Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

A 50 percent cut in Illinois’ historic preservation budget means we’re losing a chance to visit some Land of Lincoln landmarks, not just in Springfield, but Vandalia, Charleston and Bloomington, where some sites are closed completely until next July first.

Bjorn Skaptason, and Abraham Lincoln bookshop owner, said: “I think it’s tragic right now that some of these sites right now .. when the public most wants to visit them.'’

The Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition claims more money could be made by keeping the sites open than could be saved by closing them.

The economic benefits from tourists flocking to the state to celebrate the Lincoln birth vary, but some say it could be up to $100 million.

* The Question: Would you support a tax increase to keep state facilities like these open? Explain why or why not.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:28 am

Comments

At this time in Illinois histroy I would not support a tax increase to keep these parks open.

One thing that never goes away is a tax increase. We have seen over and over again that it is not a lack of revenue that has sent this state into the financial state it is in. It is the drunken sailor approach to spending that has put us where we are.

Without minimizing the importance of state parks, I have to believe there are higher priorities than keeping them open. Such as increasing the numbers of correctional officers in prisons, capitol works program, paying our current debts off etc.

I like a good state park, but at some point something has to give, and this is as good as anything.

Comment by Speaking At Will Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:38 am
I would support whatever method is necessary to keep them open, but would need a blood oath from Blago that he wouldn’t divert the dollars to one of his pet projects….for the people

Comment by History Lover Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:39 am
Yes I would support a small tax increase to keep the Lincoln sites in operation. As long as I have to pay $85 a year to renew my license plates that say “Land of Lincoln” then we should make a concerted effort to keep open the sites that illustrate how and why we are the land of Lincoln.

Comment by HoBoSkillet Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:41 am
NO.

Tax increase to get us back in black (hum AC/DC to yourself all day).

Closing of sites is tragic, but so is not making payments to vendors of the state. It’s a priority thing, and right now, historic sites staying open is not the number one priority of this state.

Tourists don’t “flock” to see the Dana Thomas house or other smaller attractions in Springfield and around the state. The cornerstone, the ALM, is what tourists are flocking to Springfield to see.

Comment by BandCamp Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:41 am
No. As much as I love our state parks and historic sites, I’d rather pay a user fee — and I would gladly to visit — than pay a tax that would probably go to something else in the first place.

And I think it is a high profile crock that these have been targeted for closure. In the scheme of things this is small potatoes. We could save billions by reforming — not cutting services — other big ticket programs…

Comment by Greg Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:45 am
I would support laying off the governors campaign staff currently planted in the DNR first. Then we can talk new revenue sources.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:49 am
NO, the Sorry State of ILL has no credibility with me. I have no faith that the state or our dear guv would actually use that money for the original intent.

Comment by JLP Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:49 am
No increase. Just tie Obama into every single historic site and profit. Increase admission fees.

Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:50 am
No to a tax increase. Though it is questionable as to the gov’s motives for closing these sites, they are, to me, somewhat of a luxury in dire times. We do need to maintain them but these, along with other assets and services and heading for suspension. We are in a financial crisis in the state and nationally and all indications are that it will get far worse before we see a positive change. Unfortunately many, many more jobs will be lost in Illinois government. Even in good times, I wouldn’t trust this governor to keep any promise. He simply can not be trusted!

Comment by Justice Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:55 am
I never support tax increases, but I would like to see some of these sites placed under private management if not private ownership. Probably difficult because we should be able to see these sites for free.

Comment by Levois Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:58 am
It is very easy to make really painful cuts in a budget shortfall, then seek a tax increase to reverse them. Real leadership would have us make cuts we can live with and only resort to a tax increase if it was truly necessary after cutting everything that can be cut.

Comment by Downstate weed chewing hick Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:59 am
No. I’d pay a higher user fee. The problem is not, specifically, with our Blago or with the Dems vs. the Republicans. It’s that our Illinois government is so corrupt that I believe an increase in taxes for, say, parks or historic sites, would simply allow our greedy legislators and the guv’s office to reduce the current allocation and siphon off more money for themselves–more no-bid contracts for “campaign contributors,” more cushy civil service jobs for life, more raises for do-nothing legislators.

The best thing we citizens can do right now is look out for Number 1, so we stay solvent.

There are lots of wealthy socialites and moguls
who could take on the parks and historic sites as a crusade and raise money for them. But that would take some work on the part of the guv’s staff to find them and point them in the right direction.
Since actual work is involved, I guess that’s not much of an option.

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:03 am
I don’t like the question. As agencies like HPS and DNR have been slashed to the bone since Rod entered office, it’s not particularly a balanced question. While the adgendas wanted more money, no one had a problem with raiding and sweeps. Now, I would say ‘no’ to raising taxing just to keep sites open, but would say ‘yes’ to a small increase to keep community grants for preschools and mental health centers ect ect running. Problem is Rod in my opinion is not to be trusted that any increase of any type would go for whatever reason stated for the increase. Anyone really think that if an increase for sites to remain open would not be subject to raiding/sweeps just like special funds are now raided/swept? For example, if asked if I would support a $1 increase on registrations to help purchase police cars, off the top of my head, I’d say ‘of course’–but when I take 2 seconds to think about it, why would I even assume that the expected $9 million raised would go for so much as one intended purpose.

Long whine, cut short, ‘no’ to increasing taxes to ‘keep sites open’ but ‘yes’ to a generalized tax increase that was totally ‘Rod Proof’. I’m scared of what the governor is doing to DOC and DCFS and to think he wants a 8% additional authority?

Comment by Princess Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:08 am
Instead of supporting a tax increase, why don’t we support a 10% cut in the secret $2 billion SDEM “member initiative” slush fund.

Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:08 am
The fee to camp in Illinois was raised and that money was earmarked for IDNR to retain current employees and sites open.Where did it go?

Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:11 am
If the state park and historical site system needs to be downsized, maybe some of the counties and municipalities can take some of the smaller sites over, or private non-profit organizations.

It is interesting that, even as our state park system is struggling, voters in the collar counties and beyond are voting to establish or expand their forest preserve districts and passing bond issues to buy more open space and develop their park systems.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:16 am
No. Although I would like to see those sites stay open I fear that the tax/fee increase designated for that purpose would eventually be diverted to pay other bills.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:17 am
No. Why, because we’ve seen this play to many times. “We need the money for X worthwhile cause”….and then, a few years later, we’re still paying the higher taxes, but the worthy cause somehow needs more money again. Anyone remember that the increased plate and registration fees that we are still paying were supposed to be used for road construction – something for which lawmakers are again looking for new revenue sources?

Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:19 am
I have never really supported any tax increase… and if I thought a tax increase would actually be spent on this, then maybe. But the governor would just throw it into his healthcare program… illegally. So forget it. Ravage the state, I just hope somebody can, someday, fix this mess.

Comment by Heartless Libertarian Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:22 am
I second what Princess said — no tax increase just for historic sites, but a small, generalized, fraction of a percent increase in income and/or sales taxes to help the state out of the hole it’s dug for itself and help fund ALL essential services. Provided, of course, said tax increase was totally Rod-proof. (Perhaps such an increase will not be possible until Blago is out of office.)

While it can be argued that keeping historic sites open (particularly those which don’t get a lot of traffic) is a “luxury” in bad economic times, the problem is, the longer they stay closed the harder it is to open them again when times get better.

Temporary closures might be fine, except that with the overseeing agencies cut to shreds maintenance would suffer, and eventually some of these sites would deteriorate beyond repair. At that point, valuable assets that attract visitors, boost local economies, and add to the overall quality of life are lost forever.

To lose assets like parks and historic sites that have the potential to benefit Illinois residents for generations to come over the short-sighted decisions of one administration would be tragic, in my opinion.

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:23 am
GOP-

Those raised license plate fees are still being used to pay off the bonds for the projects that were done at the time and shortly thereafter. They were (and still are) being used for “road construction”…only, some it is “yesterday’s” road construction, not today’s.

That is why, in a capital program, the bond payoff should never outrun the life of a project, as a rule.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:23 am
No tax increase.

This technique of taking things away from the public in lieu of another tax increase does not address the underlying waste in governments. This is similar to school district campaigns where the students are threatened with the loss of popular programming such as sports and art if a referendum is not approved.

Lets find some Venture Cap specialists out there who know how to control spending and really start cutting the waste out of the budget.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:23 am
== The fee to camp in Illinois was raised and that money was earmarked for IDNR to retain current employees and sites open.Where did it go? ==

Good question.

Comment by Speaking At Will Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:24 am
Sure, why not a tax increase?

It would probably be a small amount, like the cost of a cup of coffee a day.

Small price to pay to have a place where school kids can go to learn about Illinois.

Comment by Leroy Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:27 am
Lincoln Held Hostage - Blagojevich Demands Ransom!

How low can Illinois leadership go?
How about holding Abraham Lincoln hostage? Isn’t that what they are doing now? Most of us know that Mr. Lincoln’s remains were targeted by a group intending to steal them for money - well, here we are on the bicentennial of his birth, and we are seeing a group of our state’s inept leaders holding Mr. Lincoln hostage so that they can squeeze more of our money for their benefit.

Blagojevich doesn’t have to close these parks. No one is forcing him to prioritize our government funds so that he is forced to do this. Instead of doing the right thing, Blagojevich has decided to play games with us, using Mr. Lincoln as ransom.

We have reached a point in Illinois where nothing is sacred when it comes to politics. We reached it years ago, but now we are seeing how this warped mentality effects our national treasures.

So no, I do not favor a tax increase in order to pay the ransom Mr. Blagojevich and friends are demanding in order to celebrate Mr. Lincoln’s birth.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:27 am
I have a friend who is a very successful concessionnaire at an Illinois state park. This friend has for years tried to get IDNR to make improvements that would produce more revenue for the State, but they’re not interested. Many of these parks could help pay for themselves if they were run like small businesses and not like a state agency. I would be in favor of increasing user/admission fees before raising taxes.

Comment by puzzler Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:29 am
The money is small, a rounding error as someone said the other day. Obviously the money could be found elsewhere in such an enormous enterprise as the State of Illinois. So your question is full of mischief, Rich, and I think I understand why. I’ll bite hook, line and sinker:

The answer is absolutely “yes.”

We’re not talking about parking garages here. The historic sites and parks are the legacy of those that came before us. They don’t belong to us; they belong to the ages. It is our solemn responsibility to pass them along in as good if not better condition than we received them.

You don’t sell the old family Bible, or the silver candlesticks great-grandma carried through Ellis Island because you’re short on the rent. You find another way, like your parents and grand-parents did when they were in a tight spot. Then you pass them on to your children.

Anybody want to shut down Yellowstone or the Smithsonian to take a nibble out of the federal deficit? The idea is absurd.

You do what you have to do to maintain the legacy. It’s the cost of civilization.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:45 am
but, puzzler, I would not trust this administration to ’save’ parks/sites even with a gate fee. Camping fee that a park now takes in does not stay with the park. It goes down to the general kitty. Why feed the kitty more as long as there is no absolute in where the sent money goes?

Comment by Princess Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 11:52 am
We need a public-private partnership third party to manage state parks and historic sites like in other states and countries.

Many of these sites can produce more revenue and provide more services but not if they are ignored which has been the case for the past decade.

I understand the concerns. Almost no one on this page and in this state trusts the governor. Of those that still do, they don’t trust the General Assembly.

The bottom line is that for 100 years we have had state parks and historic sites (Fort Massac just celebrated its 100th anniversary a few weeks ago). It’s a legitimate function of government and a commitment that has already been made.

It’s a commitment society has made for future generations.

New programs to help some do something they should already be doing for themselves is the problem.

Comment by From the Sidelines Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:04 pm
several years ago the License plate fee in Illinois doubled. The reason so that we could re-plate all of the vehicles in the state. That re-plating has surely been payed for and yet the fee never decreased and the state has gone further in debt despite the fact they doubled the revenue stream from vehicle registrations.

A tax increase would provide the same situation. A short term success to wave followed by years more of overspending.

The working people of Illinois live within their budgets why can’t the state do the same.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:17 pm
Forget the tax, Blagoof could not be trusted to spend it correctly
How about a special Lottery Game? Do a speical millionaire game —like Halloween or an instant game sold at or near Lincoln sites. Give the $$$ directly to Alexi to spend directly on the sites.

Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:21 pm
Not a sales or property tax hike. The money would be swept into another fund to pay for something different. I would be ok with a user fee increase with conditions, but I doubt that most of these sites could remain open just on user fees alone. . .

Comment by Jake from Elwood Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:24 pm
The only way I would support a tax to support the DNR and historic sites is if we follow the state of Missouri’s and other state which have a designated sales tax apportionment and a non partisan Commission running the DNR and Historic Sites. Until that happens any tax increase for the parks etc will be lost in the shuffle.

Comment by johninchicago Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:31 pm
Kevin Highland-

You are mostly incorrect on the reason IL plate fees were increased. It was mainly for capital transportation works.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:33 pm
No, Why give money to the Government when they don’t know how to spend the money they already get.

Comment by Boscobud Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 12:50 pm
==if they were run like small businesses and not like a state agency==

ding,ding,ding,ding…we have a winner! If sites aren’t paying for themselves, cut a deal with some local organization to run it for them. A lot of cities have hotel/motel tax funds they could use to fund them, if they do. Areas that benefit from the tourism directly should buck up and fund them if they are that interesting and important. Otherwise an additional tax is just adding to the problem of ineffective government.

And KH, SOS is right. Gov. George Ryan passed his Illinois FIRST program and the money is being used to retire those bonds. Remember those days, when legislators were shoveling out $40,000 checks as fast as they could be printed?

Comment by Vote Quimby! Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:02 pm
VQ, I suspect the sites do pay for themselves already with the economic activity they generate. The closings have nothing to do with budget deficits and everything to do with squeezing legislators to play ball with the governor in other areas.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:14 pm
It looks like there is across the board agreement on one thing: nobody trusts the current leadership to actually use the new revenue to keep the parks open.

If there were trust (and the impression that proposed cuts are based careful study and actual need), there might be more support for a tax increase.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:16 pm
PAY YOUR BILLS!!
PAY YOUR BILLS!!
PAY YOUR BILLS YOU BUNCH OF NO GOOD DEADBEATS!!

Comment by BIG R.PH. Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:18 pm
Not with this Governor, Not with this General Assembly, NO WAY

Comment by Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:43 pm
Most state sites don’t charge fees but have donation boxes - but the money doesn’t stay with the site, it goes to general state funds. If sites could charge admission that actually went to their operating costs people would pay. They can’t currently charge for festivals they hold either. Maybe we could turn New Salem over to the feds.

Comment by Bonsaso Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:56 pm
I have supported/would support a permanent small tax increase to avoid draconian cuts in health and human services and education funding and to keep state employees from losing their jobs. We should have had a small tax increase immediately after Governor Pinoccio took office.Any rational Governor, Republican or Democrat would have supported a tax increase sometime between Blago’s inauguration and the pressnt time.

However, I am not sure that an income tax increase is advisable in the middle of a terrible prolonged economic recession. Furthermore, in the short-term we shoould have more critical needs/higher priorities than some of the historical sites.

My personal funding priorities would be education and social safety net programs that serve our most vulnerable sitizens, including people who are unemployed. In the longer-term, when fiscal solvency is restored, I would definitely support funding to reopen all historic sites.

I agree with someone else’s suggestion that modest admission fees to these historic sites might be one way to keep them open/reopen them soon/sooner. Funds for more popular sites/draws could be used to subsidize others.

Comment by Captain America Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 1:57 pm
No.Sell everything to the private sector.

Comment by Steve Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 2:06 pm
Yes.I support all tax increases.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 2:26 pm
Absolutely not. Owning and maintaining historic sites and parks is not a core function of state government.

Sell them, lease them, sell naming rights, give them to groups, etc.

Comment by 4% Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 3:21 pm
4%, that’s simply a bizarre statement. Do you want to sell the national parks and Smithsonian, too.

How about a McDonald’s Yellowstone Park? A Coca-cola National History Museum? A Viagra Gettysburg National Military Park.

Lot of folks like bowling alone, I take it. No sense of community or shared experience?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 3:29 pm
Absolutely yes. Owning and maintaining historic sites and parks IS a core function of state government. Giving people who make over $85,000 free health insurance, building swimming pools, sponsoring music festivals, etc. is NOT core services. All pork should be eliminated first. If it were, maybe we wouldn’t need a tax increase at all.

Comment by lincolnlover Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 3:46 pm
Well, I certainly agree that all pork should be eliminated first, but in Illinois, home of massive bipartisan political corruption, that is an impossibility. Every dollar in Illinois taxes includes a set-aside for the current political elites and their relatives and “campaign contributors.”

On the bright side, maybe the flora and fauna at the parks could benefit from some reduced usage.

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 3:54 pm
It appears as though the majority do not want parks and recreation areas to go to and they feel the DNR is not a state priority. I would like to answer some of the items that were raised.

First of all, many of the sites were donated to the state or were purchased through a process that mandates that they remain state recreation areas. they cannot be run or taken over by other entities.
Secondly if you cut the DNR to the point of no operation you do not just give up state parks and recreational areas. You give up bikeways, snow mobile trails, municipal boat ramps, and every other non-state recreational facility that gets grants from the IDNR for construction and or operation. You eliminate hunting and increase car deer accidents, you increase the number of geese defecating on your country club golf courses. You eliminate water patrols by Conservation Police Officers which increases boat accidents.
Without a Department to operate programs that bring in Federal dollars for all types of recreation recreational opportunities disappear. The quality of life drops and business and industry go elsewhere. School programs funded by IDNR are gone so your children learn nothing about the natural world.
User fees have been mentioned and have come close to happening a couple of times. The reason they have not succeeded is because 1.) The general assembly wants parks to be available to the states poorest people. They do not want to have a park system that our forefathers left where only the rich can have access to the parks.
2.) At many sites that have multiple entrances it would be more costly to have someone at each point of entry checking for stickers and taking money than would be generated by a modest fee.
IDNR has made many attempts to become self sufficient. The E-plate was such a program that was generating some revenue, but then the GA let every group that wanted a specialty plate to get in on the pie and the E-Plate revenue dropped. Many of the funds that had money for IDNR programs have been swept and have paid for other things in the state budget. IDNR would not be in the shape it is in if our funds were left alone. So it is not fair to say that IDNR is not trying to be self sufficient.

And as for taking care of number 1 we who are employed by the IDNR are citizens also and maybe we don’t like to pay for mass transit, or airports, or special programs for Chicago schools, so maybe let’s close those down since WE don’t need them.

Comment by Irish Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 3:59 pm
Increase taxes of course.

We don’t pay enough and these parks are for the poor people.

Probably will be able to reverse the increase after we have total control of government in the next year.

Comment by proud Democrat Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 3:59 pm
Sorry Cassandra - aren’t any republicans left to be ‘corrupt’ in illinois

Haven’t been since 2002 really.

Nope, one group to blame here my friends.

Comment by bipartisan corruption? Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 4:04 pm
No, not until there were sufficient funds to pay for higher priority (such as the Medicaid payment cycle) state financial problems

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 4:15 pm
UIS/NPR is reporting that the Better Govt. Association has just won the latest round versus the Gov and his subpeana’s. Gov’s office isn’t talking yet, and hasn’t said if it will appeal to the IL. Supreme court.

Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 4:37 pm
How about sponsorship or advertisement at the sites? Rich, would you want a CapitolFax banner on your favorite Lincoln site? Yes you would come on it would be great stuff.

Comment by J28 Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 4:41 pm
What exactly does it mean that Rod signed the restore funds but veto’d out restoring Historical Sites and Alexi, Lisa and Jesse’s funding?

Will the parks really stay open, or can he still close them by refusing the release the money?

Comment by Princess Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 5:21 pm
Steve, it’s such a relatively small amount of money. You could zero out parks and historic sites and you’d still have a huge deficit problem.

We’re not going to stop buying office supplies for the state until the Medicaid vendor crisis is solved.

But even a year of neglect for historic sites could have irreparable consequences. Doesn’t that factor into the setting of priorities?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 5:49 pm
User fees, facility rentals, wedding ect, maybe some creative thinking. Many of these attractions could fend for themselves with proper management and even turn a profit.

Comment by Pick of the litter Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 6:07 pm
Not one thin dime until Blago is gone.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 9:06 pm
WS My thought has always been if you solve the problems piecemeal, you take the pressure off. Who’s going to vote for a tax increase to fund pensions? A tax increase has to be for things people care about (e.g. parks, education, etc) and has to be for enough to solve the other problems too.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Nov 20, 08 @ 10:15 pm