Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This explains some things
Next Post: Drury unveils “blueprint to Rebuild Illinois”
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz…
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle is sending a strong message to anyone who wants to mess with her pop tax: Don’t.
In an action a judge said could have “a chilling effect” on government and citizens’ rights, county attorneys are seeking $17 million in damages from the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, the group that, with a couple of co-plaintiffs, won a temporary restraining order delaying the levy by about a month.
Preckwinkle spokesman Frank Shuftan says seeking damages is appropriate: “Actions have consequences.”
He added in an email: “The financial damage to the county as a result of this delay is projected at more than $20 million. . . .The county has every right to be made whole as a result of the judge’s ruling upholding the ordinance and removing the TRO.”
Sheesh. Go read the whole thing.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This explains some things
Next Post: Drury unveils “blueprint to Rebuild Illinois”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Cuckoo” - Richard M Daley
Comment by Mike Cirrincione Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:21 pm
Classic Boss Toni behavior. This surprises no one in Cook County government. She is not to be crossed (or even disagreed with) by anyone.
You’d think she’d just want to keep her head down and get this tax out of the news.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:26 pm
Implications for Illinois are endless. Using her logic, there is a long list of actions for which citizens, interest groups, crackpots, etc. could bring suit. Like that will help.
Comment by morningstar Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:26 pm
I side with Periwinkle. the judge could have ordered the money collected and placed in escrow to be returned if they won or given to the county if they lost.
The state of Il has the tax protest act which does just that. it requires payment until the tax is actually found to be improper; so that the state loses no money if they prevail. otherwise large wealthy grps or payors could make millions just filing suits to delay payments a month or two.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:27 pm
This is a frieking outrage.
Comment by John Rawlss Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:28 pm
This is outrageous even for Illinois. Arrogrance and ego in power is dangerous.
Comment by downstate hack Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:34 pm
you can get damages for a wrongfully sought TRO, but my guess is that Toni loses this one. Too much public interest involved.
Wonder what tax she’s planning next. Actually, she’s taking the heat for the entire Board on this particular tax….they passed it. I’d love to see a few of them get knocked off next election just on this pop issue.
Comment by park Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:34 pm
I might be wrong, but didn’t they wait to file the suit until the last possible moment? Agree escrow would have been better
Comment by Squeeze Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:36 pm
===the judge could have ordered the money collected and placed in escrow===
Then maybe she should sue the judge? Or maybe she should sue her lawyers for not getting that done?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:36 pm
And here I thought “SLAPP” lawsuits were illegal in Illinois?
Comment by Crook County Hoosier Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:39 pm
This is pretty outrageous. In issuing the initial TRO the judge had to find a certain likelihood of success on the merits. In other words, this was no frivolous lawsuit. This should be a deadbang loser.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:39 pm
The idea that a government agency can collect damages from a month long delay is absurd. If that’s the case, then what about the time period prior to the tax when other roadblocks and obstacles delayed the tax initiative. If that were the case then every government body would sue for damages any time a constituent/lobbyist/interest group opposed a tax.
Comment by Ambassador Abe Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:40 pm
And you wonder why people and business are leaving this state in droves.
Comment by sharkette Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:40 pm
To add - one way to avoid these “damages?” Write a better law next time.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:40 pm
P r stunt by an out of control power hungry i cant say it. Just ask Comm Tobolski
Comment by Regular democrat Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:52 pm
That’s abusive, to say the least.
Comment by Shemp Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:52 pm
I would say she had a leg to stand on, if the software needed to calculate the tax had been installed. News reports are saying tjatbit isn’t written yet.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:53 pm
Commissioner Boykin, your table is ready.
Comment by Trapped in the 'burbs Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 2:54 pm
== the money collected and placed in escrow to be returned if they won ==
You realize you’re suggesting a refund to each individual who actually bought a drink, since IRMA wasn’t the taxed entity, right?
Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:01 pm
Power crazed politicians; lawyers; lawsuits; restraining orders;
You want a true ‘chilling effect’? Legalize pot.
Comment by Julius Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:01 pm
It’s fairly common for larger corporations to hold smaller plaintiffs liable for damages caused by an injunction/TRO. IRMA as the plaintiff going after the County had to know this was a risk when it requested and won the TRO. If IRMA didn’t, that could be malpractice. If the County didn’t try to recover its costs, that would be negligence on Preckwinkel’s part.
Litigation isn’t pretty.
Comment by O'Reilly's Loofa Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:02 pm
iRMA still may win on appeal. Toni shouldn’t count her chickens.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:03 pm
Have all the laid-off employees been rehired since the excuse was the loss of the tax? Someone posted here that Foxx laid off someone who was five months away from retirement.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:06 pm
Outrageous behavior like this is what happens when someone believes the people will just mindlessly reelect them. And she is correct.
Comment by JB13 Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:06 pm
More and More Preckwinkle reminds me of Trump
Comment by ejhickey Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:07 pm
A store brand two liter (67.6 oz.) bottle of root beer at my local County Market sells for 77 cents. In Cook County, it would now cost $1.45. That is a 47% tax. Preckwinkle should go back to Plan B; lay off the 300 patronage workers and dump the tax. If people can’t be trusted to watch their weight, too bad.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:15 pm
Soze, actually its an 88% tax based on your numbers, but your point remains.
Comment by Worth It Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:22 pm
Damages are speculative . She has no way of knowing how much tax would have been collected . You can look at pre tax sales figures but that doesn’t tell you how people would have behave after the tax went into effect.
Comment by ejhickey Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:29 pm
Commissioners would have been better off raising the property tax, but NOOOOOO. That would interfere with their plans for reelection or running for Mayor.
Comment by Irishpirate Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 3:30 pm
Could be a signal that more “imaginative” taxes are coming, and future objectors should take heed. This may inspire other local government units to further damage their private sectors for short term relief.
Or maybe the schmos that pay the bills and never vote finally will wake up.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 4:12 pm
President Preckwinkle, might I introduce you to the 1st Amendment. There’s this little section that reads, “Congress shall make no law…or abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” IRMA’s actions CLEARLY fall within the “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This will be thrown out so fast it’ll make your head spin. I wouldn’t be surprised if IRMA petitions the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the County’s lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Shocking legal malpractice.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 4:20 pm
Toni just went with a 5 percent budget cut as opposed to 10. If the County could survive spending reductions of 5 percent why did it take the tax challenge to force the budget reductions. Could it be that Cook County like the rest of Illinois govt spending could readily survive the haircut?
Comment by Sue Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 4:31 pm
Prediction: ruling for the plaintiffs.
I don’t think that the County seriously thinks they will win this one, but it has obviously become personal.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 4:35 pm
You mean this tax was all about revenues and not about reducing obesity and sugary drink consumption as claimed? I’m shocked…….
Comment by Fred Fructose Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 4:45 pm
Worth It - You are correct. Jeeze, and I’m a math guy. How embarrassing.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 5:02 pm
A wise leader would’ve built in a contingency plan if there was some delay in the go-live date or been very conservative in revenue estimates.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 5:15 pm
= IRMA’s actions CLEARLY fall within the “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This will be thrown out so fast it’ll make your head spin. I wouldn’t be surprised if IRMA petitions the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the County’s lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Shocking legal malpractice.=
It was also shocking legal malpractice for the USC to declare that corporations are people.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 5:36 pm
Say what you will about Preckwinkle, but hard to view IRMA as a victim. Only Illinois’ version of the NRA is a more powerful lobby.
IRMA simply failed this time in preventing the tax from happening.
Should IRMA have to pay damages? Well, no, not in our justice system. But they shouldn’t be surprised by the demand, just as Toni shouldn’t have been surprised by the attack on how the ordinance was drafted, and just as the judge should have required the establishment of an escrow (given the presumption that the ordinance is valid).
Everyone is at least partly wrong here.
Comment by IRLJ Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 5:53 pm
Thanks to Ghost and O’Reilly’s Loofa for providing the legal basis for seeking reimbursement.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 6:56 pm
Battle ended. You won. Going back for more is going to hurt more in the end. Just saying.
Comment by DuPage Bard Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 8:56 pm
I am for the Soda Tax. Note the use of soda. I am originally from outside the ‘Pop’ region of the United States. This is one part of midwestern culture I could never adapt to.
Comment by Mr B. Thursday, Aug 3, 17 @ 9:33 pm