governor and his team really want to pass the bill and help the Bears. I think they can’t say it outright, and neither can DCEO so they have John Atkison doing the legwork.
If it passes, they’ll applaud and focus on one or two other projects in the state and not mention taxpayer money to the Bears.
If it doesn’t pass, they’ll say they were never in favor of using taxpayer dollars to help the Bears.
Comment by Frida's Boss Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:25 pm
This is exactly the kind of thing Strong Towns warns about. You geta short-term influx of cash. But long-term the companies won’t stay and your city becomes insolvent.
Comment by Wolfy Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:38 pm
We already have the highest property taxes in the country. The last thing we need is Springfield making it easier for local governments to give away tax breaks to multibillion dollar companies at the expense of homeowners.
Comment by Glenn in Glenview Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:46 pm
I’m so sick of this. Pay your taxes. I hope one day for fair taxation in IL and the US (and vote accordingly), but I’m not holding my breath.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 2:58 pm
A 240 million dollar annual property tax bill for an NFL stadium?
Seems a bit much
One of the few stadiums that are not owned by a public private partnership is MetLife stadium in New Jersey
They paid just under 6 million in property tax last year
Comment by Harrison Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 3:01 pm
We’re representing billionaires, but trust us, there’s no way we would take advantage of ordinary taxpayers. Honest.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 3:12 pm
I agree with Numbers, I don’t have an issue with it…so long as the section is taken out that allows the full value to be used for tax district purposes to allow them to raise levy’s easier.
It’s also worth noting that Section 10-990 of the bill specifically excludes sports stadium megaprojects, unless the legislature separately approves that specific project. So, the Bears would still need another separate approval for their stadium property to get this benefit.
Comment by fs Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 3:41 pm
A couple of recent examples demonstrate why this is bad policy- notably Sears Walgreens and Motorola
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Oct 7, 25 @ 4:10 pm