Chicago Address Budget Shortfall By Taxing Condos For Services They Don’t Receive

Chicago will be eliminating a $75/unit rebate given to condominiums of 5 or more units in their 2012 budget. This rebate was started in 1984 because the city taxes these condominiums yet they do not provide any garbage service to them.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel indicates:

Eliminating this garbage rebate for condominium owners, a step also recommended by the city’s inspector general, is the fair and honest thing to do for Chicagoans.

Seriously – how is charging money for nothing exactly fair and honest? Let’s see – you pay me taxes, and I’ll refuse to provide the services you pay for. Sounds like Mayor Emanuel has no idea what the words “fair” nor “honest” mean. Perhaps we should send him a dictionary – or emails with online links to the true meaning of those words.

Little Sympathy for Residence Fighting Development for Mentally Challenged Homeless

As a start, I have a condo that is 2 block from a stroll for prostitutes, 4 blocks (the other way) to a homeless shelter, and there’s a long term facility for homeless going up as well within that distance. And I’m ok with that.

Hang with me then, when I indicate little patience for residence who fight the inclusion of a shelter for mentally challenged homeless in their community – and let’s be clear – Astoria, New York, is a large community. Even in Council Member Peter Vallone Jr. challenge to the development he indicates that there are at least 8350 residence within one block. The shelter will house 50. That’s a .006% population increase. It’s nothing.

Having .006% of your population requiring special needs because of being mentally challenged should be considered part of your civic and community based care and support network. It should be something the community says “we live in our community, and every day our community supports and assists people a little less fortunate”. Civic pride, not civic shame.

When Developers Face Resistance

While I can sometimes fail to be the biggest fan of developers – based on experience; and there are a few that I love and champion with proven track records, a commitment to quality, a stand behind fixing deficiencies quickly and without balking – I admit fully that they can often face significant barriers in getting proposals accepted by the municipality and local residents.

Such has been the case for the Ilkay Development Corporation attempt to build out a 236 hectare parcel skirting beside the Juan de Fuca Provincial Park and sitting on the ocean edge.

It’s a sordid history – the land was bought in a bankruptcy and for a while appeared to be illegal bought (second link) by the developer.

The plan to put in 257 summer cabins (they are not being marketed for year round inhabitation), rec centers, parks, maintenance buildings and helicopter pad is being heavily resisted locally.

Local residence, activist groups, and now a movement from within a local native band – where the band council supports the development – all oppose the development.

Even if the local residents and interests prove strong enough to stop the current development plans (likely and second link) the land still has mineral extraction rights, so if it isn’t developed it could be massively deforested. The land can also be legally subdivided for massive mansions on huge lots. Even if they win against the condominium summer cabin development, they’ll need to fight again to stop other development. Of course, if they can stop one development they may be more likely to continue their fight to stop development successfully.

Where is comes to forested land, lake front land, land abutting a provincial park (and this development has all three) – the development process is always complicated. It’s should be a risk that the developer took into account buying the property.

I’m not in a position to determine if it’s a good development. In south Florida – similar development has been terrible, with beach front upon beach front being privatized. In Alberta, there has been a very good approach to development near and in Provincial parks that had been good to the developer and the community.

In any case, it is likely that this is far from finished, and it is unclear what options the developer will choose to take in attempting to recoup their time and investment if the plan isn’t approved.

Link: Times Colonist Special Report on this story