I would like to propose an alternative to public housing and Section 8 vouchers in Will county. It is apparent that public housing projects are failures here and elsewhere. Chicago is tearing theirs down as quickly as they can. Joliet has plans to bulldoze Poole Gardens. And it is hard to see Evergreen Terrace as anything, but a dangerous, blighted failure. The government's solution has been to try to spread public housing out throughout the community by offering Section 8 vouchers. This has allowed the problems of the projects to spread to previously stable residential neighborhoods and to hurt property values of existing homes.
My proposed alternative is to build multi-income new subdivisions. This means not simply redeveloping a small area in an existing neighborhood or renting houses in middle class neighborhoods to those on public assistance. It means building whole new neighborhoods on undeveloped land without neighboring subdivisions. Joliet, Plainfield, and numerous other communities build whole new neighborhoods of high priced homes where just last year farm animals grazed. So new neighborhoods of a different type certainly can be built.
The neighborhoods I envision would include a mix of home styles. Some duplexes, some small ranch homes, some mid-size split levels, some larger homes. Basically a mix of what one would find if they took random homes from every neighborhood in Joliet. These homes would then be sold to whomever desired to buy one. However, there would be assistance for low income families to purchase homes.
The type of assistance I am proposing would be to offer 30 year fixed term mortgages that would have the payments split between the buyers and the government. The government would pay the interest using the funds they now spend on Section 8 vouchers and housing projects. The buyers would be responsible for the principle and for property taxes. They would own their homes and be able to sell them and any rise in property values would accrue to them. There should be a method by which continued eligibility for housing assistance is determined. This would mean that if a family's income rose to there they no longer qualified for assistance the government would stop paying the interest and it would become the responsibility of the family. There could even be a sliding scale.
This arrangement provides several positives. First, it provides low income families with an investment in their homes and communities. They stand to profit or lose based upon their upkeep of their homes. They are rooted in the community instead of moving from apartment to apartment. They pay taxes so they now have a financial interest in what local governments are doing with tax dollars. Second, it protects the property values of surrounding homes. When your neighbors have an incentive to maintain their homes and to keep the neighborhood safe and clean, the value of your property is protected and enhanced. An enhanced tax base would also occur. The families moving into these new neighborhoods already send their kids to our schools. Only now instead of living in a housing project that pays no taxes, they live in a home that is taxable. They share in the costs of the government services they utilize.
These neighborhoods would be open to anyone who wished to buy a home in them regardless of their income status. Those who do not qualify for assistance would purchase a home just like they would anywhere else. Of course a home in a mixed income neighborhood would have a lower property value than a home in a neighborhood of only high end homes. But, this reduced value occurs from the moment it is built so the buyer pays a lower price. This is in contrast to existing homes that have low income families move in next door and see the home they paid full price for fall in value. If these neighborhoods prove to be safer and better maintained that most people would expect a mixed income neighborhood to be, then property values will rise as people change their opinions of such areas. This would provide a profit potential to middle and upper income people willing to take a risk and buy in these new neighborhoods.
The key question is who would build such neighborhoods since there is less profit to be made from smaller homes and the profit on any larger homes would be reduced because of reduced property values due to it being a mixed income neighborhood. We all know housing developers make their money by buying land, building oversized homes for the upper middle class, and tacking on a $100,000 premium over what they cost to build. This results in big profits for the developers and lots of new homes for those who can afford $300,000 and $400,000 homes. My proposal would be to force these same developers to build these mixed income neighborhoods. This would be done by requiring that for every building permit issued in one of their exclusive new subdivisions they build a home in one of these mixed-income subdivisions. There would need to be set quotas on how many of different size and types houses were built so that developers would build what is needed and not just what they think is profitable. This would create two benefits. First, it would mean multiple builders in each of these mixed income neighborhoods which would lead to a greater variety of homes instead of cookie-cutter homes. Second, since building these homes would be tied to getting permits for their own subdivisions, it would become a cost of doing business passed along to homebuyers who desire to live in economically segregated subdivisions.
I am sure there are numerous problems and inadequacies with this proposal. However, I think it would be a considerable improvement over the current system. It focuses on not just providing current housing for low income persons. Instead, it looks to improve their long term housing status, to create economically integrated neighborhoods, to bring people together, to maintain and enhance property values, and to create stable communities where we all have a stake and in which we all can raise our families in safety.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
School Referendums Defeated
Lockport Township High School District saw their referendum go down in defeat for a second year in a row. Some supporters have chastised the voters for being cheapskates. I think this is wrong though, the voters were not merely acting out of financial self interest. They were reacting to a school district that has hidden facts, tried to borrow beyond their legal debt limit, paid huge sums of money to teachers and administrators, and wants to build $100+ million school palaces.
The April 2006 referendum was defeated because of concerns over how the boundary between the two high school was drawn, resistance to building a school for Homer Glen, raw emotions over Lockport West, and concern over why Lockport Central was to be abandoned. The district did not address these effectively prior to the 2007 referendum. The boundary issue was put off the table in favor of 2 two-year campuses until some future date. Of course, we all can guess what that division in the future may look like and we know that in the absence of a referendum the concerns of citizens will be ignored. Some explanation of why the loss of Lockport West was not really harmful was given, but a more thorough analysis should be given. Don't assume we are too stupid to understand it. The community movement in Homer Glen to form their own unit district makes the fears of losing another new high school shortly after construction very relevant. The issue of Lockport Central's fate has also been glossed over. Now it supposedly will not be used for classes, but will have some other function. Well, what is that function? And why is this building now no longer good enough for students?
I have previously discussed the issue of "creative" financing being used to borrow beyond the statutory debt limit. The district has continued to defend this practice and refuse to show any fiscal responsibility. They have also not explained why less expensive school designs have not been examined and presented to the public.
To top it all off schools continue to increase the exorbitant pay of administrators and teachers. I recognize that some starting teachers are not well paid, but it only takes a few years before teachers are very well compensated and a few more years and they can be in administration where they can really rake in the money. LTHS paid their driver's education teacher over $170,000 in 2006. Do you think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars? And can you justify giving more money to such a school district?
The April 2006 referendum was defeated because of concerns over how the boundary between the two high school was drawn, resistance to building a school for Homer Glen, raw emotions over Lockport West, and concern over why Lockport Central was to be abandoned. The district did not address these effectively prior to the 2007 referendum. The boundary issue was put off the table in favor of 2 two-year campuses until some future date. Of course, we all can guess what that division in the future may look like and we know that in the absence of a referendum the concerns of citizens will be ignored. Some explanation of why the loss of Lockport West was not really harmful was given, but a more thorough analysis should be given. Don't assume we are too stupid to understand it. The community movement in Homer Glen to form their own unit district makes the fears of losing another new high school shortly after construction very relevant. The issue of Lockport Central's fate has also been glossed over. Now it supposedly will not be used for classes, but will have some other function. Well, what is that function? And why is this building now no longer good enough for students?
I have previously discussed the issue of "creative" financing being used to borrow beyond the statutory debt limit. The district has continued to defend this practice and refuse to show any fiscal responsibility. They have also not explained why less expensive school designs have not been examined and presented to the public.
To top it all off schools continue to increase the exorbitant pay of administrators and teachers. I recognize that some starting teachers are not well paid, but it only takes a few years before teachers are very well compensated and a few more years and they can be in administration where they can really rake in the money. LTHS paid their driver's education teacher over $170,000 in 2006. Do you think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars? And can you justify giving more money to such a school district?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Vote Today!
Today is election day and it is important that we all get out and cast our votes. There are important issues and races on the ballot for all of our communities. Schools are asking you to allow them to take out multi-million dollar loans using your property as collateral. Politicians are asking that you leave them in office so that they can continue to cozy up to developers and continue business as usual. Many of them do not believe in democracy and have done their best to keep opponents off of the ballot and to silence debate. However, we the people do believe in democracy and should show it by going to the polls today and at every election. If there is no one on the ballot that you can support in a given race, either write someone in or skip voting in that office. Politicians know what it means when 1000 people vote in a precinct, but only 200 vote for them in an uncontested race.
I will offer my opinions on a few items on today's ballot, but hope you will all do your own research and vote in accordance with your beliefs.
In urge you to vote NO on all school referendums. The various school districts turn to the taxpayers to finance grandiose school buildings, but refuse to consider cutting their operating costs. Yes, I know that operating and capital costs are separate, but if a district wants us to support more money for capital projects, then they should also offer to lower the taxes for operating expenses. I would support school district referendums if they were building simple utilitarian buildings and were sharing the pain by cutting back on costs and on perks for their employees.
I urge you to vote for JOHN VERSHAY for 1st Ward Alderman in Crest Hill. John is a very experienced member of the city council. He operates using common sense and fairness. He also demands that city staff do their jobs and is unrelenting in those demands. Betty Lou Semplinski, one of the other candidates in this race, has also served Crest Hill well and I wish she could also be elected. However, the 1st Ward was redistricted and only one of the three candidates in this ward will be elected. I feel that John is the best choice, but hope to see Betty Lou run in two years and hopefully return to the city council.
In the 4th Ward of Lockport, I urge you not to vote for Lisa Lovelace. She is a vindictive person who has harassed her neighbors, city employees, and passersby. She has been involved in numerous police calls and has shown herself to have no self control. Lockport has too much division and confrontation on their city council already and Lisa would only take that to a new level. While I do think Dev Trivedi is a better choice than Lisa Lovelace, I cannot in good faith endorse him either.
In the race for Joliet Mayor, I urge you to vote for DALE VOLLMER. Joliet has long ignored the best interest of its citizens and has forgotten that there is more east of Black Road than just the downtown. Art Schultz brags about how all new subdivisions are gated communities of $300,000+ homes. His idea of development is to have developers build homes that the rest of us cannot afford and to erect gates to keep us out, but to allow us to pay for schools and roads to serve these new residents. New leadership is needed.
I will offer my opinions on a few items on today's ballot, but hope you will all do your own research and vote in accordance with your beliefs.
In urge you to vote NO on all school referendums. The various school districts turn to the taxpayers to finance grandiose school buildings, but refuse to consider cutting their operating costs. Yes, I know that operating and capital costs are separate, but if a district wants us to support more money for capital projects, then they should also offer to lower the taxes for operating expenses. I would support school district referendums if they were building simple utilitarian buildings and were sharing the pain by cutting back on costs and on perks for their employees.
I urge you to vote for JOHN VERSHAY for 1st Ward Alderman in Crest Hill. John is a very experienced member of the city council. He operates using common sense and fairness. He also demands that city staff do their jobs and is unrelenting in those demands. Betty Lou Semplinski, one of the other candidates in this race, has also served Crest Hill well and I wish she could also be elected. However, the 1st Ward was redistricted and only one of the three candidates in this ward will be elected. I feel that John is the best choice, but hope to see Betty Lou run in two years and hopefully return to the city council.
In the 4th Ward of Lockport, I urge you not to vote for Lisa Lovelace. She is a vindictive person who has harassed her neighbors, city employees, and passersby. She has been involved in numerous police calls and has shown herself to have no self control. Lockport has too much division and confrontation on their city council already and Lisa would only take that to a new level. While I do think Dev Trivedi is a better choice than Lisa Lovelace, I cannot in good faith endorse him either.
In the race for Joliet Mayor, I urge you to vote for DALE VOLLMER. Joliet has long ignored the best interest of its citizens and has forgotten that there is more east of Black Road than just the downtown. Art Schultz brags about how all new subdivisions are gated communities of $300,000+ homes. His idea of development is to have developers build homes that the rest of us cannot afford and to erect gates to keep us out, but to allow us to pay for schools and roads to serve these new residents. New leadership is needed.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Extra Schools
The school districts of Will county have been on a building spree for the past decade or so and it shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. This makes me think of the area I grew up in, Mt. Prospect and Arlington Heights in the northwest suburbs. I went to school there about 15 to 20 years after the school building boom in that area. Instead of new schools opening, we had schools closing.
The schools were closing not because of financial difficulties or because of neighborhoods being abandoned. They were closing because of declining enrollments. The area had many subdivisions built in the 1950's and 60's. Many of the buyers of these new homes were young families who brought children with them or had children soon after moving in. Soon the school districts were building many new schools to accommodate all these new students. By the early 1980's there were far fewer children in these schools. What had happened was that many of the families that had moved in when the homes were built seen their children grow up. Most of these empty nest couples stayed in their homes and the demographics of the neighborhood shifted. Now instead of a neighborhood filled with kids and young families, it was far more mixed and if anything tilted towards older households.
The school districts reacted to this by closing schools as enrollments fell. Half of the schools in my elementary school district were closed when I was a student in the district. And if it were not for a low income apartment complex filled with large families and young children, one more of the two remaining grade schools could have been closed.
The real problem though was that school districts, especially high schools, did not anticipate the changing demographics. They operated under the assumption that development would continue and enrollments would keep rising. This resulted in fiascoes such as Maine Township North High School that had students for less than a decade before being closed. This was a multi-million dollar state of the art high school, that is best remembered for its role in "The Breakfast Club." District 214 in Arlington Heights also went from building new high schools to closing schools in a period of less than 10 years. The bonds to build new schools lasted long beyond the time when the schools were needed.
Think of how many tens of millions of dollars could have been saved if these districts had been willing to endure a few years of either more crowded classrooms, mobile classrooms, or split shifts. New schools were a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Of course, the best solution would have been slower growth of new subdivisions. If the same subdivisions had been built over a longer period of time, the surge in number of students would have been spread out. This would have allowed schools only to need to be built for a sustainable number of students.
I see a future where Lockport decides it needs a third high school, for which it is right now seeking funds to buy the land for, and then realizes a few years later that it no longer has enough students to fill it. Many school districts may face this problem if they simply keep building schools based on future assumptions of enrollment.
The schools were closing not because of financial difficulties or because of neighborhoods being abandoned. They were closing because of declining enrollments. The area had many subdivisions built in the 1950's and 60's. Many of the buyers of these new homes were young families who brought children with them or had children soon after moving in. Soon the school districts were building many new schools to accommodate all these new students. By the early 1980's there were far fewer children in these schools. What had happened was that many of the families that had moved in when the homes were built seen their children grow up. Most of these empty nest couples stayed in their homes and the demographics of the neighborhood shifted. Now instead of a neighborhood filled with kids and young families, it was far more mixed and if anything tilted towards older households.
The school districts reacted to this by closing schools as enrollments fell. Half of the schools in my elementary school district were closed when I was a student in the district. And if it were not for a low income apartment complex filled with large families and young children, one more of the two remaining grade schools could have been closed.
The real problem though was that school districts, especially high schools, did not anticipate the changing demographics. They operated under the assumption that development would continue and enrollments would keep rising. This resulted in fiascoes such as Maine Township North High School that had students for less than a decade before being closed. This was a multi-million dollar state of the art high school, that is best remembered for its role in "The Breakfast Club." District 214 in Arlington Heights also went from building new high schools to closing schools in a period of less than 10 years. The bonds to build new schools lasted long beyond the time when the schools were needed.
Think of how many tens of millions of dollars could have been saved if these districts had been willing to endure a few years of either more crowded classrooms, mobile classrooms, or split shifts. New schools were a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Of course, the best solution would have been slower growth of new subdivisions. If the same subdivisions had been built over a longer period of time, the surge in number of students would have been spread out. This would have allowed schools only to need to be built for a sustainable number of students.
I see a future where Lockport decides it needs a third high school, for which it is right now seeking funds to buy the land for, and then realizes a few years later that it no longer has enough students to fill it. Many school districts may face this problem if they simply keep building schools based on future assumptions of enrollment.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Costly Art
The Joliet City Council recently decided to wait on voting on purchasing additional public artwork until after the election. It seems that they do not want to vote on a pork project so close to an election. Heavens forbid their vote be fresh in the minds of voters!
I am not against public art. I am just against the $2.5 million that Joliet has paid to Friends of Community Public Art for public art and sculptures over the years. This group seems less like friends of public art and more like profiteers of public art. They do not donate public art. They do not raise funds to purchase public art. They do not try to attract artists to create free public art. They create pieces of art and then sell it to the City of Joliet. They simply see the City of Joliet as their wealthy patron and keep milking to City for their livelihoods.
There are better ways of beautifying Joliet with artworks. The city could commission local high school and JJC students to create artworks and simply pay for materials. They could hold a large contest for public sculptures and as part of the contest retain the rights to display the entries for a number of years. The city of Lawrence, Kansas took this second approach and their downtown is filled with beautiful sculptures. The cost of the prizes for the contest was far less than what Joliet spends each year on public art. The prizes were generous enough to attract nationwide entries. And of course the third option is for the City to encourage donations of and towards public art and to provide space for it, but not to fund it directly.
I am not against public art. I am just against the $2.5 million that Joliet has paid to Friends of Community Public Art for public art and sculptures over the years. This group seems less like friends of public art and more like profiteers of public art. They do not donate public art. They do not raise funds to purchase public art. They do not try to attract artists to create free public art. They create pieces of art and then sell it to the City of Joliet. They simply see the City of Joliet as their wealthy patron and keep milking to City for their livelihoods.
There are better ways of beautifying Joliet with artworks. The city could commission local high school and JJC students to create artworks and simply pay for materials. They could hold a large contest for public sculptures and as part of the contest retain the rights to display the entries for a number of years. The city of Lawrence, Kansas took this second approach and their downtown is filled with beautiful sculptures. The cost of the prizes for the contest was far less than what Joliet spends each year on public art. The prizes were generous enough to attract nationwide entries. And of course the third option is for the City to encourage donations of and towards public art and to provide space for it, but not to fund it directly.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
School Tricks
In my recent item about the Herald-News' lack of coverage, I referred to schools abusing the power to issue bonds after winning a referendum. This issue finally got some coverage in the Herald-News in the past few days thanks to two guest columns concerning the upcoming Lockport Township High School (LTHS) referendum to build a new high school.
The basis of how schools borrow more than they asked for at referendum is that instead of issuing $100 million of bonds at 5% interest and getting $100 million to spend; they issue $100 million of bonds at 8% interest and get $120 million to spend. The extra $20 million is called a bonus by the company that purchases the bonds. This is not some nice gift or really even a bonus. From the buyers perspective $100 million at 8% is the same at $120 million at 5%. They are just inflating the interest rate and then paying more than the face value of the bonds. To the buyers it is just semantics. But, to the school, the difference is that they have borrowing limits imposed by state law. These bonuses do not count towards their borrowing limits. This seems highly dishonest to me.
Beyond being dishonest though, it is financially irresponsible. The borrowing limit is in place because the State of Illinois does not want local governments to be able to borrow away all the property of their citizens. When a school, city, or county borrows money, it is your property that is the collateral. The bond owner may not be able to come and take your house, but they can force the taxing body to raise taxes to pay the debt; and if you cannot pay those taxes your home can be taken by the government. A school district that issues bonds with bonuses attached is being irresponsible with the finances of its citizens. Any government that would do this is irresponsible, however so far this type of financing scheme has been limited to schools.
LTHS has publicly stated that they will be issuing bonds with bonuses if the referendum passes and they have stated that they are doing so with the purpose of getting around their borrowing limit. They also have stated that the bonds will be back loaded so that most of the cost are postponed and payments get larger in future years. Their reasoning for this is that in the future there will be more taxpayers and property values will have gone up, thereby increasing their tax revenues. This sounds a lot like the logic used by people a couple years ago when they bought homes using interest only loans. They figured that by the time the payments went up in the future, they would be making more money and their homes would be more valuable. Many of those people are now experiencing foreclosure and losing their homes. Now, our schools want to take us all down this same road or financial uncertainty and gambling on the future.
I commend LTHS for being honest about issuing debt that is back loaded and manipulating their way around their borrowing limit. But, telling someone that you are planning to rob them before grabbing their wallet does not make you any less of a thief.
The basis of how schools borrow more than they asked for at referendum is that instead of issuing $100 million of bonds at 5% interest and getting $100 million to spend; they issue $100 million of bonds at 8% interest and get $120 million to spend. The extra $20 million is called a bonus by the company that purchases the bonds. This is not some nice gift or really even a bonus. From the buyers perspective $100 million at 8% is the same at $120 million at 5%. They are just inflating the interest rate and then paying more than the face value of the bonds. To the buyers it is just semantics. But, to the school, the difference is that they have borrowing limits imposed by state law. These bonuses do not count towards their borrowing limits. This seems highly dishonest to me.
Beyond being dishonest though, it is financially irresponsible. The borrowing limit is in place because the State of Illinois does not want local governments to be able to borrow away all the property of their citizens. When a school, city, or county borrows money, it is your property that is the collateral. The bond owner may not be able to come and take your house, but they can force the taxing body to raise taxes to pay the debt; and if you cannot pay those taxes your home can be taken by the government. A school district that issues bonds with bonuses attached is being irresponsible with the finances of its citizens. Any government that would do this is irresponsible, however so far this type of financing scheme has been limited to schools.
LTHS has publicly stated that they will be issuing bonds with bonuses if the referendum passes and they have stated that they are doing so with the purpose of getting around their borrowing limit. They also have stated that the bonds will be back loaded so that most of the cost are postponed and payments get larger in future years. Their reasoning for this is that in the future there will be more taxpayers and property values will have gone up, thereby increasing their tax revenues. This sounds a lot like the logic used by people a couple years ago when they bought homes using interest only loans. They figured that by the time the payments went up in the future, they would be making more money and their homes would be more valuable. Many of those people are now experiencing foreclosure and losing their homes. Now, our schools want to take us all down this same road or financial uncertainty and gambling on the future.
I commend LTHS for being honest about issuing debt that is back loaded and manipulating their way around their borrowing limit. But, telling someone that you are planning to rob them before grabbing their wallet does not make you any less of a thief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
