As usual, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s latest budget plan is filled with more proposals that show how unserious his administration is about the city’s finances.
It’s filled with more reckless borrowing, more business-killing corporate taxes and more “throw it up against the wall” stopgap taxes to get us through another year. Nowhere does the mayor offer a long-term vision for how the city will correct its current fiscal death spiral, and he doesn’t propose cutting spending.
Johnson’s mantra to “tax the corporations and the rich” is tired and self-defeating. Both corporations and residents alike pay some of the highest city and state taxes in the country, including property taxes. Increasing taxes only drives people out of the city, further reducing the tax base.
Over the last several years, under predecessor Lori Lightfoot and Johnson, the city’s budget has increased significantly.
While enrollment in the city’s public schools has decreased by thousands, the number of Chicago Public Schools employees and the district budget have increased.
We need leadership that outlines a long-term solution to achieve fiscal solvency. This will be difficult, requiring budget cuts, staff reductions, hard labor-union discussions and perhaps cuts to city services. Providing incentives for companies to move to the city, thus expanding our tax base, will help.
I’m encouraged by the positions of mayoral candidates Susana Mendoza and Alexi Giannoulias. We need sober, long-term, “adult in the room” solutions to solve our fiscal mess. Johnson, as usual, does not offer these solutions.
— Frank Kern, Chicago
City can’t afford loss of businesses
Mayor Brandon Johnson wants to tax the rich, but he just might tax them right out of Chicago and the state. With the commercial office property vacancy rate hovering around 28%, Chicago can ill afford to lose any more businesses. Chicago and the state are losing billions in funds because of President Donald Trump’s massive cuts to social programs, and the mayor can’t expect to make up the difference with new taxes.
It’s up to the federal government to implement a top marginal tax rate like we had in the 1950s and ’60s, especially with a $40 trillion national debt and a $1.5 trillion defense budget request. According to Forbes, at least 74% of billionaires have donated less than 5% of their wealth to charities, so they can afford a top marginal tax increase, especially since America was the place that gave them the opportunity to acquire such wealth.
— Andrew Kachiroubas, Chicago
Compliance with city stickers
Chicago is constantly searching for new sources of revenue, yet one may already be parked on nearly every block.
As I walk through my neighborhood and other parts of the city, I routinely notice one or two vehicles per block that do not display a current Chicago city sticker. While this is only a personal observation, not a formal survey, it raises an obvious question: How much revenue is the city losing because of unregistered vehicles?
Chicago has approximately 20,000 city blocks. If there were even one vehicle without a required city sticker on each block, that would amount to roughly 20,000 vehicles. Assuming an average city sticker cost of about $125 — roughly midway between the current fee for a passenger car and an SUV — that represents approximately $2.5 million in potential annual revenue. If the average were closer to two vehicles per block, the figure would double to about $5 million.
More Top Picks Best Baby Gates For Large Openings
These estimates are intentionally simple, and the actual numbers could be higher or lower. Not every vehicle without a sticker is violating the law; some may be exempt, and some belong to visitors. Even so, the calculation illustrates that modest improvements in compliance could produce meaningful revenue without creating a new tax or fee for residents who already follow the rules.
The city has invested heavily in technology to enforce parking regulations. Perhaps it is time to devote similar attention to ensuring that vehicles required to have Chicago city stickers actually display them. Better enforcement would not only generate revenue but also promote fairness by ensuring that everyone contributes equally to maintaining the city services those fees help support.
As Chicago continues to face budget challenges, it makes sense to first collect the revenue that is already owed before asking residents to pay more.
— Denise McDaniel, Chicago
Vilification of the ‘other’
I read Suhag Shukla’s op-ed “As a thwarted mass shooting shows, we can’t ignore hate against Hindu Americans” (Oct. 19), and I had one overriding question: Have these people ever even met an Indian or a Hindu? I can’t believe that they have.
As a businessperson, I spent years working with people of all cultures. In the end, I sold my business to a group of Hindu Indians. In my experience, the Indians I worked with were among the most honest and kind people I ever encountered. The same is true of those I’ve dealt with on a personal basis.
Where does anti-Hindu hate come from? The answer is promotion of the bigotry by right-wing politicians and broadcasters. Have any of them ever met a Hindu?
This vilification of “the other” needs to end.
— Martin A. Pierce, Chicago
Who the incumbents are
The Tribune Editorial Board’s endorsements for Illinois House and Senate races are a rare reminder of who the incumbents are. It’s unlikely that many residents know off the top of their heads who their representatives are in our crazily, unethically drawn districts. Not only who are they, but what have they done to improve the state? Not much that can be seen or felt.
Pension reform? Taxes? Safety? Just pet projects and maintaining the status quo, which they seem to be very good at.
— John Flynn, Palos Heights
Exhibit hurt by cramped space
I recently attended the “Mary Cassatt: After Impressionism” special exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago. The size and depth of the exhibit were impressive. What wasn’t impressive was the smaller gallery space used for the exhibit. I asked Art Institute staff why the exhibit was not placed in the larger, grander Regenstein Hall in the Rice Building, where large exhibits have been since it opened in 1988. I was told that space would no longer be used for large temporary exhibits and would be used for artwork conservation instead.
I have always felt the Art Institute did an exceptional job mounting special exhibits — painting the walls the best shades that highlight the works and then placing the paintings and drawings masterfully into the spaces. I have always come away thinking, “Wow!” The Modern Wing Galleries 182-184 did not deliver for the Cassat show. Paintings, prints and a film are crammed into a space that may work for smaller shows but really disappointed for this one. Gone is the grand entrance space, the wide rooms and 20-foot ceilings of the 15,000-square-foot original Regenstein Hall gallery. It seems a disgrace that this is what the beloved Art Institute has come to.
Conservation work is important, but why take the best gallery space? I vote for returning Regenstein Hall to the glorious exhibition space that it has always been and find another large space for the conservation work.
— Mary Aronin, Marco Island, Florida
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].–