Regular commentator Mahkno has left a most interesting comment on the Peoria Pundit website that I’m going to shamelessly steal and quote in its entirety here:

Museum folks ran a very push orientated poll this eve. Had a good 30 second to full minute intro about how great the education benefits would be, how much revenue it would bring in (14 million), how many jobs it would create ([250] union jobs), its 86% paid for so far, and how low a burden it would be (25 cents per…).

Would you support a sales tax increase? Mmm no.

What if it were tied to other public service like firefighting and police? Mmmm… no.

What if the tax were only temporary, to expire at some point? LOL… Civic Center? … MMmmm No…

Done.

The statute under which this tax referendum falls is called the “Special County Retailers’ Occupation Tax For Public Safety, Public Facilities, or Transportation” (Sec. 5-1006.5). This statute has been around a while, actually, except that it used to be just for public safety and transportation. The legislature recently amended it to include “public facilities” for the expressed purpose of helping the museum project go forward.

Since the tax can cover not only facilities, but safety and transportation too, it looks like the county and museum officials are contemplating a common political strategy. It happens all the time in Congress. For instance, say you have a pork-barrel project that doesn’t stand a chance of getting through Congress on a pure up-or-down vote. What do you do? You put it in, say, a veterans hospital bill as an earmark. That way, in order to vote against the pork, representatives have to vote against veterans. No one wants to vote against veterans (and certainly no one wants to be on record as voting against veterans), so the bill passes, pork and all. Voila!

The county is at least contemplating the same strategy here. They have an unpopular sales tax referendum for an unpopular museum project, so how do they get residents to vote for it? Of course! Pair it with something people will be reluctant to vote against — like public safety! Who wants to vote against firefighters or police officers? Then they can market it as a public-safety tax instead of what it really is — a museum-funding tax.

Expect the museum-backers to pull out all the stops in this campaign. They’ve already started behind-the-scenes efforts to silence their critics (like me) through intimidation tactics. I suppose I should be flattered that my little blog is perceived as such a big threat.

From the Journal Star:

With little debate, the Illinois Senate today voted 51-4 to send Gov. Rod Blagojevich a proposal to let Peoria County ask voters to OK a special sales tax to help pay for the Peoria riverfront museum.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1290, passed earlier in the House of Representatives. With Blagojevich’s signature, it would become law, and the question could be put to voters in the February or April municipal elections.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the bill allows increases in 1/4% increments, and could be used toward any “public facility” (e.g., Belwood Nursing Home), not just the museum. The way it will likely read on the ballot is:

To pay for public facility purposes, shall Peoria County be authorized to impose an increase on its share of local sales taxes by .25% (.0025) for a period not to exceed (insert number of years)?

This would mean that a consumer would pay an additional 25¢ ($0.25) in sales tax for every $100 of tangible personal property bought at retail. If imposed, the additional tax would cease being collected at the end of (insert number of years), if not terminated earlier by a vote of the county board.”

A quarter of a percent increase doesn’t sound like a whole lot, does it? But consider that, if this referendum were to pass, you would be paying .25% more on things that already are highly taxed — like restaurant food (which would go from 10% to 10.25% in the city). Is that going to make Peoria more or less competitive than East Peoria, right across the river? How many people do you think will come to see the museum in Peoria, then go have lunch in East Peoria?

And what about the economy? Is this the time to be increasing taxes? Consider these other items in the news as of late:

• “[T]he effects of the economic crisis are being felt beyond Wall Street as charities locally and nationwide report increases in basic needs and decreases in donations to provide those. Some of the people who used to be donors are now asking for donations…. Nearly 90 percent of Catholic Charities nationwide report more families seeking help, with senior citizens, the middle class and the working poor among those hit hardest by the downturn…. The Salvation Army already has seen between 15 percent and 20 percent more need than last year in its first week of assistance applications received for the holidays…. The Friendship House scaled back the number of families this year allowed into their Adopt-A-Family program to ensure they could fulfill the need.”
• “Fiscal restraint was the guiding principle in crafting next year’s [Peoria] county budget, which represents a 6 percent overall decrease over last year’s budget. In what is being described as a ‘maintenance budget’ with no new taxes or fees and no spending cuts, preliminary figures show spending requests at nearly $122 million while the county expects to bring in about $119 million in revenues. The approximately $3 million deficit – mostly in the capital fund – will be covered by reserve funds that sit at nearly $74 million, said Erik Bush, Peoria County’s chief financial officer….. The county expects to collect $25.5 million from taxpayers, about $1 million more than what was collected in 2007. Although the tax rate will drop 1 cent to 81 cents per $100 assessed valuation, property values are projected to increase 5.4 percent, so homeowners actually will pay more taxes to the county. The owner of a $120,000 home, whose value increases the projected 5.4 percent will pay $341.50 in taxes to the county, or $13.50 more than last year.”
• “In total, the city’s staff whittled a $2.2 million budget deficit down to $117,771, an amount that some council members praised. ‘We asked an unbelievable task of our staff,’ Mayor Jim Ardis said. ‘Without cutting any positions or having any tax increase.’ …Finance Director Jim Scroggins said the biggest savings comes from the city’s health care costs, reflected in a substantial difference between the 12 percent budgeted increase for 2008 and the actual increase in health-related costs of only 4 percent…. In addition, the city plans to scale back on parking deck repairs ($300,000), repairs to some of its buildings ($200,000), delay repairs to police headquarters ($25,000), and reduce the neighborhood signs program ($68,662).”
• “Illinois’ backlog of unpaid bills has hit a record $4 billion, and Comptroller Dan Hynes said Thursday the situation is ‘potentially catastrophic’ if allowed to continue…. Earlier this week, Blagojevich’s office said state revenues will fall $800 million short of projections because of the recession. The Senate Democrats’ top budget person, Sen. Donne Trotter of Chicago, said borrowing money right now may not be a good idea because of interest costs. He said the state should tap into its ‘rainy day’ fund first. Hynes said money in the rainy day fund was used in July. Trotter’s Republican counterpart, Sen. Christine Radogno of Lemont, also didn’t think much of borrowing money. ‘That’s exactly what’s gotten us into this problem,’ Radogno said. ‘Continuing borrowing is not a good idea. They’re going to have to look at making cuts. The wiggle room is gone.’”

It’s time to use all that advertising money to come up with another plan — one that doesn’t involve raising taxes.

Museum Block, before it was turned into a temporary parking lot

The Smoke Free Illinois Act was so poorly drafted that courts have ruled it cannot be enforced.

The decision by Associate Judge Cornelius Hollerich, combined with the rejection of proposed regulations for the statute by the state earlier this year, appears to leave no recourse for the prosecution of smokers cited for lighting up indoors in public places. [...]

Alexander’s lawyer, Peoria attorney Dan O’Day, said the ruling has immediate, far-reaching implications for the smoking ban. “This ruling, if it’s correct – and we think it is – is that there’s no way to enforce the Smoke Free Illinois Act right now,” O’Day said. “There should be no more arrests for smoking.”

Yet another example of Springfield being broken. I didn’t favor this bill (because I believe it tramples personal property rights, not because I’m pro-smoking or anything), but if a bill is going to be passed, it should be well-written and able to be enforced. This was a failure on the part of lawmakers to write good legislation, and it makes one wonder what other unenforceable or poorly-written laws have been put on the books.

From a press release:

Park Advocates To Gather at Jubilee College State Park
To Send A Message to Springfield:

Save Our Parks – Stop the IDNR Cuts!

Cuts Take Effect Thursday Unless Springfield Acts

What:	A press conference to protest cuts made by Governor Blagojevich to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources that threaten to close state parks, eliminate outdoor recreation opportunities, and hurt the state?s ability to protect wildlife and the environment.
Who:	Illinois Sierra, Heart of IL Group Sierra, Nature Conservancy and other groups
When:	11:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008
Where:	Jubilee College State Park, Quail Meadow Picnic Area (go 3.8 miles west of Kickapoo on Rt. 150 to the main park entrance; stay on main park road past the Park Office, and turn right at the next corner)

BACKGROUND
On July 9th, Governor Blagojevich cut $14 million from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources? (IDNR) budget, decreasing by another 20% the general fund budget for an agency that has lost a quarter of its staff from budget cuts since 2001. This will undoubtedly force the department to close some facilities for lack of staffing, comes at a time when our parks continue to experience increases in attendance by outdoor enthusiasts.

The cuts will take effect Thursday, July 24th unless both the Illinois House and Senate act to override the Governor’s cuts.

Before the Peoria County Board:

“We’re really at a moment of truth,” said Lakeview Museum board chairman Jim Vergon. “This is a defining moment for the Peoria Riverfront Museum, or Museum Square. Without being too melodramatic about it, this is also a defining moment for central Illinois in so many ways.”

–Journal Star, Nov. 9, 2007

Before the Illinois Senate Appropriations Committee:

Jim Vergon, chairman of the Lakeview Museum Board, told the Senate committee that the sought-after $12 million in state funding would trigger a $136 million redevelopment project on the Peoria riverfront…. “The moment of truth is really upon us for this project,” Vergon said.

–Journal Star, May 15, 2008

I’ll bet there’s another “moment of truth” just around the corner when they ask the Peoria City Council for yet another extension on their redevelopment agreement for the Sears block.

The latest attempt to gain support for civil-union legislation is to misdirect the public into thinking this going to provide a great benefit to senior citizens:

The question of whether to legalize civil unions in Illinois has focused largely on same-sex couples, but opposite-sex senior citizen couples actually stand to gain the most, says state Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago….

Harris’ House Bill 1826 would let couples opt for civil unions, rather than marriage. Each partner in a civil union would have legal protections and obligations that already are available to married people. For example, one partner could make crucial decisions, such as those involving medical care, on behalf of the other.

Guess what? They can already do that. It’s called a Health Care Power of Attorney in Illinois (it’s also known as a “Medical Power of Attorney” elsewhere). Call me cynical, but it looks to me like the proponents of this bill know that it’s sole purpose is getting same-sex unions recognized in Illinois, but are trying to divert criticism by finding dubious other “benefits” to the bill.

A couple of bills are wending their way through the State legislature and are sure to find their way into your pocketbook soon:

• SB 2071 — School Construction Bonds. Sponsored by Senators Koehler and Risinger, this little bill gives District 150 even more borrowing power by letting the district exceed debt limitations if they use the Public Building Commission (PBC) for matching construction funds. The Journal Star reported on this on March 13: “Part of the intention…, said District 150 Treasurer Guy Cahill, was to use the PBC money as matching funds if the state ever re-authorizes a school construction program.” So if this passes and the state gives them school construction money in the future, evidently the school board would be able to match that grant with PBC funds, which are paid back by taxpayers — with interest. Remember that PBC funds are accessible without a referendum; there’s no accountability to the voters, other than voting out the school board members (a process that takes a number of years, and would only be effectuated after the money is borrowed and spent).
• SB 2077 — County Code Retailers’ Occupation Tax for Public Facilities. This is also sponsored by Senators Koehler and Risinger, and it just passed the Senate 47-4 yesterday (April 1). It now goes to the House. WMBD-TV had this story: “A bill allowing Peoria County voters to decide whether they want to pay a special sales tax for the proposed riverfront museum passed the Illinois Senate Tuesday…. County officials say it would provide another source of funding for the proposed multi million dollar facility, although the size of the proposed tax hasn’t been determined.”

  The good news is that this tax is subject to referendum. They can only impose this tax if the voters approve it. And, just to sweeten the deal, the county could put a sunset provision on the tax, meaning it would expire on a certain date and a new referendum would have to be approved to reinstate/extend it.

  But here’s the thing — the museum is only one of the many possible uses for this tax. It could also be used for other public facilities, like nursing homes. This opens up many possibilities. They could try to sell a tax referendum that wouldn’t just be for the museum (which has little support), but also for other public facilities that need funding help (which have higher support). That could set up a quandary for voters, and could sway the outcome. Even if that scenario doesn’t happen, the county will now have a new potential revenue source, and they’ll likely find a way to coerce voters into approving it, with or without museum funding (e.g., “if you don’t approve this public facility tax, you will be throwing Bel-Wood residents out onto the street — have you no conscience?!”).

According to Comptroller Dan Hynes, Illinois “still sustains a deficit, ending fiscal year 2007 nearly $3.6 billion in the red based on preliminary unaudited estimates.”

Nevertheless, the General Assembly apparently feels that it has $12 million to spare for the Peoria Riverfront Museum. The House of Representatives approved the expenditure 80-23, and now the bill heads to the Senate where it’s being championed by Sen. David Koehler.

Rep. Aaron Schock voted for it. So I guess he’s okay with deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility. He’ll fit right in in Congress.

A House appropriations committee has recommended approval of a bill that would give $12 million to the Peoria Regional Museum. The bill would have to pass the full House, Senate, and get the Governor’s okay before the museum would actually get the money.

Here’s the most interesting part of the Journal Star’s article on this effort:

[Lakeview Museum CEO Jim] Richerson said the proposed Peoria project consists of two pieces: a museum with an estimated price tag of $65 million to $75 million and a Caterpillar Inc. visitors center.

$75 million? Are they expecting that construction costs are going to rise by potentially $10 million in the next year, raising the total cost of the project by more than 15%? If so, then that $12 million in state money, if it actually comes to fruition, would mostly cover the increase in costs, still leaving a potential $22 million shortfall.

The contract with the city expires, I believe, at the end of the year (I’ll have to double-check that). So the question is, will the city extend their contract again or pull the plug?

And here’s another question. “The House Appropriations Committee on Public Safety voted 13-0 for House Bill 4664, sponsored by Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria,” the Journal Star reports. What does capital funding for a proposed museum have to do with public safety? Do these committee names have any meaning whatsoever?

In December 2007, the city council considered passing its own local smoke-free ordinance to mirror state legislation banning smoking in public places. The motion failed because it needed the approval of a majority of the council (not merely the majority of a quorum), and a couple of council members weren’t in attendance that night. Next Tuesday, the council will try to pass it again.

The arguments are these:

• It should be defeated because (a) the state law is poorly written and could lead to downtown businesses getting tickets for non-patrons who happen to be smoking within fifteen feet of their entrance, and (b) the city’s police department is too busy working on more important issues to be called away to give citations for smoking violations; since the state issued this unfunded mandate, the state should enforce it. If the city passes this ordinance, they will have to pay for adjudicating the tickets, whereas if they don’t pass the ordinance, the tickets would be adjudicated by the state’s attorney.
• It should be passed because the city would get 100% of the fine if it prosecutes under a local ordinance, and only 50% if under a state ordinance violation. Violations are complaint-driven and not high-priority, thus they wouldn’t pull any officers off their beat or cause any hardship.

The appearance of this ordinance on the agenda explains why the police department is gearing up to do raids on local bars looking for smoking scofflaws. Once this ordinance passes, it will be an opportunity for the city to start raking in some money in fines.