http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=398&page&replies=27
Here is a thread from one year ago with links to Home Rule information.
Perhaps they are still active.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Home Rule revisited
(13 posts)-
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 07:37 #
-
Kim - thanks for doing this - it really helps... old age has crept up.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 12:05 # -
Kevin Smith has made this clarification in a comment in the Landmark:
"Article comment by: Kevin Smith
Regarding the "Home Rule" canard: Our platform does not include advocating Home Rule, let alone Home Rule as a means to raise property taxes.
In a conversation with Landmark editor Bob Uphues (the entirety of which did not appear in print), the topic of alternatives to the property tax came up.
Because Riverside is predominantly a residential community, in good economic times, a real estate transfer fee could be a productive source of revenue (and it would be tied to an ability to pay). The State Legislature has, and continues, to deny this option to Non-Home Rule communities such as Riverside. The avenues open to Non-Home Rule communities are to lobby the Legislature (which we futilely do) and/or explore Home Rule (which has not been done).
Because the whole point is to find funding alternatives to the property tax, I stated to Mr. Uphues that the property tax component would have to be removed before any community discussion of Home Rule could take place. I also stated to him that one way to do this is to adopt an ordinance binding the Village to adhering to the property tax cap, regardless of any inherent power it might possess. Feel free to contact Mr. Uphues to verify our conversation.
This detour from accuracy illustrates the inherent problem with relying on secondary sources for information & basing conclusions thereon.
I would hope that whoever is elected feels that he or she has an obligation to explore alternatives to the crushing property tax. Adopting a Know Nothing-ish position would be in direct conflict to every elected official's fiduciary responsibility to the Village as a whole. Home Rule is an idea - we shouldn't be afraid of ideas."
*************************
In sum, home rule to get the real estate property transfer tax, add ordinance to forbid using it to raise the regular property taxes. OK, good. Can it be done? If so, how do you feel about it?
++++++++++++++++++
Notice how anyone who concluded otherwise from his public remarks and the article is a know-nothing [a name for 19th century racist nativists], and on a detour from accuracy for not reading his mind. Not so good.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 12:21 # -
I believe Trustee Smith's allusion was a little more focused. I think he was refering to Mr. Gorman's hesitancy to volunteer budget balancing strategies. Still, not a very flattering comment.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 13:15 # -
From Mr Smith's remarks, it seems to me that a good action would be to lobby/push Springfield to allow non home rule communities the capability of doing a property transfer tax. Does anyone know if there is or has been such a push? Let's all bug our Springfield representatives to allow this! I do not see a downside. Tell me the downside if anyone knows of one.
Here is a link to the names of our representatives. Looks like our website needs some updating (I Know, budget cuts)
http://www.riverside-illinois.com/Government.htmhttp://www.votesmart.org/search.php?search=60546&submit_lastname-zip.x=10&submit_lastname-zip.y=10
.
What would be the rationale for prohibiting communities that are not home rule from having a transfer tax?
Secondly, so it looks like getting home rule is not a actionable plank in the RP platform, but just another idea to address the budget problem. In other words, it looks like the decision of RP vs RCA can not be boiled down to a "referendum on Home Rule" (of sorts).
Finally, excuse me if the following question has been answered: What does the law say is needed for a town like Riverside get home rule status if it wanted it? Referendum? Or simple Board vote?
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 14:16 # -
R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M!!! Actually there was discussion of this possibility when they began drafting the tax increase referendum, but everyone but Smith as I recall knew it was a nonstarter.
If you could give away an inherent power by ordinance, why didn't they do that with eminent domain?
I don't see a downside, except that first you must stop spending, then you ask for more money. People must be convinced that overspending has stopped. It is, after all, another tax.
Good question. If the Illinois state legislature doesn't want it, it might well mean it is a good thing to have.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 14:24 # -
I do not wish to be classified as a no-nothing! (Was that aimed at me?) I am voting a straight ticket - for the Dead Rabbits. (See Scorsese's Gangs of New York for clarification- they fought the No-nothings, and everybody else. (Spelling by choice.)
I really thought it was postured by the Board that they could not give up anything in a way that bind other Boards to stick to it. Anyway - if you look at the situation today - the Real Estate Transfer Tax will just burden those that may have to sell, and with sales plummeting, won't bring in what it would have in better times. I don't think many would favor this.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 16:37 # -
I think it was actually Trustee Smith who made the point that the board could not divest itself of eminent domain authority during the TIF debates. What one board can do another can undo, short of state law. An ordinance would be a symbolic gesture and sign of intent. Home rule would also allow the "non-home rule sales tax increment" to be converted to an unrestricted sales tax. I believe it would also allow taxing some service professions (of which Riverside has a surfeit). If you're lucky the board will use Home Rule in the way that the electorate intended. So, you have to ask yourself the question, do you feel lucky, well do you?
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 17:30 # -
No, I don't, not where this issue is concerned!
I didn't know about the ability to tax service professions. Admittedly, that would be nice.
Sales tax, NO. I see at the market here, where we shop almost daily, I pay 11.25% in sales tax already. We have already begun making large purchases in DuPage.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 18:43 # -
You missed my point about non home rule sales tax. It is already being levied. It is limited to expenditures towards infrastructure. Home rule status would allow this sales tax to be used for operational (fire+police) expenditures. Now the whole debate on investing in infrastructure vs paying fire fighters and crime fighters is another issue. The home rule status does give this flexibility. Suggestion; lighten up on the exclamation marks, poor form.
Posted Friday Feb 6, 2009 20:02 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.