Over the next couple months we will be discussing the effect of the DevCorp North run Special Service Area's under Kimberly Bares and Rene Carmego. The failures and lies.
From budget issues, to service issues, to what they really do with the all the money. We will look at the facts. If you feel they are wrong, feel free to call Ms. Bares at DevCorp North and ask her to proof the information is wrong.
These next couple of months are old stories that haven't gotten solved.
Issues like how often the tractor and sidewalk sweeper were used. You know, hours. The tractor and sidewalk sweepers provide that information. And they should be keeping a log of the activites.
Oh, if anyone has been to the 2431 CAPS meeting this summer, you have heard of the security log Rene keeps. I requested the log go public. The 3 month private security log has yet to surface. That's the $25,000 log. I'm still waiting for the answer for what happened to the rest of the secuity funds. Some $40,000 plus over 2004-05.
So, let's begin.
Why did 27 people approve a Special Service Area tax increase on themselves? A tax that effects over 200 property owners and 600 renters?
Privatization and Duplication of City Services
(by Hugh)
This policy of privatization and duplication of City services using Illinois' Special Service Area (SSA) laws has many advantages to the Mayor, the Alderman, and the "sole service provider", among them:
1) a. The property taxes collected in the Special Service Area are used to purchase a fledgling chamber of commerce or a nascent community group, put them on the City payroll, and designate them as the "sole service provider" for the SSA. The sole service provider then appoints an SSA Commission from among its members and controls the spending of the SSA property taxes. In return, the sole service provider works for the City and the Alderman as an unregistered lobbyist and grassroots lobbyist in the neighborhood.
1) b. The sole service provider is expected to advance the City and the Alderman's agenda by speaking out in favor of it within the neighborhood and by writing and testifying downtown.
1 ) c. When they speak and write and testify in favor of the legislation, they identify themselves as a "community group," not a City agency. The sole service provider is always ready to supply a letter at the Alderman's request, when it is felt that a piece of legislation requires the imprimatur of "community support. "
1) d. A potential independent voice from the neighborhood is eliminated. Local politicians are relieved of the burden of doing the hard work of developing concensus. Residents are disenfranchised from the political process because the City has bulk purchased all the political support it needs.
2. The sole service provider employees are non-union and outside the City's Living Wage ordinance, and beyond the pale of the Shakman decree. The sole service provider employees are cheaper, easier to hire and fire, and it's easier to make political appointments.
3. The private departments and SSA-collected property taxes are off-the-books with respect to the City budget cycle and so are subject to little or no public scrutiny. The sole service providers also claim to operate outside the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, further reducing public oversight. While city vendors are required to file financial disclosures, and these are posted on the City's web site, the subcontractors of the service provider are not.
4. If you raise property taxes city-wide, it is big news, and it can cost you re-election, but if you do it piece-meal, a few blocks at a time, no one seems to mind much, or do they?
6 comments:
"Why did 27 people approve a Special Service Area tax increase on themselves? A tax that effects over 200 property owners and 600 renters? And what are they really getting for the extra money they spend."
a. name the 27 people - if they're all members of a 501c(3) you will find political lobbying as previously discussed.
b. if the IRS can threaten to take the tax exempt status from churches in Pasadena for anti-war semons - then these non profits should be looked into. Of course some of them do their lobbying very quietly through 'others'!
Craig - did you write this text? If not, I'd be curious to know who did (no offense, I'm sure you agree with the arguments, I just couldn't imagine you using the word "imprimatur"...)
Toni - You raise a good point. Are the voting records for the SSA available for public review?
nico's mom, Thanks for catching the error, I forgot to get Hugh his by line. He had asked me not to use his name before, but I meant to put it in anyhow. It's fixed now.
I asked Craig to please not use my name in a HEADLINE like "Hugh report." I give all my neighbors permission to distribute. Attribution is appreciated but not necessary.
Hugh asks, "4. If you raise property taxes city-wide, it is big news, and it can cost you re-election, but if you do it piece-meal, a few blocks at a time, no one seems to mind much, or do they?"
Well, do they? Have you taken a survey of property owners to get their feelings?
I recall stopping in DevC's office just before Christmas a couple of years ago. I requested some paperwork identifying the public meetings and numbers of attendees for the Morse SSA. It was a Friday evening. The files were not readily available and Ms. Bares asked if I could pick them up early the following week. They were ready the next Wednesday. I think the highest number in attendance was about 20-25 and that included those promoting the tax. Most meetings were held as most taxpayers were on their way to work. I also recall Craig getting a petition for ALL homeowners and renters to sign. The rule was he had to obtain 51% on his petition. So what is wrong with that picture? A small number can approve and to overturn the ruling would take 51%?
Post a Comment