Chicagoist: Spire Taxes Also Sky High

A2

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:27:50 -0600

$400,000 is NOTHING to this man! He literally probably just forgot to pay it.

delta_

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:01:19 -0600

Looks like the sharp end of a nail (minus the spiral). Would be interesting to see the other part of this building on the opposite side of the earth except shaped like a electrical drill, or hammer, or nail head or some ridiculous thing. Possibly a band saw... thats just silly, stop it!

celerysalt

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:59:06 -0600

chimusic, don't be a whiner. none of the existing buildings "fit" into the skyline before they were built. what made our skyline what it is today is vision. have some, please. santiago claratrava is the most exciting architect of our age, and it just totally burns me that milwaukee - MILWAUKEE! - has one and we don't. also, to any developers out there with a couple hundred thousand burning a hole in their pocket: we need a zaha hadid. preferably a public use building. please and thank you.

I_h8_toyota_and_BT

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:55:10 -0600

somebody has got to pay for all the property taxes the tribune company evades by having wrigley field appraised for barely a million bucks. Apparently it's Mr Kelleher

chimusic

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:45:47 -0600

Looking at these Chicago pictures the spire just doesnt seem to fit into our skyline. Just my opinion.

Joe Blow

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:28:27 -0600

No, totally true. If you own something, you should have to pay up. Shame on you for owning a nice piece of property. Pay money.

fed up

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:18:15 -0600

But property taxs are assesed based on whats on the property not what could be built there. Every parking lot downtown could have a high rise but they are taxed on there current use. Its nothing more than a vacant lot. I would like to see this get built but I doubt it will ever happen.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:19:44 -0600

Because they should totally owe $400,000 last year, just for owning a nice piece of land. Well, yes, yes they should. They get a discount (a huge one) because they have no occupancy. Look at it this way, if someone went and plopped a building/buildings half the size (600 units) for which the annual taxes averaged $5k, then the city is losing $2.6MM a year while the development firm is globe hopping looking for tenants. But the city is losing much, much more than this in opportunity cost.

numnums

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:09:37 -0600

...a little bit for Todd Stroger, a little bit for Todd Stroger's family, a little bit for Mayor Daley, a little bit for Todd Stroger's friends, a little bit MORE for Todd Stroger, a little bit MORE for Mayor Daley, a little bit MORE for Todd Stroger...

jimbo

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:05:42 -0600

joe - if you want zoning for a 1,200 unit condo building, you're going to have to pay for it. it's just the way it works.

Joe Blow

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:45:17 -0600

Because they should totally owe $400,000 last year, just for owning a nice piece of land.

celerysalt

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:22:01 -0600

Oh, but I want them to build this.

numnums

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:11:19 -0600

"uh... my cougar ate my checkbook."

Pinko

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:41:14 -0600

The commercial mega-developers' version of "The check is in the mail..."?