a paid promotional appearance by Hanna Architects Inc
188 W. Randolph
Ste 1825
Chicago, IL 60601
$1,000.00
3/10/2006 to Citizens for Joe Moore
Tonight at the Morningside Senior Home located at 1250 West Morse, Alderman Moore's office held a informercial to inform us Peter Sterniuk will be demolishing the single family home at 1309 West Lunt (photo above) and replacing it with 8 - 3 bedroom condos (drawn below).
As Peter said, "We're not here to negotiate!" Nice way to start meeting with your new neighbors Mr. Sternuik.
The meeting was to start at 7 p.m., but as of 7:15 p.m. when I left the Alderman never showed up. The architect John Hanna hadn't arrived either. Word was Alderman Moore was grandstanding in front of the news media downtown regarding the all important Rogers Park 'Big Box' issue.
The Alderman wasn't around leaving second tier 49th ward Aldermandic assistant Michael Land to fill in on the infomercial. Mr. Land was more gentle in this deal. Like the good cop bad cop routine. According to Land, "We wanted to let you know when the wrecking ball swings!" Well thanks Michael. You're a big help. Asked why the Alderman wasn't there himself and why there was no Russian translator, Mr. Land replied, "No comment, I can't comment on that!" Like I said, he was a big help.
Here are the plans. Looks like every other plan we've seen coming from the Alderman office lately. Too much cinder block and concrete. Too little parking spaces and green space.
When asked by one of the 12 people in the room if there was a Russian translator, Mr. Land replied "No, sorry." Given the fact six of the twelve spoke only Russian, that was a fair request to ask.
Like I said, at 7:15 p.m., knowing this was just a 'done deal' anyhow, the 'other guy' running for Alderman and I left. We had enough. We had better things to do than sit though a infomercial that wasn't translated in Russian.
Plus, both of us knew we were not going to buy. Only a Alderman could afford these prices.
15 comments:
Isn't this home mere doors away from the luxury apartments of the "Block Building"?
That should boost sales.
This property seemed to have been snapped up by a developer super fast. I noticed it for sale and was thinking of going to see it and then, poof, it was gone. Maybe one of the real estate agents who read hellhole know something about developers snapping up properties so quickly.
Wonder if I can get that developer's name for when the property tax bill arrives. My house, too, can be a tear down!
Craig, you should check on the status of the singlefamily downzoning Moore promised near Paschen Park. Although it was supposed to be introduced at City COuncil in March, last I heard it was being delayed for "technical reasons", which probably means they're taking offers to exclude certain properties that developers want to tear down.
For the most part, every new development needs one spot per unit. Condo conversions are given a free pass on the parking requirement, since the units were already in existence before the parking requirement was enacted.
Craig - how do we find out about these meetings and when they are going to happen. I was on the alderman's website yesterday and saw nothing regarding this meeting.
How is our property tax system regressive?
Okay, I looked it up. You are speaking about how because the Illinois Income Tax is relatively low, the state must meets its budget by taxing people's property at a higher rate. Therefore, lower income people pay a higher percentage total in taxes.
(income tax + Property tax)/Total income
I agree that increasing the IL income tax a few percentage points (from 2%?) would help property owners, but the fact remains that property values have increased in Chicago at a much faster pace than people's incomes. Add to that the more affluant people who did not used to want to live in the city, property values are going up and taxes are going up no matter what.
As for your idea that the taxes be based upon purchase price and remain at that level throughout the length of ownership, that system will end up putting a much larger burden on younger people, which may not also be fair. I know it is used in california. It seems unfair to have someone who boughta condo, in RP lets say, 10 years ago, for $40K. Now the condo is worth $190K. Under this system, a person who buys next door would be paying nearly 5x the amount of property taxes.
I was not aware that there was a city income tax.
Your stock comparison is a good one, but remember, you are not paying property taxes for the gain that you are realizing on the gain in value of your property. Property taxes are meant to pay for the common expenses that neighborhoods incur in the furtherance of basic services, such as police, fire, streets, schools, etc.
In that sense, when everyone is reassessed periodically, and not when one sells their home, it is more fair. You are paying your fair share of these expenses in relation to your use of the services (albeit, your share is based upon lot size, # of bedrooms, comparative lot value, etc.) The method you endorse would put an unfair burden of these expenses on new homebuyers, even though their use of these services may be equal.
The best way to solve this is to increase the state income tax, stop giving away the farm to developers (as you said with TIF's), and to have a more responsible, cost effective local government. The problem is that increasing income taxes, especially for businesses, supposedly will compel businesses to leave the state. This will lead to unemployment problems. It's all basically one big goocher.
Sorry, Abe, but I vehemently disagree. The best solution is for the politicos to quit spending money. Take, for example, the $4 mil that's coming right out of taxpayer pockets for pretty planters on Morse. It's only $4 mil you say, well, multiply that by millions of blocks and thousands of cities and you get a sense of the insane pork spending that is done at every level of government by both political parties. It's all about POLITICIANS taking from taxpayers and redistributing our wealth for their benefit -- to increase their power, get them re-elected, etc. Government and politicians are the most inefficient allocators of $$ because they have absolutely no incentive to be efficient.
Btw, my property tax bill is slated to increase 105% in 2007. Maybe you would like to pay it. I certaintly haven't seen anything like a 105% salary increase in the last 4 years. So, just out of curiosity, how is it justifable that government gets 105% more when I get considerably less? And does it occur to you (or the politicos) that if they get more of my money that will be less money I have for my needs whether it be grocery shopping or retirement saving. Really, it's criminal.
First off, property taxes are neither regressive nor progressive, because you pay the same percentage regardless of the price of your property. Yes, it might mean that you pay a larger percentage of your income towards that tax, but that is immaterial. People who make less money pay a larger percentage of their income towards food, but that does not make the cost of food regressive. Income is not a variable that changes how much in property taxes you pay, so therefore it is irrelevant when determining whether the property tax is regressive.
You are both right that spending needs to be reigned in. The idea in raising the income tax is so that people who make more money, pay more money towards basic services. Given that the state income tax is 2% across the board, this tax is also neither progressive, nor regressive. It is a flat tax. Right now, Illinois has one of the lowest state income tax in the nation.
As far as capital gains tax is concerned, if you have lived in a property that is your primary residence for three out of the last 5 years, then you don't pay federal income tax on the first $250,000 of gain on the sale, if you file as an individual ($500,000 for married couples).
Yes, it is not fair that people who have lived in an area end up not being able to afford their property taxes, but raising income taxes , and thus lowering the burden of property taxes to supply needed services is an answer.
Pamela and Paradise, do you disagree with my analysis of the fairness of the current property tax system or with my solution?
If we were to have the California model, then follow this scenario.
Illinois: 2 houses, both have a market value of $500. If the taxing bodies need to get $10 to fund all services, then each property gets taxed 1% of value, or $5.
California: Same facts as above, but one person bought for $30, 15 years ago, and the other for $500 recently. The taxing bodies still need $10. The house bought for $30 would pay $0.57, while the house bought recently would pay $9.43.
This is a rough example, because there are not houses in between, but it illustrates the inherent unfairness of the California system. It discourages people from buying, because they would pay such a huge tax burden.
Let's be honest here, these people who can no longer afford their property taxes are being rewarded when they sell, by having such a huge gain on their house, unless they refinanced and blew the money on trips, cars and HD TV's. They may not want to move, but such is the price of making a smart investment 10-20 years ago.
> The architect John Hanna hadn't arrived either.
Hanna Architects Incorporated
188 W Randolph St Ste 1825
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 750-1800
If anyone would like to view some nearby examples of Hanna's mastery of cinder block construction techniques, head down Devon Ave:
2140-52 W Devon, three (3) 5-story buildings in a row in the middle of the N side of the 2100 block of W Devon, most of the whole side of the street except for the corner buildings on Hamilton to the east and Leavitt to the west, across the street from the Sav-a-Lot. The two westernmost bldgs seem to have the same plan, 10 units each, residential condos on the street level (no mixed use), while the easternmost building looks like 8 units with commercial on the ground floor (mixed use). Concrete block with brick facing the street, brick balconies.
Abe -- your analysis of the fairness of property taxes is like asking a person which way they prefer to be murdered? Why, sir, the gun is fairer and quicker and less painful than the knife as it may take you longer to bleed out.
At what point will taxpayers wake up and start demanding that politicos quit spending? Then we wouldn't have to have absurd discussions on which method of death is preferable. What flavor of murder is "fair" exactly? What type of theft is less regressive than another?
Yeah. Why would I be angry at the Republicans for cutting taxes? The federal government does not, or should not, supply the main services that affect our everyday lives. If the rise in property taxes is an equal opposite reaction, then people have no reason to complain, because the result is that we now pay a taxing body that is closer to home. (and supposedly more in tune about how we want that money spent) Our country was founded on federalist principles, and we should not destroy that by making the federal government too powerful.
Well, Toto, if we use the word regressive the way everyone here has been using it, wouldn't you say that your idea about tariffs would be absolutely regressive. Your are talking about taxing consumption, which would affect the poorest the most, since they use a larger percentage of their income for necessaties. However, the main problem with your idea is that you are looking at this problem in a bubble. If we impose tariffs, then other countries will follow suit on our goods. I think it would end up being a zero sum game.
+++ Cookie Cutter? NOT. This design is more consistent than not with the character and history of Chicago Architecture. The facade is wonderful, but the cinderblock sides are shameful. A proposed ordinance to ban cinderblock construction used in residential construction has stalled at city hall...who knows if it will ever pass. I guess the good news is that most parts of Rogers Park have not been decimated with cinderblock condos -- in Lakeview they've had ENTIRE blocks leveled and cinderblock condos put in place. I did some research on cinderblocks from various manufacturers and all stated that cinderblock is a choice selection for industrial and commercial construction. Not one mentioned residential construction. Oh, I almost forgot many cinderblock manufacturers state that the product is great for 3rd world depressed countries who are in dire need of extremely low-cost housing. I've called Joe Moore and told him that I am against cinderblock - - please call him and let him know where you stand. Single family teardowns are unfortunate and it is up to the homeowners living on a block to have majority interest in downzoning. Without majority interest it will not happen - - we've experienced this on our block. We wanted our block to be downzoned, but did not get majority vote. Mainly because there are few small buildings remaining on our block.
a paid promotional appearance
Hanna Architects Inc
188 W. Randolph
Ste 1825
Chicago, IL 60601
$1,000.00 3/10/2006 to Citizens for Joe Moore
Post a Comment