Foodie Rant - Properly Sauced? Try Properly Ripped Off.
Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
NYT Preps For Chicago Edition
Chicago Gets Googled
On Wednesday, the Illinois House Committee on Mass Transit approved legislation that would enable the RTA to fund the CTA, Metra and Pace and prevent service cuts and fare hikes across the board. The Illinois House Committee on Mass Transit approved a transit funding and reform proposal by a 15-4 vote. The House is expected to convene to vote on the proposal next week.
This bill comes after the RTA announced that a "doomsday" scenario would cut services, increase fares, cut jobs and defer capital investments and maintenance projects indefinitely. In fact, Chicago Card holders received an email from the CTA outlining the increase in costs this week. Unfortunately, the governor has threatened to "Rodimize" Chicago saying that the $450 million bill would hurt average people by increasing sales taxes in the six-county region. He has vowed to veto the bill, arguing that his fantasy of closing corporate tax loopholes is the best course for fully funding mass transit in the region. Never mind that Julie Hamos (D-Evanston), the relative expert on transit issues in the General Assembly, has fought for this legislation, contending that it can stand up to a gubernatorial veto. "We don't have four legislative leaders and a governor who are working together. If we did, we could do anything, even at the last minute," Hamos told the Tribune.
Of course, Mayor Daley and Blagojevich are at odds over this legislation. "The only viable option for the CTA, Metra and for PACE is a sales tax," Daley told Chicago Public Radio. "I do not support the plan to require people to pay a higher sales tax and real estate transfer tax," Blagojevich told the Chicago Tribune. "That just ends up hurting the very people who rely on mass transit." All the while Daley has been asking for a tax increase to fund continued operations of the CTA, while the city had the opportunity to fully fund the CTA with finances generated from the $1.82 billion lease of the Chicago Skyway to Spain-based Cintra Concessiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. in 2004.
Of course, if Blagojevich wants to continue to have corporate tax loopholes to point to as a solution for the ills of the day, he'll have to insure that the people in the Chicagoland metropolitan area have corporate jobs to go to.
Image via The New No. 2.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"..while the city had the opportunity to fully fund the CTA with finances generated from the $1.82 billion lease of the Chicago Skyway to Spain-based Cintra Concessiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. in 2004."
Uh, perhaps, Kevin.
First, I believe some of the money has been earmarked.
Second, you gloss over the situation, as you typically do. The idea was to keep this Skyway money out of the city's day-to-day operating funds, a good idea, at least in theory. The idea was to more or less keep this money in what amounts to a reserve fund--again, a good idea in theory, as this could improve the city's bond ratings, which indirectly affect tax bills and the amount the city can borrow for a wide variety of projects.
I am not sure how these theories have been put into practice, but apparently neither are you. I am not saying you idea is a bad one, only that--as usual--you throw out the statement while glossing over the potetnal complications, and without offering any facts to back up your pretty big idea. I continue to be amazed that someone who passes himself off as a political observer writes such superficial material.
May I ask what value you bring to this site? Your summary offers nothing new, and reminds me of the summaries I had to write in grade school of Weekly Reader articles--only this time, the Weekly Reader has been replaced by the area's major media outlets. What original thought or view do you bring to this issue? I realize you do not get paid and likely work hard in your paid profession, and that you likely don't have time to write a full analysis of the situation, but do you really think the people who care about transit haven't heard this news already? Even the RedEye has covered it.
I think, perhaps, people should become more irate about the CTA's inability to control its money effectively, the Governor's budget antics, and a number of other things, rather than the dog's in outdoor cafes issue.
We need to get people fired up about public transit fare hikes which affect the poor more than the Gold Coasters and Lincoln Parker... Especially when the proposed solution to this problem by our brilliant mayor is to raise sales tax - which economists say is a tax that adversely affects the poor more than the rich.
I know people with money and the AMA control the country, but lets try not to be too obvious about furthering the divide between upper and lower class.
Guest #1: Hey, it could be worse: Alicia Dorr could be covering it, and God only knows what she'd write.
I think funding mass transit with money from the skyway would be very appropriate. It would keep costs down for people using an efficient and environmentally friendly way to get to work (mass transit) with revenues raised from people who use an inefficient and impractical way to travel (by car).
And yes, the drastic cuts in transit will hurt the poor more disproportionately than a .25% sales tax increase would. The fare hikes would take a big bite out of their monthly incomes and the service cuts might prevent some of the working poor from getting to work at all if they do not have cars or if they live in far out neighborhoods.
Skaterina: Care to tell us how you think this Skyway money should be used for mass transit?
All for capital funds?
Some/All for operating expenses?
Would you use all of the Skyway money, or just a certain amount?
How do you use it so that we don't need to return in 10-15 years for another funding infusion from the state? That is, how would you use the Skyway money in a way that could ensure a recurring-revenue situation? Or, would this be merely a one-time infusion of funds?
As well, how would the use of Skyway money only for the CTA (and I assume you mean just the CTA and not Metra or Pace), how will affect larger RTA efforts to gain funding?
Would the RTA or state have to sign off on this?
Finally, what would using the Skyway money for transit do to the city's bond ratings?
Again, this is a big idea to use the Skyway money for the CTA, and many people have proposed it. Yet no one seems willing to think about the specifics of this proposal. Is anyone in Chicago a critical thinker about this? I am not trying to be a smart ass, only learn more instead of a vague, poorly expressed proposal.
Right on guest 1 and 5. Big ideas need big solutions, and feasible ones at that!
I mean, here they are, complaining about mass transit for the poor. But, they also fail to mention that the effects of any such infusion also benefits them. And then, the City's bond rating drops, and...We have no money to go for other things, like infrastructure in the form of...Well, the list is endless.
Spook, you out there bro?
If any of you really want to comment intelligently on government fiscal matters, I urge you learn at least a bit about bond sales and bond ratings if you have not already. You don't need to become an expert--who would want to unless you were a city finance officer or elected official?--but you really need to know a little bit about how governments fund improvements through bonds.
Kevin's not going to do it for you, so you are on your own.
From Crain's Chicago Business:
Neither the mayor or city financial officials have said exactly what they will do with that windfall. But some of the money will go into a “rainy day” fund whose interest could be used to support the city’s operating budget. Some will be used to pay off about $130 million in relatively high-cost city commercial-paper debt, and some may be used to pay off long-term debt.
From the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning's presentation (PDF) to the New York State Metropolitan Planning Organization 2007 Annual Meeting:
All of which is well and good. I'm not saying that funding the CTA through the Skyway lease agreement would be a panacea. But I am skeptical that the city didn't see this coming three years ago. If they did, and let it keep going (Krusei is like Chicago's own Brownie - he was doing a heckuva job!)then fuck 'em for threatening all of us like this. And if they didn't see it coming, then who is in charge here?
Either way it's poor municipal management, and now we have to pay for it with yet another tax increase.
And you are correct: I'm not going to school you on bond ratings. I have neither the time nor the patience.
"I am not going to school you on bond ratings. I have neither the time, nor the patience."
When you do get some time and stop being impatient, please do fill us in. Otherwise, we're left with nothing but the conclusion that you don't know. And, that's fine. I am a little bit unclear on it myself. I just don't pretend to be on top of everything the way you do.
Remember that dissent is a form of patriotism, but when it's directed at everything you can sneeze at, it tends to lose its merits.
I think Kevin is slipping into Alicia territory in any case. Don't you mean "ensure" in the last line?
Guest # 10: The premise of my post isn't based on municipal bond ratings - you want to make the issue about that.
From Save Chicagoland Transit:
I don't think that it would be wise to just dump the Skyway lease money into the CTA. You are correct that we would just wind up coming back in a few years looking for more cash. But crumbling infrastructure doesn't just sneak up on a municipality. Train cars past their expiration date, rail lines that are broken and damaged to the extent that you can go faster that 15 MPH on them, and a crush of riders on a system without the capacity to handle it don't just happen all at once. They come from years of neglect.
According to Chicago's own Metropolitain Agency for Planning, the city is sitting on $875 million in revenues, which, according to some news reports, they are hoping will generate enough interest to fluff up the city's operating budget. It seems to me that three years ago they could have started work on the most critical parts of the CTA's infrastructure, while planning for the budget shortfalls that are hitting now.
Ultimately, this is all just another shell-game, played on the people of Illinois. Move some money here, move some more over there, and when things get bad enough, we need a tax increase to deliver just barely the service that you expect. Smart long-term planning, with or without the Skyway lease money, would have prevented all of this.
I think what people don't realize is that the sales tax is going to cost people more each year than the $9/month increase in fare.
Plus, the new $800 (on average) people will have to pay when they sell their home, while not astronomical or prohibitive, seems like an unfair burden on them.
And then, what NOBODY is discussing, is that all this stuff only gets you halfway there. the second half of their formula is more money from the state.
Where are you going to get $250 million from the State these days!?!? That's even MORE revenue needed that we don't have.
Another sales tax? Another income tax increase?
This is so full of holes, they shouldn't rush it through.
Give me a break, Kevin, about not having the time and patience to school people on bond ratings. All you have to do is mention how they affect city finances--you don't have to write a thesis or even a real article. Instead, you hand down observations that you expect people to simply accept the wisdom of. That is why you are such a poor communicator, and probably have changed few minds about any issue, even though the opportunities have been great through this forum.
Frankly, I am starting how much you really do know, and how much of your Chicagoist personality depends on you pretending to know about the issues you cover. You come across as a lightweight with a loud voice. I hope I am wrong, as I realize a Chicagoist personality isn't the whole truth. But if you are working in public service, or intend to, I hope you learn to offer more so the citizens can get their money's worth. You have great passion, but passion's only part of the battle.
Finally, you've still offered nothing in terms of how any Skyway money would help the CTA. You offer no plan, no proposal, only a hazy wish for something to happen. You just toss out more links and another meaningless rant about how city officials should have see this coming. Thank you, Capt. Obvious. What's next--the insight that working class people are being driven out of the city?
If you can't do this volunteer job well, why do it at all?
Here's a question for those who might know: why does Blago have to sign off on a sales tax that only affects a small portion of the state? We're not talking about raising the state sales tax...we're talking about raising a local tax. Does Illinois require city/county taxes to be approved by the governor?
There is a part of me that wonders if enacting the Doomsday plan would benefit public trans in the long run. CTA has been threatening this type of thing for 3 years (as long as I've lived in Chicago) and they've always been "rescued." What if they're not rescued? Would a mass transit breakdown be the proof that Springfield needs to fund RTA/CTA for the long term,not just these year-by-year stopgap measures?
"I don't think that it would be wise to just dump the Skyway lease money into the CTA. "
Then exactly what do you want to do, Kevin? You are the one who raised the initial point*.
We are aware of the stumblings of city officials on this issue. Tell us something new or fresh or insightful. Who knows? You might have a good idea.
*="All the while Daley has been asking for a tax increase to fund continued operations of the CTA, while the city had the opportunity to fully fund the CTA with finances generated from the $1.82 billion lease of the Chicago Skyway to Spain-based Cintra Concessiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. in 2004."
15: Because the sales tax is a state bill, and affects the funding structure of the RTA.
As to your second point, I kind of agree, but I would take it one step further: This city really needs to sink (and it shows signs of doing it) before people might--might--wake up to the leaders they've let rob us for too long, and all the shortsighted, greedy policies these leaders have put in place. That would involved a transit crash. Thankfully, I would be one of the lucky ones--I have the means to escape to New York or DC, and an easy path to good jobs in those locations (though I prefer the Midwest to the East). I feel sorry for other people who are not as lucky as I.
Guest #1, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14 and now 16: You've spent half this thread complaining about one thing or another, concluding with "at least I can always go to NY or DC". You want some grand unified theory of mass transit solutions. So stop complaining about everything, and tell us what the answer is.
Well, Kevin, if you want me to do your job, here you go, buddy:
1) Enact the sales tax and real estate tax scheme;
2) Expand the RTA board, and give more voice to suburban areas on this board---this provides needed political cover for things that have to be done now and later;
3) Give the RTA more teeth--perhaps less duplicate planning will result, saving some money;
4) Raise gas taxes, with at least 50% of the increase going to mass transit through both RTA and downstate agencies, especially Metro St. Louis. Range: Perhaps 2 to 3 cents per gallon.
5) Find specific coporate tax loopholes to close, and use a good portion of that funding for mass transit, both here and downstate. Call Blago on this one, as that's his answer for most everything.
6) For the love of God, find a way to match federal transit and road dollars for this state before they expire; see Durbin's latest comments to the Trib.
7) Limit the city's future use of TIFs, with at least a portion of that revenue. This may not directly benefit the CTA because of the way property taxes work, but less pressure of other taxing agencies should in the longer term help the CTA.
8) Enact the pension reform for the CTA that already has gained support;
9) Raise the state income tax by one basis point, and direct some of that to mass transit throughout the state (again, not all or even 50%, just some--perhaps 10%, if we can find a way to pay off our pension obligations)
10) Leave the skyway money alone unless someone can explain how it will be use without killing off the city's reserve fund capability or harming the bond ratings; at the most, perhaps a modest, one time cash infusion for capital programs--and I don't mean the freaking express trains to the airports.
11) Do another Illinois First program with another heavy investment in capital spending for mass transit--this is longer term, unfortunately, and dependent on our bond ratings and borrowing abilities;
12) Raise Metra, Pace and CTA fares at least modestly, especially on cash fares and perhaps on rush hour fares--I think a zoned pricing structure is beyond our capability right now. I think you can also increase prices of monthly passes modestly--say $5 to $10--without doing too much harm. Raise cash fares at least 75% to encourage lower cost electronic processing of fares.
13) Find more CTA management types to lay off--if you don't think they are there, you either are more optimistic than I, or don't really appreciate the stinkhole that is Chicago
14) Lobby the fed govt for more long-term transit funding--again, another long term effort;
15) Raise vehicle registration fees in this state, and increase the price of city stickers, with the funds directly going to mass transit;
16) Raise fees for parking tickets in the city, with the funds helping to boost the city's contributions to the CTA. (a girl can dream that the money will find its way there).
17) Raise by at least 100% the taxes on parking lots, garages in this city, with the funds going to the CTA or RTA
What the hell do you have, Kevin? Still waiting for Skyway details, cowboy.
Waiting ....
Waiting ...
"So stop complaining about everything, and tell us what the answer is."
This is what we expect from you, Kevin. Except all you do is complain.
Guest #19 (and whichever other guests you were), you either need to run for office, get a job at a think tank or get a life.
21: So regular citizens shouldn't give a shit about public issues and the people who try to shape views on those issues?
Yeah, that's a winning proposition.
Go back to watching house porn or whatever it is you do to not think about what's going on.
raise parking fees? right. because ANY of those fines ever see the CTA light of day.
there are a LOT of problems with how the CTA is funded, but i still find it absolutely vomit inducing that daley wants his little olympics so much but won't even stand up for one of the backbones of the city ... public transit. gah.
Daley doesn't want the Olympics. He just wants the attention of going for it. It diverts the public's attention.
Jocelyn: Well, you could make it so that new parking fees would go to the CTA.
Hey Jay:
Your post is completely moronic. You have a problem with the citizans of the state actually proposing how to solve problems? I am scratching my head trying to figure out why you are against someone giving a detailed list of solutions to fix something. It certainly is better than people just screaming about an issue but not even bothering to state solutions or even go into details of what their problem is. That is usually what you see in most places, such as this site. And since the state leaders are not doing their jobs in terms of solving this problem then it is even more important for ordinary people to come up with solutions and express them to people. Again, what exactly is your problem with that?