There’s an invisible line item coming to many Illinois property tax bills for low income housing – Wirepoints

By: Mark Glennon*

Most Illinois property owners probably don’t know, but their property tax bills may now effectively contain an invisible line item for funding affordable housing. Statewide authorization for that is now going into effect at least in Cook County.

To address Illinois’ affordable housing problem, Illinois enacted a new law in 2021 called Affordable Illinois that includes property tax cuts of up to 35% for apartment owners that commit to maintain certain levels of affordable units in their property. The tax cut is achieved through a reduced assessment.

It’s just now being implemented in Cook County, which apparently is the first county, and it’s already being trumpeted as a success, as in this recent Chicago Tribune column and here in The Real Deal. Details on the program are here.

What’s often not mentioned or understood is that property tax breaks for some mean higher property taxes for others. The “levy” is what ultimately matters — the total amount property taxes that any government decides to collect. If one group gets a lower rate or assessment, that reduction has to be offset by increased taxes on everybody else in order to meet the total levy.

That’s how it works with Affordable Illinois. The levy is not decreased.

So, to get more affordable housing, other housing will be made less affordable. The increased property tax burden to cover the program actually will be borne by all property owners — commercial as well as residential, including single-family homes. Still, at least to some extent, Affordable Illinois will have the effect of make housing not in the program less affordable.

We warned about that perverse result when the legislation was being considered in 2019. However, the new law sailed through the General Assembly, getting a bipartisan, unanimous vote from both houses.

The new law was inspired, in part, by Chicago’s failure to get its Affordable Requirements Ordinance to work. Its convoluted approach, that we’ve long criticized, has never produced much new affordable housing. Despite expansion and toughening of that ordinance under Mayor Lori Lightfoot, results remain minimal, as recently reported by the Illinois Answers Project.

If taxpayers want to pay for more affordable housing (which is questionable), the simplest and most efficient means seems to be vouchers, which is a far simpler, market-based concept. However, the federal program for housing vouchers needs improvements, too, because it includes no work requirements for the able-bodied, permits long-term dependency and has a long wait list to enroll. America today has over ten million job openings and it’s essential to get people back to work. And the vouchers surely ought not be funded through property taxes, as Affordable Illinois does, because Illinois property taxes are already the highest in the nation.

Instead, Illinois has chosen to conceal the cost in property tax increases and to create a whole new level of bureaucracy for assessors and administrators to enforce. The cost of that, in addition to the direct cost of the program, will be in your property tax bill if you are in a county like Cook that implements the program.

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints*

93 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Worried Soul
1 year ago

Currently government subsidized housing developments pay penny’s’ on the dollar when it comes to real estate taxes. These developments burden the community, county and school system which they are located. If these so called “leaders” really cared about the state of Illinois and those who reside within the so called “leaders” would pursue JOB CREATION rather than burden the taxpayer with government subsidized housing. Why is this not a major news story providing information to the taxpayer??

Mark F
1 year ago

Once again Illinois politicians prove they could never pass a basic economics class.

Old Joe
1 year ago

Hmm, at one time Rogers Park was repurposed for affordable housing. It was called Section 8 back then. If you’ve been around “long enough” you know the rest of the story.

Chunky Puree
1 year ago

Read about “affordable housing” that was forced upon residents on the far northwest side at 5150 n northwest highway. Mostly single family homes, lots of city workers and mostly white. A co managed building with CHA and what is the result? It opened , first residents moved in, April 2022, as of January 2023 the police have been called there 92 times for thefts, burglaries, assaults, drugs, fights, domestic issues etc. Last night , 3/4/23 a stabbing. None of this BS proposed works, all it does is destabilize nice communities, bring crime, drive down prices and thrown quiet neighborhoods into… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Chunky Puree
Poor Taxpayer
1 year ago

Reward non productivity and penalize productivity. This is a recipe for diaster, the Illinois way.

Marie
1 year ago

What we’re really talking about here are people who don’t want to pay for anything. They not only want cheaper housing, they want free housing, and they think people that have houses need to pay for their free houses. Illinois has yet to learn how to teach a man to fish so he will never take care of himself and he will expect everyone else to take care of him. How do you fix it? You move out of Illinois, FAST.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Marie

What we’re really talking about here are people who don’t want to pay for anything.”

That pretty much sums up the Illinois taxpayer. Everyone votes for all these services but doesn’t want to pay the bill.

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

Maybe those voters shouldn’t be offered the opportunity to vote their hands into their neighbor’s wallet, and enthusiastically encouraged to do so. Problem solved.

Last edited 1 year ago by ProzacPlease
Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  ProzacPlease

Please explain how that’s done?

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

No more candidates offering more “programs”, that only manage to divert funds to political cronies. No more public employee unions, who use the ballot box to line their own pockets. No more “investments” that only perpetuate the cycle of “Give me your vote, I’ll get your hand deeper into the public trough than the other guy will”.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  ProzacPlease

So candidates only offer to do less programs?

Get voters to agree to that.

No more public employee unions?

Get enough voters to change the constitution.

No more investments that only perpetuate the cycle to give me your vote?

Good luck getting enough voters to agree to that.

The voters don’t want what you’re selling. Voters clearly choose candidates that offer them up a bag full of goodies that the “other” guy needs to pay for.

What else you got?

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

Of course that’s what “voters” want PPF. As the old saying goes, when the offer is to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul’s vote. But you seem to not understand why Peter would object vehemently to this plan. Peter should just do exactly as Paul commands, because that’s what the “voters” want. Our government was not established to be mob rule. That is why we are not a democracy but a republic, and why our Constitution was set up to safeguard our rights from the whims of a tyrannical majority. No sane society bows… Read more »

debtsor
1 year ago
Reply to  ProzacPlease

PFF is a vile racist who believes that poor blacks in Harvey and Calumet City should pay for the lavish pensions of retired whites city employees. He even uses the ‘constitution’ the same constitution that says blacks are only 3/5th of a person, to justify the looting. What a racist!

Mary Juana
1 year ago
Reply to  debtsor

You are an idiot

debtsor
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary Juana

Mark just told us not to call people names.

Mary Juana
1 year ago
Reply to  debtsor

Calling someone a vile racist is ok in your opinion? Glass houses come to mind

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

Having slept on this discussion, I have one more thing to say about “it’s what the voters want”. There are voters who are the Pauls, willing to vote for more money for teachers as long as teachers support more money for Pauls. It’s a tidy symbiotic relationship. And then there are the voters who, while not among the Pauls, benefit directly from more money to education. Obviously they vote for their own benefit. There were also concerned parents, who voted for more money to education because they believed, as they were told, that education was the key to a better… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by ProzacPlease
Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  ProzacPlease

Try and stay on track prozac. You even had a chance to sleep on it and you are still all over the board. Let me try and help you get back. You offered up the idea “Maybe those voters shouldn’t be offered the opportunity to vote their hands into their neighbor’s wallet, and enthusiastically encouraged to do so.” I asked you to explain how that would be done. You then offered more suggestions and I responded that the voters don’t vote for candidates that want those things. Then you admit that of course that’s what the voters want. You proceeded… Read more »

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

Basically your point is that you, your fellow retirees, and the teachers union members have put the taxpayers of Illinois in a strait jacket from which there is no escape. It’s a point of pride, and you may be right. Time will tell. For some reason, you want to justify having done that using “the voters want it”, mob rule mentality. My purpose was simply to point out that your claim that the voters clamored to lavish benefits on teachers is not correct. Voters either had their own interests in mind, or they were sold a bill of goods about… Read more »

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  ProzacPlease

I’ve never claimed victim status. My point is voters want all the benefits without paying. It’s not just pensions but ALL spending. If voters didn’t want the state to offer these retirement benefits then candidates would run and win based on that belief. No such appetite exists. It’s you and others who act like victims. Pretending as if voters are somehow stuck is beyond ridiculous. Also, expecting to be paid what you are owed is not gloating. I point out that they must be paid in the hopes that people will come to terms with the idea that we must… Read more »

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

If your concern is to alert voters to fiscal danger ahead, the place to start is getting your compatriots in the teacher unions to stop the demands to fund every progressive pie-in-the-sky program. They’ve caused more than enough damage already.

Last edited 1 year ago by ProzacPlease
Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  ProzacPlease

I do advocate for less spending and stopping new spending. I also advocate for paying actuarial contributions even if it means paying more in taxes. Teacher union members make up only a sliver of the population yet you act as though they are responsible. Quit playing the victim. The majority of the voters (who are non teaching professionals) vote for leaders that support these elected leaders. Again, it’s not a teacher union or pensioner problem but an ALL voter problem. Stop playing the victim and acting like a small sliver of the voters are the ones responsible. 72% of those… Read more »

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

And now we’ve come full circle about “the voters”, your simplistic talking point. Best we call it a day.

Bobbi
1 year ago

They will never, ever, put a referendum like that on the ballot. They don’t want to hear the answer.

Aaron
1 year ago

Do not vote for democraps.

Mike
1 year ago

The Illinois taxpayer is also scammed by politicians that pass laws and ordinances with no sustainable way to pay for them, the grandaddy of them all being the ILGA passed hiking pension benefits while pensions were usually already underfunded.

In other words state sponsored Ponzi schemes “protected” by the state constitution.

There are a few exceptions but that was and is the norm.

Pension Ponzi Schemes Paid First.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

The Illinois taxpayer isn’t scammed and pensions aren’t a Ponzi scheme. They are underfunded because the state doesn’t make actuarial contributions. They are sustainable but proper payments should and could be made. The state has just chosen not to make them.

If voters don’t like that politicians are spending money without showing how they will be paid for then they should vote for different candidates. They have not done so as they like the people they are electing. The ultimately want this so they are not scammed. They are complicit. Stop playing the victim.

Mike
1 year ago

The five state pensions, for one example, have indisputably been a Ponzi scheme since day one. Therefore the taxpayers have been scammed as a Ponzi scheme is a scam. It is indisputable math. The state not making actuarial contributions since the inception of the pensions is obviously how the scam perpetuates. It is a stunning financial scam. What state would be in second place in deliberately underfunding since day one? There cannot be many if any. From day one and through all the legislative benefit hikes did the state explain this to the taxpayer in an sort of plain language?… Read more »

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

They are not a Ponzi scheme no matter how many times you type it. A Ponzi scheme is defined by hyping larger than expected returns that are paid for by getting more members to join the scheme to pay out benefits to the initial investors. The expected rate of return is 7%. For the last 40 years, Illinois teachers pension fund has earned over 9%. So clearly the rate of return is not excessive. It also doesn’t require finding new members to keep it funded. It just requires the state to pay the required contribution. Something that is underfunded doesn’t… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago

Here is the same education provided to James.

“A Pension Ponzi scheme is when current assets are not sufficient to pay out services rendered.

As you should know, the five Illinois “state” pensions (TRS, SERS, SURS, JRS, GARS) have never in their entire existence, not even one second of one day, had sufficient assets to pay out benefits for services rendered.”

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Oh I get it now. Your own made up definition. Not from the SEC or any organization that actually is familiar with Ponzi schemes.

If it makes you feel better to make up definitions then go for it. I guess anyone that took out a negative amortization mortgage in the early 2000’s were running a Ponzi scheme against the banks.

Maybe you can sue Illinois in your own made up court. Get your own made up relief. Good luck, lol!

Mike
1 year ago

The Illinois State Pension Ponzi schemes are legal Ponzi schemes, as explained to James in the notes below. The SEC no doubt understands that. Maybe a claim could be made the state used deceptive practices, akin roughly to the SEC issuing a notice to the State of Illinois about deceptive bond disclosures. Anyways the funding of the pensions comes from three sources. The members (employees), taxpayers via the annual state contributions, and investment returns of the assets. So if assets are super low (around 40% of where they should be, varies depending on the fund) in large part because the… Read more »

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

So why have they not been called Ponzi schemes all these years?”

Because they don’t meet the definition of Ponzi schemes. Pretty simple. Your definition is made up.

debtsor
1 year ago

https://madisonrecord.com/stories/511119323-illinois-public-pensions-in-some-ways-mirror-madoff-s-ponzi-scheme Illinois’ public pensions in some ways mirror Madoff’s Ponzi scheme To the Editor: HBO debuted its original movie on Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff over the weekend. Based on Henriques’ book “The Wizard of Lies,” the film (and book) tells the chilling tale of Madoff’s fraudulent investment scheme in which more than 2,200 people lost almost $20 billion in retirement savings. That is a lot of victims losing a lot of money. But it’s peanuts compared to what public pensioners – in Illinois and elsewhere – stand to lose if drastic reform measures aren’t taken soon. More on this in a… Read more »

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  debtsor

“A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which early investors see quality returns, not because their money was invested wisely as the investors are led to believe, but because new investors fund the payouts.” His own definition doesn’t match what’s happening in Illinois. The money in Illinois pensions have been invested and are earning more than projected. Illinois didn’t actually put in the money they were supposed to. Also, pensions aren’t backed by the pension funds. They are backed by the state of Illinois and its power to tax. Pensioners will continue to be paid even if the funds… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago

The early investors have seen returns in the Illinois Pension Ponzi Scheme as the pensions have been paid out in full thus far, and services rendered. However the State deliberately underfunded their annual pension contribution since day one, resulting in a Ponzi scheme. The hallmark of a Pension Ponzi scheme is new investor money is required to pay out pensions for services already rendered. There is no denying math. The five State of Illinois “state” pension funds (TRS, SERS, SURS, JRS, and GARS are pension Ponzi schemes. Irrefutable, undeniable, factual. Whether or not the Illinois Pension Ponzi Schemes violate some… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago

Sure, 40% funded (60% underfunded) is not a Ponzi scheme.

The existing assets plus the 9% rate of return vs a 7% rate of return will obviously not make up that shortfall.

Thus additional taxpayer contributions are necessary, over and above the contributions for the current year, to fund benefits already earned.

That is a Pension Ponzi scheme.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

“Sure, 40% funded (60% underfunded) is not a Ponzi scheme.” That’s not the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It’s simply an underfunded pension. You’re like a child that’s discovered a new word but are unable to use it correctly. “Thus additional taxpayer contributions are necessary, over and above the contributions for the current year, to fund benefits already earned.” The taxpayers haven’t been making their full actuarial contributions so it’s not “additional”. The taxpayers just owe more money than they have already set aside for pensions. It doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme it just makes it a liability that… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago

Wrongo.

New taxpayer money needed to fund benefits earned years earlier = Ponzi scheme.

60% assets not present = obvious Ponzi scheme.

But hey at least 40% of the assets are present.

Aren’t we lucky.

Pension Ponzi Schemes for Dummies.

Read all about the Ponzi scheme in the March 2013 SEC report.

So great of you to draw attention to the 10 year anniversary of the State of Illinois deceiving bondholders about state pensions.

Choose Illinois, the Pension Ponzi scheme state.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

More taxpayer money is needed to pay down other general obligation bonds. Are those bonds Ponzi schemes as well?

Mike
1 year ago

Defined benefit pensions are designed to be pre-funded. Bonds are not designed to be pre-funded. Bonds have a payment schedule. The SEC cited the State of Illinois in 2013 for deceiving bondholders about State of Illinois pensions. The Illinois Pension Ponzi Scheme Paid First. Read the 30 page SEC report to learn about the State of Illinois deceptive pension practices. Hey Generation X, Millennials / Generation Y, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha, work hard to pay taxes to fund Ponzi Scheme Public Sector State of Illinois Pension benefits earned but not yet funded. Did you learn how Pension Ponzi Schemes… Read more »

James
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Some might say with equal conviction that Social Security also is a Ponzi Scheme. I’ll presume you and countless others are okay with thinking otherwise. “If it walks like a duck…..”

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

A bigger question is why can’t everyone say so with equal conviction as it is simple fact. Anyways Social Security was not setup as a defined benefit pension. So I do not say with equal conviction that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme because it is not a defined benefit pension and comparing a defined benefit pension to Social Security is not comparing apples to apples. There are various Federal government defined benefit pensions. If nothing else people should be familiar with the definition and examples of Ponzi schemes so they do not become victim to such schemes be they… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

A bigger reason is why can’t everyone say with equal conviction that the five Illinois state defined benefit pensions are a Ponzi scheme.

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

A bigger question…..

James
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

I din’t care to discuss any of your remarks at length and agree with much of it. Yet, you’ve reminded me of the two blind men who described the same elephant to another person. “Truth” depends upon perspective in many cases.

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

The five Illinois state level pension funds (TRS, SERS, SURS, JRS, GARS) are and have always been Ponzi schemes.

1 + 1 = 2.

Both are indisputable facts.

It is way past time to learn basic, indisputable Illinois public sector pension facts.

Illinois public sector pension facts for dummies.

James
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

If there is one thing Americans learned from Pres. Trump and his tribe it’s that “facts” are never absolutes anymore. They are disputable. The guy with the loudest voice and most sincere, persistent delivery can make it forever malleable henceforth.

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

Indisputable.

A Pension Ponzi scheme is when current assets are not sufficient to pay out services rendered.

As you should know, the five Illinois “state” pensions (TRS, SERS, SURS, JRS, GARS) have never in their entire existence, not even one second of one day, had sufficient assets to pay out benefits for services rendered.

To claim otherwise is simply making yourself look ignorant, or a scam artist.

So which is it?

Either way, what is the point to deceive people.

On the other hand, deception and Illinois public sector pensions is and has been rampant.

So 100% unsurprising.

James
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

The original early 1900’s fraud now known as a Ponzi scheme had two identifiers as I recall it at least. The first is—as you have said—the underlying financial assets of the “business” were insufficient to meet its obligations to investors. Secondly, to meet such obligations Mr. Ponzi paid them directly from new revenues coming from new investors in his business. To the extent that any business or governmental program does likewise, then I’d agree it’s essentially a Ponzi scheme. But, surely others have tried unsuccessfully to make such claims where it involves government. To my knowledge no such claims have… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

The new investors in the Illinois Pension Ponzi Scheme are taxpayers. The five Illinois Public Sector State Pension Ponzi Schemes are legal. They were created by elected State Senators and elected State Representatives passing bills in the Illinois General Assembly (ILGA) that were signed into law by Governors (perhaps in some rare situations the ILGA overrode a Governor veto of the bill). It is legal to underfund these pensions for the entirety of their existence. It is legal to ignore actuarial funding recommendations. Just as it is legal to accumulate lots of credit card debt. Now credit card companies place… Read more »

James
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Okay. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. So, apparently the IL public employee pension systems are legal in terms of their design and meeting IL laws at least while also being Ponzi-scheme wannabes, too, in the federal sense. If that’s your take I can agree to it. So?

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

The five State of Illinois “state” pension funds are Pension Ponzi schemes.

They are not wannabe Ponzi schemes.

They are Ponzi schemes.

They are not Ponzi schemes in the Federal sense.

They are Ponzi schemes in common sense.

It is not simply a matter of my or anyone else’s opinion any more than it is someone’s opinion of 1+1=2.

So the State of Illinois has a massive Ponzi scheme problem created by “public servants.”

One of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever in the United States of America.

Public servants.

James
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

You are not the ultimate arbitrator on this matter, so we will have to await until such analysis occurs. So, write your position in screaming form if you wish meantime, but yours is essentially just one man’s opinion perhaps of consequence and perhaps not.

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

James, it is simple common sense and simple math.

If 60% is missing, not much analyses is required.

The 5 state pensions are vastly short of assets required to pay out the benefits already earned.

That is a Pension Ponzi scheme.

In 2013 the SEC described the scheme in their settlement with the State of Illinois in the context of bond investors.

For whatever reason injury to taxpayers was not addressed.

Perhaps the SEC foes not have jurisdiction over the State of Illinois deceiving its taxpayers.

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

does

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

/new-illinois-law-makes-some-housing-affordable-by-making-other-housing-less-affordable-through-higher-property-taxes-wirepoints/#comment-318025

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Stop lying Mike. The SEC described how Illinois didn’t fully disclose the risk of underfunding. That doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. Words and definitions matter. You’re just making up the definitions without knowing what you’re talking about.

No where in that statement from 2013 did the SEC call it a Ponzi scheme. You clearly are confused by basic financial definitions and have resorted to fabricating definitions.

Mike
1 year ago

The SEC described the State of Illinois deceiving bondholders about State of Illinois pensions.

The same applies to the State of Illinois deceiving taxpayers.

They are the same pensions.

The Illinois Pension Ponzi scheme.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Something can be deceptive and not be a Ponzi scheme. Stop lying Mike.

Mike
1 year ago

Pension Ponzi Scheme Paid First.

Good luck telling future taxpayers funding pension benefits earned years and decades earlier for which the SEC wrote a 20 page report in 2013 citing deceptive pension practices that the 40% funded state pension (60% missing) are not a Pension Ponzi scheme.

Notice the benefits earned in prior years are underfunded.

Oh, that means future taxpayers must fund those benefits already earned.

Oh, a Pension Ponzi Scheme is where future taxpayers must fund pension benefits already earned.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Oh, a Pension Ponzi Scheme is where future taxpayers must fund pension benefits already earned.”

That’s not the definition. Have you tried actually looking up the definition and maybe actually learning something. You are financially illiterate if you think defined pension benefits that are underfunded equates to a Ponzi scheme.

There is not a court in the land that agrees with you so I’m not sure what you’re hoping for here.

Mike
1 year ago

A Pension Ponzi scheme is where future taxpayers fund benefits already earned.

Defined benefit pensions are designed to be pre-funded.

Obviously 60 percent underfunded is not pre-funded.

Ponzi Scheme Pensions Paid First.

The SEC detailed in its March 2014 cease and desist order to the State of Illinois, how the State deceived bondholders about the very same “state” pensions.

Mike
1 year ago

The Securities and Exchange Commission used the words “structural underfunding” to describe the Ponzi scheme, without labeling it a Ponzi scheme, in their March 2013 press release and cease and desist order to the State of Illinois regarding the state deceiving bond investors about the five State of Illinois state level pensions (TRS, SURS, SERS, JRS, GARS). Here are some examples. “Time after time, Illinois failed to inform its bond investors about the risk to its financial condition posed by the structural underfunding of its pension system.” “The statutory plan structurally underfunded the state’s pension obligations and backloaded the majority… Read more »

James
1 year ago
Reply to  James

You are not the ultimate arbitrator on this matter.”

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  James

No arbitration is necessary.

The benefits earned are only 40% funded.

Thus future taxpayers must fund the remaining 60%.

Case closed.

The Illinois Ponzi Scheme Pensions Paid First Plan.

One of the most expensive defined pension benefit plans in any state due to the extreme Ponzi scheme.

Perhaps the most expensive.

For a how to manual of how not to run a public sector defined benefit pension, read the March 2013 SEC cease and desist order to the State of Illinois for deceiving bondholders about State of Illinois pension practices.

You might consider that a red flag report.

Pensions Paid First
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Case closed.”

This is where we can agree Mike. The case is closed. The Illinois Supreme Court also agrees and they actually are the arbiter for pensions in Illinois. Pension benefits will be paid regardless of how you or anyone else tries to define them.

Mike
1 year ago

Ponzi Scheme Pensions Paid First as mandated by the Illinois Supreme Court. Illinois, the land of Ponzi Scheme Pensions Paid First. Work hard to pay extra taxes to fund Ponzi Scheme Pensions Paid First. Read the SEC cease and desist order to the State of Illinois from March 2013 for deceptive practices and inadequate disclosure to bondholders regarding the very same State of Illinois public sector pensions. Choose Illinois and Choose Chicago for Ponzi Scheme Pensions Paid First. The State of Illinois can deliberately massively underfund defined benefit pensions to unlimited levels thanks to two sentences added to the State… Read more »

Mike
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike

Massively underfunded Ponzi Scheme Public Sector Pensions Paid First, “protected” by the state constitution and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Don’t worry the pensions are 40% funded / 60% underfunded and the SEC issued a cease and desist order to the State for deceptive information on the very same pensions in bond disclosure documents.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Legendary and epic.

your dime, your dance floor
1 year ago

We don’t want to pay for the government we want. Totally agree.

ProzacPlease
1 year ago

We don’t want to pay for the benefits they want. Totally agree.

your dime, your dance floor
1 year ago
Reply to  Marie

I’m impressed by your “teach a man to fish” reference.

Old Joe
1 year ago

Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was poorly housed….

Mike
1 year ago

Do the property tax shuffle.

Affordable Illinois, TIF districts, etc.

Who is in the winners bracket.

Who is in the losers bracket.

Always in the name of compassion, caring, and utopian ideals.

ron
1 year ago

Ask any economist, the supply of affordable housing will never meet the demand, Everybody wants affordable housing.

your dime, your dance floor
1 year ago
Reply to  ron

If zoning laws were relaxed throughout the country and NIMBYism eliminated, way more housing would be built.

debtsor
1 year ago

YIMBYism isn’t going to fix the affordable housing crisis. I know a bit about the housing market because a relative of mine works in the industry. First of all, there is no shortage of housing. Not by a long shot. In fact, there is WAY too much housing right now. Look at stats showing how many houses are under construction or completed and its through the roof, as is multi-family too. Second, the STR AirB&B market has destroyed local housing markets more than anyone can imagine. Millions of homes are currently being used as (mostly) money losing STR’s. The AirB&B… Read more »

Poor Taxpayer
1 year ago

Why are so many people leaving Illinois?
Traditionally, the major reasons Illinoisans are choosing to leave the state are for better housing and employment opportunities, both of which have been made worse by poor public policy in Illinois. Nearly half of Illinoisans have thought about moving away, and they said taxes were their No. 1 reason.Dec 22, 2022

Ken Burke
1 year ago

Mark, can you tell us how much public subsidy will be given to developers of major real estate projects in return for their agreeing to set aside units for low-income persons?

I believe the hi-rise proposed for 420 N. May Street hinges upon a 10-year property tax deduction (that declines in value over ten years), in return for a 30% set aside of units. Learn more here:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/fulton-market-apartment-office-plans-coming-crescent-heights-onni-vista

https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/600-footer-proposed-420-n-may

Secondly, how much public subsidy will be required to convert various LaSalle Street buildings to residential housing?

https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/lasalle-reimagined-208-s-lasalle

Last edited 1 year ago by Ken Burke
Giddyap
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Glennon

Would a state income tax credit for affordable housing be preferable?

Old Spartan
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Glennon

A state credit would be helpful, as would any additional financial incentive to developers. But I don’t know if it would be preferable. The basic economic issue raised by the Wirepoint’s commentary is applicable here as well. There isn’t any such thing as “free” housing. If there was a state credit program put in place, just like the property tax or federal tax credit situation, somebody has to make up the shortfall in state tax revenues. So guess what– other taxpayers sooner or later end up paying for it. And by the way, there is already a state real estate… Read more »

Susan
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Glennon

The housingactil.org article twice asserts “The policy does not impact property tax rates or taxing district levies, so there is no risk to taxing districts of lost property tax revenue.” I do not understand how this can be possible, when these projects are presumably embedded within TIF districts, so the entire cost of new increased social services provision (schools, police, fire&rescue, etc.) will become the burden of non-TIF taxpayers in the taxing district. Also, note that Tiers 1 and 2 state the amounts of assessment reductions (25% and 35% respectively) but Tier 3 uses peculiar language while evading stating a… Read more »

Aaron
1 year ago

For those who want affordable housing, move to a state that doesn’t take everything from you.

Algonquin J Calhoun
1 year ago

What’s mine is mine, whats yours is mine.
Not the way its supposed to work, these freeloaders will drain as much of our working
Class wages into their pockets as possible.
What the end is people will continue to leave to protect their assets, soon only takers are left. All takers no givers, checkmate……

nixit
1 year ago

Mark – What’s your take on these non-profit developers that seem to be involved in most of the affordable housing construction projects? Do developers need tax breaks on top of tax breaks for it to work?

GM
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Glennon

Here’s one that I know of: https://hodc.org/ “Housing Opportunity Development Corporation (HODC) is a community-based nonprofit developer of affordable housing founded in 1983. Founded by local community leaders who were inspired by Martin Luther King Jr’s impact on fair housing, HODC works primarily in Chicago’s northern suburbs where affordable housing options remain scarce…” Here in Evanston, there is some “controversy” about their properties: https://evanstonnow.com/death-weighs-on-affordable-housing-plan/ Death weighs on affordable housing plan “A recent death at one affordable housing development in Evanston may be putting the fate of a new project in jeopardy. A 62-year-old man was found dead of natural causes… Read more »

Old Spartan
1 year ago

Excellent summary of a bad law. There is no such thing as free housing so the point here is exactly correct– we are all paying for the “affordable” housing next door. And vouchers are the best solution so long as there is imposed a time limit and a work requirement. Just like back in the 1990’s when many states put in a work requirement for welfare checks– so called “workfare” requirements– we should be doing the same thing with vouchers. At present, for too many voucher holders the program has turned into a lifetime subsidy for cheap or free housing… Read more »

SIGN UP HERE FOR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER

Home Page Signup
First
Last
Check all you would like to receive:

FOLLOW US

 

WIREPOINTS ORIGINAL STORIES

A statewide concern: Illinois’ population decline outpaces neighboring states – Wirepoints on ABC20 Champaign

“We are not in good shape” Wirepoints’ Ted Dabrowski told ABC 20 Champaign during a segment on Illinois’ latest population losses. Illinois was one of just three states to shrink in the 2010-2020 period and has lost another 300,000 people since then. Ted says things need to change. “It’s too expensive to live here, there aren’t enough good jobs and nobody trusts the government anymore. There’s just other places to go where you can be more satisfied.”

Read More »

WE’RE A NONPROFIT AND YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DEDUCTIBLE.

SEARCH ALL HISTORY

CONTACT / TERMS OF USE