Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: There’s the right response and then there’s this one
Next Post: Third vaping-related death in Illinois
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz on a possible compromise on Mayor Lightfoot’s graduated real estate transfer tax…
[Rep. Will Guzzardi’s] idea, first pitched at a Springfield press conference, is to look at New York, which has a much lower threshold for a relatively high rate, with any sale of more than $500,000 hit with a levy of 1.425 percent. That would provide both Lightfoot’s budget figure and a significant stream of new money to spur low-income housing, he said.
“It’s obvious (Lightfoot’s) bill isn’t going to pass as it is,” Guzzardi told me in a phone interview. “We can reach a deal with transfer tax that lives up to the mayor’s promise.”
Guzzardi said Lightfoot’s office has indicated it may be interested in a compromise—not necessarily his idea but different from what’s now being pitched. But raising the rate on lower-priced sales would work because it would provide more money for both sets of needs, he argued. “I’m optimistic we’ll find a way.” […]
“We’re open to having conversations,” said a mayoral spokeswoman. “We are not aware of his proposal nor have we reviewed it. But we certainly welcome the conversation.”
You’ll recall that 13 Chicago House Democrats, including Guzzardi, said this week they won’t vote for Mayor Lightfoot’s plan as-is because it doesn’t provide funds for homeless prevention and affordable housing. The mayor had pledged during the campaign to hold a referendum to pass a graduated real estate transfer tax and use the money for those two items.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:26 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: There’s the right response and then there’s this one
Next Post: Third vaping-related death in Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The 13 plus Arroyo… that’s putting 60 in the stairs saying…
“Nope”
I’m sure they are open to discussions now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:28 pm
’tis the season
Comment by Ok Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:29 pm
The Guzzardi plan with higher tax rate starting at $500k probably loses a few lakefront Chicago Reps who are already hearing from constituents about the progressive income tax.. just don’t see 60 much less 71 in the House..
Comment by NotRich Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:37 pm
Every Alderman in the City of Chicago is desperate for more development and housing options in their ward. Why would they want to increase costs for the very thing they want the most?
It’s like creating a payroll tax which discourages jobs. It’s amazing to me they don’t see the problem with their addiction to taxes.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:40 pm
Guzzardi’s plan would capture more than just a few lakefront sales. I don’t have data, but that could capture maybe 20% of sales in Chicago.
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:42 pm
“I don’t have data, but that could capture maybe 20% of sales in Chicago.”
Don’t let the lack of information keep you from making up a number.
I don’t think this piece is about Guzzardi’s specific plan. He just threw out an idea. It’s about Lightfoot (or at least her spokesperson) not immediately rejecting it. Progress?
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 3:49 pm
“What are dressing up as for Halloween?”
“The Spirit of Compromise.”
Better late than never.
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:06 pm
It would work better if they only applied the increased amount only to the amount of sale over $500k and exempted the first $500K.
It’s a moot point as of now, however. Lightfoot is as eager to negotiate with Chicago Coalition for Homeless as she was the CTU.
Until she says she will sit down with CCH, there won’t be a bill.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:10 pm
They don’t have enough money for existing programs so the mayor wants a tax increase. Lefty lawmakers won’t support the new tax unless the mayor increases spending. Doesn’t anybody see a problem with this type of thinking?
Comment by Downstate Illinois Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:11 pm
Who says trickle down economics doesn’t work?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:27 pm
I am glad to see Chicago trying to solve its problems with its own resources. It is a rich city.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:33 pm
From the article: “The difference of a few hundred dollars will be all but negligible,” he said.
But by my math, the difference to such an owner between Lightfoot’s proposal and Guzzardi’s plan would in fact be about $1,000.
Putting aside Guzzardi’s horribly inaccurate math for a moment…
“The difference of a few hundred dollars will be all but negligible,”
A few hundred dollars is a negligible amount? A bit flippant, no? Is it too late to reduce those teacher raises by a few hundred dollars? They’ll never notice that “negligible” amount, right?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:34 pm
if it moves regulate then tax it. if it doesn’t tax it then regulate it typical Chicago style responce
Comment by Todd Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:45 pm
This is a case of pure political theater - the Mayor puts out a totally unreasonable piece of legislation - then some supposedly fair-minded dems oppose. Makes them all look reasonable while increasing taxes.
Comment by Donnie elgin Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 4:49 pm
How progressive to tax middle class homeowners struggling to pay sky high property taxes whose houses are underwater
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 5:02 pm
Why would Mayor negoty anything with an unrepresented non profit?
Comment by AnotherAnon Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 5:04 pm
BullMoose, the median household income of Chicago is $50k. Hardly a rich city.
Comment by AnotherAnon Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 5:07 pm
“Why would Mayor negoty anything with an unrepresented non profit?”
I’m pretty sure the people she needs to make a deal with are the legislators withholding their votes.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 5:08 pm
“”We’re open to having conversations.”” from a spokesperson not even aware of the offered alternatives, doesn’t say much of anything.
Comment by walker Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 5:21 pm
Montrose, someone above mentioned bargaining with a biased non profit.
Comment by AnotherAnon Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 5:38 pm
AA. I think of Chicago as a rich city with lots of poor people. I think there is a huge spread of incomes around the median. Maybe my perception is thrown off by the wealth in the loop and some neighborhoods.
Indianapolis has a higher median income. Do you think of it as wealthier than Chicago?
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 7:01 pm
=== Plenty of other municipalities and states will happily host our businesses.===
… and yet Chicago leads in foreign direct investment.
Good try.
https://www.worldbusinesschicago.com/chicago-leads-north-america-in-foreign-direct-investment/
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 9:08 pm
=== illiterates in CTU===
Is that you Bruce Rauner?
LOL
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 9:24 pm
AA per Google Indianapolis median household income is $59k vs Chicago $55k. Other sources may give different results.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 31, 19 @ 10:43 pm
unfortunate tax for lower and middle class buying a two or three flat. They should exclude multi-family buildings of
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 8:06 am
The average income is $69k. Average is more accurate than median because so many people work part time it skews the center.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Chicago-IL/Salary
Comment by 17% Solution Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 11:38 am