Tag Archives: local government

Which residents might benefit if property taxes are reduced or eliminated

Posted on by

As numerous states in the United States consider eliminating property taxes, which residents would benefit? An argument about what could happen in Florida:

Photo by Ivan S on Pexels.com

If retirees on fixed incomes can’t afford their insurance payments and families can’t figure out how to cover their tax bill, maybe. Yet the number of Florida homes and buildings that are delinquent on their property taxes has fallen slightly since 2020. The number of foreclosures has increased a bit, but remains low. The state’s housing market is fraying and distressed sales are increasing, but that’s because of climate change and mortgage rates, not tax assessments. Floridians may not like paying a higher tax bill, and carrying costs might be spurring some of them to downsize. But in general, property taxes are levied on people who can afford them. The typical homeowner earns twice as much as the typical renter, and has 43 times the net worth.

Tenants are “the loser in all this,” Ken Johnson, a professor of finance at the University of Mississippi, told me. Many cities and counties offset lower taxes on owner-occupied properties with higher taxes on commercial residential properties. Landlords pass those costs on to their renters. The policy will also benefit longtime homeowners at the expense of prospective homebuyers. Low property taxes increase home prices, making it harder for people without a lot of money in the bank—such as new parents and just-married couples—to get approved for a mortgage. Then they remain tenants, subject to never-ending rent increases.

In addition to distorting the housing market, Amendment 3 will devastate public finances. Property taxes provide 43 percent of revenue to Florida’s municipal general funds, the bank accounts that cities and counties use to finance day-to-day services. Amendment 3 will cut collections by as much as 30 percent, and will hit hardest in areas with a lot of homes and not a lot of commerce. To cover the $12 billion budget hole, cities and towns will likely raise or impose sales taxes and sin taxes; increase fees at the DMV, permit offices, registrars, and courts; charge more for waste removal and water; and put additional taxes on tourists. The state will trade out a solidly progressive, uniformly applied tax for an obscure, regressive mishmash of charges.

But municipalities aren’t expected to make up all of the lost revenue. They’re expected to cut. Amendment 3 explicitly protects tax financing streams for schools, meaning that cities and counties are contemplating draconian budget reductions for public-safety offices, libraries, after-school programs, summer camp, day care, flood prevention, public transit, roads, parks, senior services, homeless shelters, legal-aid clinics, domestic-violence shelters, and many other things. Austerity will be regressive too, harming the poor more than the wealthy. Rich Floridians aren’t relying on the bus to get to work. They’re not picking up free meals, taking adult-literacy classes at the library, or seeing a dentist at a pop-up clinic in a middle-school gymnasium either.

These predictions suggest an immediate reduction or removal of property taxes could prove popular with homeowners but has longer-term consequences for those who are not homeowners and for communities at large who will have to adjust their tax base.

Is this then similar to the mortgage-interest deduction that tends to benefit people who are already financially okay? Is there a way to reduce property taxes for all residences?

Thinking more broadly, is there any way that Americans who live in or own different property types could work together to address their concerns about property taxes and local revenues? While homeowners might be fed up with rising property taxes, how does this intersect with concerns about tax breaks given to data centers or whatever is the latest development rage? Or the work of business owners to limit their local taxes when local schools and other amenities benefit from such monies? Or local government bodies raising rates in order to have the revenues they say they need to provide local services?

If the different actors are trying to find a good advantage for themselves, their actions could impact others. Perhaps it is time more communities have conversations about taxes and services. What are their priorities? What do they need? What issues do they each face? They might not agree and communities or states might take different approaches but they might find some common ground or new approaches.

400+ focus groups of voters shows human nature of voters?

Posted on by

After conducting hundreds of focus groups with voters in the United States, one commentator describes the participants:

Photo by Matheus Bertelli on Pexels.com

Since that moment, I’ve conducted more than 400 focus groups with thousands of voters across the political spectrum. To my knowledge, this is the largest and most consistent qualitative study of voter sentiment during the Trump era. Here’s what I’ve learned: People are wild. They are full of contradictions. They lament our deep political divisions while raging about their political enemies. They believe in grace but cut their Trumpy brother out of their life forever. They’re married to an immigrant but voted for the guy who wants to deport millions of people who have the same immigration status as their wife. They hate the government and want to lower the national debt, but they also want the government to spend more to help them and their communities. They call themselves pro-life but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I could go on.

This suggests voters have multiple motivations and opinions. They are not necessarily consistent in their principles and actions. They react to both what is immediately around them and broader social forces and changes.

In other words, the voters are people. They are doing their best to make sense of the world around them. Translating those beliefs and responses into neatly packaged political party platforms or bundles of issues that candidates consistently talk about is not easy.

With all that said, listening to voters can be helpful:

Listening to voters is a cheat code for understanding politics—democracy, after all, is the collective will of the voters—yet few people in politics do it. If you’re running a campaign, you might do a series of focus groups with voters in your district or state. If you’re a politician, you might go on “listening tours,” chat with people at the state fair, or host campaign events. But rarely do politicians and campaigns take the time to talk in-depth about why people feel the way they do.

The reality is, the closer you get to institutional politics, the further you are from the people whom politics and government are supposed to serve. Washington is less a swamp than a bubble, inside of which the rest of America becomes an abstraction.

Where is there room to find common ground or interests? Are there ways to connect with what people are experiencing or care about beyond providing talking points and political tactics?

This could also be linked to the reasons Americans often like local politics and government: these are potential neighbors who have more of a stake and interest in day-to-day community life. Go up to the regional or state or national level and it can be hard to connect to all the experiences and concerns voters have.

Chicago suburbs to compete with Chicago to supply municipal water needs with Lake Michigan water

Posted on by

Earlier this week, a group of Chicago suburbs announced plans to pump and distribute Lake Michigan water. This would put them in competition with the water supplied by the city of Chicago:

Photo by Ushindi Namegabe on Pexels.com

The DuPage commission alone is paying Chicago’s Department of Water Management $130 million this year, commission Chair Jim Zay told the Tribune Publishing-owned Daily Herald. The DuPage consortium is Chicago’s single largest wholesale customer, accounting for 15% of the city water system’s annual operating revenue, according to Fitch Ratings.

The threat to Chicago is several years away; the DuPage commission is contracted to buy water from the city until 2041. But that’s how long it would take to secure approvals, financing and build the competing system anyway.

The backers of the suburban plan complain that Chicago in the past has raised its rates suddenly and exorbitantly and that more recently the city’s service hasn’t been sufficiently reliable. “They don’t put anything back into the system; that’s the problem,” the Herald quoted Zay as saying. “This year we’ll pay them $130 million, and they put nothing in for infrastructure.”…

And if these suburban officials conclude that the risk of continuing to do business with Chicago for generations to come is greater than executing this complex and expansive infrastructure project, that’s their prerogative. To our minds, it’s not an easy call.

This reminds me of two features of American suburbs:

  1. One leading reason suburban communities stopped approving annexation of their community into big cities in the late 1800s had to do with utilities. Once costs of supplying electricity, water, gas, and other needed resources decreased, suburbs developed their own systems rather than join the city to enjoy the benefits of their systems.
  2. Suburbs and their residents like local government. Even as the competing suburban water system would be administered by suburban officials, they would prefer that local control rather than having the big city control the water. This does not mean all the suburbs will agree about how to go about the water business but they probably believe they would rather have decisions in the hands of suburbanites rather than city people.

In other words, this move to have suburbs supply Lake Michigan water is part of longstanding patterns. Yes, it involves a lot of money and effort. But the suburbs think it is worthwhile compared to relying on the big city.

One reason Illinois has so many local governments: old rules limited how much debt governments could take on

Posted on by

Illinois has thousands of local government bodies. Here is one reason for the large number:

Photo by Mohamed hamdi on Pexels.com

Illinois was not unique in its decentralized, generous incorporation and annexation terms or in witnessing the end of the city’s physical expansion in the early twentieth century, phenomena that collectively encouraged fragmented jurisdictions in many metropolitan areas. Relatively unique, however, was Illinois’s strict constitutional limit on local debt, which prompted many suburbanites to create new governments rather than expand the charge of existing ones when new needs arose. Until amended in 1970, the Illinois Constitution restricted local borrowing to less than 5 percent of assessed valuation. This restriction made it difficult to finance big projects, especially for governments in small or rapidly growing places where property assessment increases often lagged years behind the need for services and infrastructure. Residents created new school districts to build high schools, for example, rather than extend elementary school districts’ responsibility into the upper grades (as in most other states). They also created a wide array of special-purpose governments to perform specific functions (like fire protection, building and managing parks, and managing sanitation) rather than expanding municipal functions. By 1970 there were 1,239 local governments in the six-county Chicago region: 280 incorporated municipalities, 121 township districts (with responsibility over unincorporated territory), 384 school districts and 449 special-purpose districts.”

On the one hand, you would not want small government bodies amassing large debts. How would they pay it off? How might servicing the debt affect their ability to provide local services?

On the other hand, this paragraph describes the downside of the debt limits. Have new needs or need more resources? Form a new government body in order to take on debt and pursue your goal.

Once these government bodies are established and raise money, they take on a life of their own. They live out their mandate. They provide local services. They gather resources and build their capacity. They have defenders. For ones formed before 1970, they have over half a century of inertia and history.

Even with changed rules, the number of Illinois local governments remains high. It will take a major sustained effort to reduce the number.

What Chicago suburbs could do in response to “unprecedented” storms and large number of tornadoes

Posted on by

The Chicago area has experienced a lot of severe weather this summer. This includes a large number of storms:

Photo by Zeeshaan Shabbir on Pexels.com

The damaging storms that rolled through the suburbs Tuesday marked the 329th time the National Weather Service office in Romeoville has issued a severe weather warning this year.

That’s more severe weather warnings than issued in all of 2025, and far past the previous record of 273 set in 2006. The warnings are issued for storms that have the potential to produce tornadoes, winds 58 mph or greater, and quarter-size or larger hail.

“It really is pretty unprecedented,” said Gino Izzi, senior meteorologist at the National Weather Service.

And Illinois has had a lot of tornadoes:

Snyder said Illinois will likely pass 200 confirmed tornadoes after Tuesday’s storms, far and away the most tornadoes of any state in the country for 2026, according to the National Weather Service.

If Illinois continues this stormy trend, it may not only add to its state record but perhaps break a nationwide record for the total number of tornadoes in one state in any single year — 232 tornados in Texas in 2015 and 1967.

How could suburbs respond to this (beyond doing nothing and/or hoping this was an unusual year)? Some ideas:

  1. More personnel and effort for clean-up. Storms and tornadoes bring damage. Communities could budget more resources to deal with the aftermath of storms. Roads need to be cleaned. Downed trees and branches need to be cleaned up. Storm sewers need to be clear. Suburbanites expect a certain level of local services and providing more after storms could become more common.
  2. Updating building codes so that structures can better weather storms. This might add to costs – whether in updates or in new construction – but could pay off in the long run.
  3. Changing development plans to stay away from potentially dangerous areas. It is hard to predict the exact paths of storms or tornadoes. It is easier to look at where flooding might occur. Water can cause a lot of damage.
  4. More severe weather centers where people can shelter and/or seek help. This might require centrally located buildings that are relatively safe in storms.

Options such as these might require that suburban residents ask for them. Americans like suburbs in part because they provide encounters with nature. Storms and tornadoes, however, might be parts of nature that are too threatening to the suburban way of life and residents could come to expect suburban governments to provide more help.

How much elected suburban leaders make, 2026 North Shore edition

Posted on by

What is the salary for elected suburban leaders in Chicago’s North Shore suburbs?

Photo by Charlotte May on Pexels.com

Voters may be surprised to learn that in Evanston, the position to oversee a $400 million-plus municipal government and a city of about 76,000 people comes with an annual salary of a little over $25,000…

“I don’t think anybody expects somebody in Evanston to support a family on this salary, so whether they have other employment or other wealth or, as in my case, right now they have a spouse who works full-time, I think certainly the expectation is there’s some other reason that they’re able to stay afloat.”…

Evanston is not unique in this regard. Municipalities across the North Shore tend to offer modest compensation for mayoral and other top elected offices, begging similar questions about who can afford to serve…

And Hansen said research suggests that low-pay and unpaid municipal positions tend to have less competition and therefore are more conducive to a higher rate of diversity among elected leaders who come from a wider range of backgrounds.

Historically, however, even “poorly paid positions still tend to be primarily held by white-collar professionals for reasons that aren’t directly related to the salary offered by the office,” like professionals being able to more easily raise campaign money or because they have “greater autonomy over their time, both to campaign for office and to serve if they win,” Hansen said.

Local elected officials have important roles in their suburban communities. They help make decisions in communities, they are at events in the community, and they serve as figureheads for the community.

Hinted at but not stated explicitly in the article is that there are local government staff that do a lot of day to day work. They are not typically elected.

You can see some of this dynamic at local meetings. Say there is a new development proposed for the community. Elected officials have roles and government staff have roles.

It would be interesting to put the question to local voters: should local government staff and/or local officials have higher salaries? Present the argument to the voters, including the effects on who might run or how this might affect local services and decision-making.

Communities preparing for possible property tax reductions in Florida

Posted on by

With the possibility that Florida residents will soon vote to significantly lower property taxes, communities in the states are trying to get ready:

Photo by Derwin Edwards on Pexels.com

The proposal is spurring urgent responses from local governments faced with the prospect of plummeting tax revenue. Cities and counties are scrambling to prepare for a potential overhaul of how they pay for all sorts of services, from policing to pothole repairs.

Local officials across the state say the issue is dominating discussion in commission meetings and budget workshops. Among the measures they have taken so far: freezing hiring and capital projects, planning possible service cuts and floating proposals to increase other fees and taxes to offset the shortfall…

In the 2027-28 fiscal year, the Florida changes would reduce property-tax revenue in the state overall by nearly $5 billion, according to the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, a research arm of the legislature. That would increase to $8.8 billion in 2028-29 and $10.8 billion in 2030-31.

The amounts would vary widely for individual counties, with a large one like Miami-Dade projected to lose $304 million in the first year and a small one like Okeechobee expected to lose $3.7 million, according to an analysis by the Florida Association of Counties. Suburban counties with high proportions of homestead properties would face the sharpest exposure, and economically distressed small counties would be the least equipped to respond, the study said.

Americans generally do not like the idea of high property taxes. They like the idea of homeownership but do not always like the idea they should pay more taxes on something they own.

At the same time, this tax helps fund many of the local amenities and services Americans benefit from and participate in. When looking at amenities about communities when making choices about where to live or when discussing local features and amenities they like, property taxes likely contribute. This includes schools, parks, and police and fire departments.

The tradeoffs I wonder if Americans are willing to make: either or both (1) lower levels of local amenities and services and (2) less local control over local services and amenities for lower property taxes. Immediate financial benefits for property owners but a loss of quality of life? How this plays out in Florida might help

Suburban reasons for the prevalence and expenses of youth sports

Posted on by

Here are some thoughts about how the suburbanization of the United States might be related to two concerns I have read/seen/heard multiple times in recent years: (1) most kids sports activity takes place in structured leagues and programs with a big rise in travel sports and (2) participation in these structured sports is expensive. There are lots of explanations for this but few take into account the setting where a majority of Americans live and how this has shaped these patterns. Are the sports opportunities kids get connected to suburban lifestyles?

Photo by Israel Torres on Pexels.com
  1. Sprawling suburban landscapes can make it hard for kids to get together and just play. On one hand, suburban yards would seem to provide ample opportunities. And there are parks and school grounds scattered across suburbs. But much of suburban life requires driving and until kids have licenses, they need other people to drive them. Put this together with fears for safety in suburbia (see Neighborhood of Fear by historian Kyle Riismandel for how this happened) and kids don’t get together to play sports with each other outside. In how many suburbs today could the baseball team depicted in The Sandlot play regularly and where would those games take place?
  2. Suburbs suggest a certain social class standing and suburban households desire that their kids are successful or get ahead. Instead of playing sports for fun and to develop as a person, sports are a possible pathway to success and fame. Partaking of these sports options provides room to share about kids’ successes. And plenty of suburban households have disposable income to make this happen. Why play around when you can pay for travel sports and lessons and camps and equipment? This reminded me of Richard Reeves’ book Dream Hoarders where the top 20% of American earners look to secure advantages for themselves and their kids.
  3. Local governments and private companies are willing to provide these sports opportunities. They can claim this is what residents and customers want. And there is money to generate or be made from people willing to pay. As the trust Americans have in more traditional institutions have decreased, suburbanites are willing to invest time and money in sports leagues and programs where they might feel they have more control over outcomes. And why not rep a local team or club rather than wade into national polarization?

Another way to put this: could the United States have such a system of youth sports if it was not a suburban country?

Illinois local officials against realtors and developers regarding the BUILD plan

Posted on by

The president of the Illinois Municipal League explained why his organized opposed Governor J.B. Pritzker’s plans for the BUILD plan:

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

Cole said the BUILD plan not only preempts local authority, but it also strips community engagement and public input in zoning decisions. He also said he and other IML members were wary the plan would only create more units that most people still couldn’t afford.

“Every mayor in Illinois wants their community to grow,” Cole said. “Our focus was on affordability, if this is about developers or about Realtors, well, that’s not the business we’re in.”

Pritzker’s political operation often teamed up with real estate agents to promote BUILD, hosting roundtables and filming social media videos with real estate agent influencers. His campaign’s Facebook and Instagram accounts posted BUILD content almost every week, the message being: more houses on the market means reduced costs.

These comments clearly state the sides Cole sees for and against this plan: local officials and residents who want to retain local control and realtors, developers, and the governor who want to build more housing units.

Often, all of these actors work together regarding development. As Cole notes, all communities want to grow. This can add residents and business activity. It can lead to increased tax revenues. It means jobs for construction workers.

But these groups do not always agree. Developers may propose a particular project that a municipality does not look favorably upon. Realtors may see developments or communities in particular ways. Communities have their own ideas about what they would like to be.

Given how much municipalities like to control their own zoning, I do not know if there is a compromise available between these sides. Do developers and realtors want to be portrayed as being on the side of the governor and against local communities? Can local communities say they do not really want to build middle-housing or housing that could help provide housing opportunities for more people? Everyone wants to grow but who will get to steer this growth?