Reader’s Commentary: Voters may take disagreement road with Aurora Council

Share this article:

By Mary Goetsch,
Aurora, Ill.

We voters who take the difficult road of disagreeing with the Aurora City Council on the Casino plan to move, are in the good company of former State governor, Pat Quinn. He made the statement he decided not to run in the Chicago mayoral election after having the required signatures. He stated he will remain on the outside looking in because there is a greater need, “to empower voters in Chicago and across the State to petition their government to put binding referendums on the ballot.” Perhaps what reached his mind is their similar controversy in Chicago helping in the general amount of $17.6 Million by means of a TIF. Now, more citizens realize there is opportunity cost in TIF deals; it is a subsidy which ultimately is a drain on the taxpayers. The Chicago Tribune ran an article November 17 with the headline, “For Aurora casino, new TIF district one step closer.”

The stated opportunity cost to taxpayers is $5 Million per year into the 20-year increment. I hope there is something I’m missing. A gift of $100 Million surely would have been down by the Aurora City Council. What do most voters think? Surely Penn has more money than the taxpayers. We’ll never know because the Casino TIF has been kept a dark secret. We’ll likely never know because the Casino TIF has been kept a dark secret. This huge subsidy deal should have been put to a referendum. I hope former governor Pat Quinn has the power to reform the State government from the bottom up. The TIF statute is allowed and enabled without vote by home rule. What started home rule? The State permits municipalities such as Aurora and Chicago to make their own rules and bypass voters so long as what it is, TIF, the issue at hand, is not against any existing statute.

The statute allowing TIF is 65 ILCS 5-11 -74.4. The statute alone does not shed light on this TIF, One only can realize the difficulty such a contract will present: Obfuscation. Thee was a case n which the State Supreme Court decided that non-contiguous TIF deals are void. One can search online and read Illinois Board of Education of Richland School District 88A v. City of Crest Hill. In 2020, the school district ultimately won its battle against the City of Crest Hill. In 2020, the school district ultimately won its battle against the City of Crest Hill forming TIF. Although the original case brought by the school district was ruled against on summary judgment, the school district appealed and then started district against their City. The appeal and supreme court case can be read online: 2020 IL App 3d 190225, July 25, 2020. It is unfortunate the beginning of the story is missing, since the trail court cases are not available to the public. I would like to know what it was the school district did not want about their TIF. All we know is that in the end, they won and apparently the City of Crest Hill could not do the TIF they wanted. Call it a technically that TIF must be comprised of continuous parcels, but this should be a cautionary tale to having an overabundance of TIFs, as if it is a cure-all to all financing needs. There are costs, the beginning of which is the panel of TIF specialists, Kane McKenna and Associates ($42,000 just to have the feasibility study).

The stated opportunity cost to taxpayers is $5 Million per year into the 20-year increment. I hope there is something I’m missing. A gift of $100 Million surely would have been voted down by the Aurora City Council. What do most voters think? Surely Penn has more money than the taxpayers. We’ll never know because the Casino TIF has been kept a dark secret. We’ll likely never know because the Casino TIF has been kept a dark secret. This huge subsidy deal should have been put to a referendum. I hope former governor Pat Quinn has the power to reform the State government from the bottom up. The TIF statute is allowed and enabled without vote by home rule. What started home rule? The State permits municipalities such as Aurora and Chicago to make their own rules and bypass voters so long as what it is, TIF, the issue at hand, is not against any existing statute.The statute allowing TIF is 65 ILCS 5-11 -74.4.

The statute alone does not shed light on this TIF, One only can realize the difficulty such a contract will present: Obfuscation. There was a case in which the State Supreme Court decided that non-contiguous TIF deals are void. One can search online and read Illinois Board of Education of Richland School District 88A v. City of Crest Hill. In 2020, the school district ultimately won its battle against the City of Crest Hill. In 2020, the school district ultimately won its battle against the City of Crest Hill forming TIF. Although the original case brought by the school district was ruled against on summary judgment, the school district appealed and then started district against their City. The appeal and supreme court case can be read online: 2020 IL App 3d 190225, July 25, 2020. It is unfortunate the beginning of the story is missing, since the trail court cases are not available to the public. I would like to know what it was the school district did not want about their TIF. All we know is that in the end, they won and apparently the City of Crest Hill could not do the TIF they wanted. Call it a technically that TIF must be comprised of continuous parcels, but this should be a cautionary tale to having an overabundance of TIFs, as if it is a cure-all to all financing needs. There are costs, the beginning of which is the panel of TIF specialists, Kane McKenna and Associates ($42,000 just to have the feasibility study). It should be obvious that the parcels of C-Club and Gaslight Manor would have to be owned by the City government prior to the TIF’s being presented. If the City government acquires by force or by free-market sales, more may object and force a referendum. In the end, the government, exists for the people and voters need to be empowered. We do our part by listening to the news and going deeper to ask questions and take action. Just from logic, it seems incomprehensible to have micros-TIFs. I think that if what we call the voters of Aurora, Grassroots Aurora, were to press our case against the Casino TIF all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, it ultimately would rule against such a complicated contract. Legal considerations are why we have a City legal department. Our voters, too, really help because it is we who must get the thing voted down prior to excessive expense.

Leave a Reply