Home / How will you vote Feb. 5 on the real estate transfer tax hike?
How will you vote Feb. 5 on the real estate transfer tax hike?
Yes -- Whatever it takes to pay public safety pensions.
35% (37 votes)
No -- Cut other spending to meet pension obligation.
65% (70 votes)
Total votes: 107
Email this pageTags
Kengo: I couldn't have said it better myself. I hope you don't mind but I might steal your A - D line.
Jason: The Evanston Review editorial board stated" The Review recommends a "No" vote because the transfer tax increase won't do much at all to solve the city's pension crisis. :
A no vote will not cause double-digit tax increases. The hard impact of a Transfer Tax is far greater on the individual homeowner than it is on the City. There are better, fairer approaches than a transfer tax.
Howard Handler
North Shore - Barrington Association of REALTORS
Very nice comments .... I agree, there should be another revenue source for this. How about Northwestern? Their students and staff receive full benefits from police and fire, yet contribute nothing to this fund. I also agree it is unfair for the city to be fully funding the IMRF pension (the one the other city employees receive) yet let the police and fire pension be under-funded. I bet if it was their pension, things would be a lot different. Also funny how the Mayor sees no benefit in funding the police and fire pensions. I bet if her school pension was in crisis she would see benefit in funding pensions!
It is only fair to find a mechanism that everyone equally pitch in for pension funds for police and Firefighters.
Every person in Evanston is benefiting from public service. Why is it fair to have a few percent of people who needs to sell the house to be charged more to pay for pensiond funds.
We ALL have obligation to fund for pension. So why should only a fraction of people gets this responsibiilty?
I can not understand how anyone is agreeing on this unfair proposal. It is almost like the city randomly asking for ONLY citizen with their last names starting from A-D will have their property tax increased to cover pension fund.
How would you like that for alternative? It is unfair to impact small fraction of citizens to suffer.
We need to find a mechanism that everyone will contributes equally to be fair. Or find a funding for general budet from City by saving expense or raise $ by selling city assets.
It is also unfair that Police and Firefighter's pension is short funded when other city official has full pension support. Shouldn't the shortness of funding be distributed among all Public service emplyees to be fair to reduce impact on Police and Firefighter's pension fund?
Can funding for pensions for other city official be shifted for police and fire fighter until we can find FAIR way to fill in the gap of over all lack of pension fund for entire public services?
I understand your concern that the RETT relieves some of the pension funding crisis on the backs of homesellers. But, please bear in mind that this measure is intended to reduce the need for double-digit property tax increases (short of cutbacks in city services and programs.)
To do nothing to address the pension shortfall is to place retired firefighters and police officers at risk of losing their benefits. These men & women served this city, and to cut off their retirement income (pensioners DO NOT receive social security benefits) is to dishonor the sacrifices they made on behalf of this city.
Jason, their are many misconceptions in your note that i would like to address. The citizens of Evanston do not want to "cut off their (police and fireman) retirement income. The citizens of Evanston are not "dishonoring the sacrifices" that police and fireman have made on "behalf of this city" The citizens of Evanston do not want to "place retired firefighters and police officers at risk of losing their benefits." The citizens of Evanston fully appreciate the service and sacrifice of all past, present and future police and fireman. What the citizens of Evanston do not appreciate is the poor leadership and planning by our government officials. To put our city in its current precarious fiscal position is inexcusable. We've already lost our coveted Triple A rating. Our future cost of capital will increase as a result of this action. Asking taxpayers to pay more is not the answer. Developing a thoughtful plan, reexamining our current budget and eliminating wasteful spending, and thinking about the future is what is necessary today. Until this happens, the citizens of Evanston will vote NO !
The current bill that has come due is one which City Council agreed to years ago. In that agreement, the city opted for a plan that would minimize expenditures in the short term in exchange for a substantial increase in future payments. Now that the time has come to pay those higher costs, the city management and several council members are crying foul. I was quite distressed to hear council members searching for ways to "defer" these higher payments yet again.
It is akin to the current mortgage crisis--unreliable borrowers were enticed to purchase homes beyond their means with the lure of low interest ballon mortgages. "Sure," say the lenders, "your payments will go up later, but you can always refinance." Does the fact that these borrowers can no longer make their payments relieve them of the responsibility to pay? Of course not. And assuming these borrowers CAN manage to refinace, they are probably extending the term of their loans well beyond the initial mortgage (to the delight of the lenders who collect the interest.)
Am I in favor of increased taxes, fees, etc.? Of course not. Does this mean we need to take a hard look at the "fat" in our budgets and find ways to streamline operations and reduce the duplication of effort in our social programs? Certainly.
THE FACT REMAINS: The bills have come due, and we can no longer play the "credit card shuffle" and pay our Visa bill with the MasterCard and vice versa. I am reminded of the real estate management scandals in Chicago. City Council is our management company: if they chose to pay for landscaping and neglected to pay the electric bill, when the lights go out, WE still are obligated to pay the bills--the electric company doesn't care why or how the checks bounced, they just want what they are owed.
Post new comment