Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner: “I have not endorsed, I have not endorsed, not supported”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Charlie Wheeler has two good reasons to be wary of the proposed transportation funding “lockbox” amendment that voters will weigh in on this November. The first are the license/title surcharges for IDNR…
$2 of each license plate fee and $3.25 of each vehicle title fee goes to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources — almost $30 million a year, according to IDNR estimates. Is each dollar spent on a transportation-related purpose?
No, it’s not. And that’s a very good point since the amendment expressly prohibits using those fees for anything other than transportation. Passing those fees was not easy, so finding another funding source would be difficult without a general tax hike. Also, as Charlie points out, the Illinois Supreme Court is quite literal in its constitutional interpretation these days and likely wouldn’t make an exception here.
* The other reason is historical…
Consider a lesson from almost 150 years ago, embedded in the 1870 Constitution. Determined to prevent the kind of extravagant public works schemes that drove the state and many towns and counties to the brink of insolvency in the mid-19th Century, its framers added extremely tight restrictions on state and local government borrowing that remained in place for 100 years.
As a result, the state resorted to creating quasi-public entities, like the Illinois Building Authority, to sell bonds to finance building projects, which then were rented back to the state, thus getting around the constitutional restrictions, but at the cost of higher interest rates.
Local government officials, meanwhile, couldn’t borrow the cash to build needed improvements like sewage treatment systems, public libraries, waterworks, or other 20th Century amenities their constituents wanted, so they cleverly circumvented the charter’s borrowing limits by creating new units of government with the sole purpose of providing a particular service, usually funded by property taxes. And today Illinois has some 2,000 of those special units, more than any other state.
Probably not the results the 1870 reformers had in mind, but a cautionary note for today’s voters.
* Related…
* $2.5M in ads spent for Illinois transportation amendment
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 12:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner: “I have not endorsed, I have not endorsed, not supported”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
it’s a small price to pay to allow the builders’ lobby to have their way. besides, they’ll give a fortune back in campaign contributions to the legislators who sold out the public interest and put this travesty on the ballot.
Comment by jim Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 12:57 pm
There is a portion of Motorcycle plate fees that go to fund the Riders Safety Courses throughout Illinois.
I wonder if they would be swept into roads instead of where they are supposed to be under this amendment.
Comment by Blue Dog Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Interesting history on how we ended up with so many governmental units.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:25 pm
One use of the funds for IDNR that I’m almost 100% certain would pass constitutional muster would be building and maintaining park roads and trails. The group promoting the lockbox should address the IDNR funding issue.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:32 pm
Just voted no
Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:38 pm
This is what happens when citizens lose all faith in their governments.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:40 pm
the language of the amendment allows for roads and or safety. Since the cyce rider safety training fund is a safety issue expressly allowed for by the amendment, they should be better off than they have been and where they lost a law suit before. So this should stop any fund sweeps from that area.
Anbd since safety is allowed, flip the funding from conservation cops to the revenues fromthe plate fees, then add in the building and road repairs
done
Comment by Todd Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:49 pm
What I find most interesting about this proposed amendment is how it is contradictory or not in IDOT’s legislated “Complete Streets” policy whereby all modes of transportation are now included in projects - inclusive of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. In one sense, the proposed amendment takes us back 30 - 40 years where transportation engineers purposely created barriers to public access with multi-lane corridors without regard to context sensitive connections to neighborhoods.
Lastly, what Vanilla Man said…
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:51 pm
I was ready to vote yes. I know our infrastructure is in sad shape. But, if Wheeler is correct, and I think he is, that the amendment would keep IDNR from getting its revenue, then I will be voting no.
Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:51 pm
This article is absurd. Pass the amendment. Stop giving this General Assembly more rope to hang themselves with and maybe they actually could pass a balanced budget with enough revenues to cover items that might be on the fringe.
Comment by Southern Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 1:57 pm
I wonder what else the SOS pays to non-transportation related items. We pay much higher fees on plates, registration, and other paperwork then other states. I have heard the SOS police are paid a lot less then their counterparts in the ISP. Jesse White’s position was he would like to pay them more, but he didn’t have money available. No wonder, if a lot of other things are coming out of his budget.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:00 pm
Merge the SOS coppers with ISP. What a guy this Wheeler is what will do after he leaves?
Comment by scott aster Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:06 pm
This is another ridiculous handcuff on local governments, it’s not just about Springfield.
Everyone says they like local control, except for that “one thing” where Springfield gets to tell the locals what to do:
* You must fund your pensions 90% by 2040 (ignore the fact that the state is never going to reach that number for its own systems).
* You cannot meet in secret and discuss policy decisions, but the legislature can.
* You must post meeting notices several days in advance, but the legislature does not have to.
* You must respond to all FOIA requests promptly and completely, but not the Governor’s office.
* You cannot use motor fuel taxes or auto sales taxes for anything except to build roads.
Here’s a news flash. Springfield does not know better.
It’s rather sad to me that this amendment will pass, I am voting no. Because I believe in local control.
Comment by hockey fan Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:08 pm
===What a guy this Wheeler is what will do after he leaves?==
What does this mean?
Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:08 pm
The Chicago Law Bulletin also has a commentary by Ann M. Lousin titled: “Constitutional tinkering a bad idea, particularly this idea”.
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:10 pm
Does IDNR spend $30 million a year on park roads? If not, then will they lose the amount they don’t spend on transportation?
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:16 pm
This is a great amendment it’s going to create jobs . It will put people back to work repairing our transportation systems my vote is yes !
Comment by Getlucky Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:22 pm
I will vote yes!
I spent about $250 for the tax last year and $150 to replace a lower Ball Joint on a 6 year old car.
Comment by WhoKnew Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:29 pm
Anon - The funds collected by SOS do not go toward park roads at IDNR, as IDOT allocates a pittance of motor fuel tax funds to the agency for all IDNR roads statewide…much less than they need to fix one park road system let alone all of them. The SOS license title fees created the Bike Path Funds local communities vie for each year in grant programs. (See Bikeway Act of 1989 or 1990 passed by Senator Sam Vadalabene).
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:36 pm
My favorite financial lockbox? A budget.
Comment by Earnest Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:45 pm
There is a lot of pent up frustration largely by businesses who faced special fees for special funds. Often business agreed on bills wiht the understanding that the fees would be used as promised.
Those promises were broken and the courts allowed the special funds to be swept. Legislative promises (like the law that mandates State pension funding) are meaningless and not enforced by the courts.
With that said, this is a bad amendment. But the practice of financing non-transportation operations with road funds is just another way to hide how dishonest the budgets are.
Comment by Politically Incorrect Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:50 pm
I was undecided until I found out Elaine Nekritz was against this. Looks like we will cancel each other.
Comment by pool boy Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:54 pm
Spending on roads is a legislative prerogative, not a constitutional mandate - vote no.
Comment by atbat Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:02 pm
DuPage - “We pay much higher fees on plates, registration, and other paperwork then other states.”
Not exactly. In most states with lower fees, there are “personal property taxes” on vehicles that the Illinois Constitution explicitly bans. Which is why Missourians are registering their cars in Illinois.
http://www.kmov.com/story/28514534/really-plate-cheats-registering-cars-in-illinois-to-avoid-taxes
A category where Illinois is a low tax state. Or, more accurately, NO tax.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/tpp_map_web_large.png
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:11 pm
Vote No on principle.
Anything based on an assumption that elected officials will not or cannot reasonably meet their responsibilities, and must be further constrained by the Constitution, is an admission of defeat for our system of government.
Comment by walker Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:11 pm
I can tell you right now that passing this will lead to higher interest rates on new general obligation bond issues.
Comment by Chicagonk Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:15 pm
–Spending on roads is a legislative prerogative, not a constitutional mandate - vote no.–
It will also protect mass transit funding. For all of you feel gooders in the City, should we still oppose it?
Comment by Joe Schmoe Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:16 pm
walker 3:11 - yep, look what happened when the 1970 Constitution put in a few dozen words regarding the state pensions, and the government still managed to screw it up when they ignored the implications. This amendment goes more to what VM said at 1:40pm, and I understand the sentiment that conceived it.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:20 pm
The Wheeler article includes a good discussion on proceeds from specialty plates. Legislative intent is not enough to safeguard these funds in my opinion so I will be voting no.
Comment by More Courage Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:24 pm
Here agin, the GA not doing it’s job. This looks like it takes infrastructure budgeting and turns it into a labor entitlement.
Comment by Touré's Latte Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:00 pm
Anonymous 3:20
The language pension was drawn up after firefighters, among others, informed Constitutional Convention that “Home Rule” authorities would be able to abolish pensions (at that time, fire fighters were not eligible for Medicare) rather than live up to its obligations.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:43 pm
Why not prohibit sweeping all special use funds for other uses? Why only protect one that has a well monied lobby (funded largely and indirectly by the special fund dollars)? Rhetorical and sad. Money walks and…
Comment by El Conquistador Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:46 pm