The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
AP File Photo
Civic Federation President Laurence Msall told the Sun-Times, "There are no obvious sources of revenue that have not already been tapped," and that "you have to make very severe and structural cuts in the city's operating budget. City government is going to be forced to re-invent itself in the way it delivers services and eliminates services not critical. ... Police and fire have to be part of it."
If the numbers Saffold cites are correct, they could jeopardize the city's plans to fill over 500 police vacancies, and replace almost 900 officers that could be enticed into retirement. "They recognize the savings between the salaries of potential retirees and new hires. And they assured us their intent was to fill those vacancies," said Mark Donahue, president of the Chicago police union. 46th Ward Alderman Helen Shiller told the Tribune that she "appreciated" that the city's projections weren't as "rosy" as last year's, when the Daley administration overestimated revenues.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This is the exact reason that the selling of assets is a bad idea (not always but usually) - particualarly the parking meters. Now the city has one less money generating asset and since the upfroant money is gone that money isn't even generating interest. So the city now has no money from the meter deal and will never get another cent from parking meters.
genius.
Incorrect.
The bolded portion, the “revenue replacement fund” gives the City the same amount of revenue they had budgeted to receive if they hadn’t leased the meters. That is, of course, assuming they manage those proceeds wisely and it lasts through the end of the contract.
Interesting. I wonder if that "revenue replacement fund" is assuming the prices stayed the same? So in other words, what would have been the city's revenue if they increased the prices as has been done already, but retained ownership?
Well, they'll just have to find some other city asset to sell off, now won't they?
"You're riding the Red Line, brought to you by XYZ Corp. Please deposit your $10 one way fare in the fare box."
"There are no obvious sources of revenue that have not already been tapped"
Yeah, except for the mayor's TIF slush funds. Let's disband some of the larger TIFs, that aren't really in blighted neighborhoods and stop using TIF money for retail development. If there was some system to distribute unused monies to the institutions that are funded by property taxes after a certain time, it would certainly help to give us a bit of breathing room in the budget. But that'll never happen. The mayor and the Aldermen would never give up their secret rainy-day funds for unimportant expenses like schools and public infrastructure...
I think the number of revenue streams has been maxed out. And if they keep manufacturing/creating other revenue streams (ie taxes) then the quality of life will be affected to such an extent that people will move the hell out of here. The parking meter deal really touched a nerve that people will not forget.
There is so much bloat in city government, start there.
Perhaps the mayor can sell the rights to the air we breathe in the city limits.