Suburb vs. Chicago Debt Obligation (Naperville, Springfield: cul-de-sac, real estate, city hall)

[OKParker]

Are the debt issues in Chicago going to impact the suburbs? Is it a state issue, a Chicago issue, or both? And how does this play out with Evanston, Forest Park, Naperville, Lemont?

[Hiruko]

Originally Posted by OKParker

Are the debt issues in Chicago going to impact the suburbs? Is it a state issue, a Chicago issue, or both? And how does this play out with Evanston, Forest Park, Naperville, Lemont?

I guess you're asking posters to predict the future, something humans don't do very well, and especially those without any kind of specialized knowledge to speak authoritatively on things like government debt obligations.

However, with my limited knowledge and expertise, I do know that the City of Chicago and its sister governments like Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Park District's debt obligations are the responsibility of those owning property, living, and doing business within the City's limits. The suburbs are not legally responsible for the City of Chicago's debt. Evanston has a manageable local debt burden and prime ratings from credit agencies. I imagine the other municipalities you mentioned are much the same—however, I have not checked this.

In a political context, I think that Chicago's outsized debt obligations do pose a problem for the rest of the state. There is some potential, although I believe unlikely, for Chicago's debt obligations to be shifted to the rest of the state in a crisis. Obviously, Chicago politicians dominate the state government, and Chicago voters represent a massive cohort within the Democratic constituency. That could create some incentive to do some sort of a 'bailout,' but Chicago has yet to default on its debt obligations.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

You can't slip a dollar bill between the POV's of Chicago and Cook County, so as a suburban Cook County resident, I'm a bit wary of our being asked to kick in to pay for Chicago's huge debt, via some kind of county-wide "Soda Tax" or whatever else they can dream up. Municipal bankruptcies are allowed in the state constitution, but what are the odds of the Legislature allowing a restructuring of Chicago's debt? From a purely selfish viewpoint, there's a part of me hoping Chicago raises its real estate tax to parity with the suburbs, which will make my home more desirable to someone looking to escape Chicago for a myriad of other reasons even without the increased tax burden.

But, your supposition left out the fact that there are some suburbs (mostly south, I think) that are in way worse shape than Chicago, and would probably be closer to the head of the line for a county or state bailout than Chicago, since they have much less of a tax base left to burden - Chicago (at least for now) has a population segment with some pretty deep pockets, which they have yet to turn inside-out. Better get turnin', Mayor Lightfoot. I see some of the close-in suburbs being absorbed by Chicago (not mine, if I can help it), to offset Chicago's population loss, as Houston has reportedly done in past years.

Anybody got a link showing the total debt, including unfunded pension and retiree medical costs, for the suburbs, along with Chicago itself?

[fusillirob1983]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

I see some of the close-in suburbs being absorbed by Chicago (not mine, if I can help it), to offset Chicago's population loss, as Houston has reportedly done in past years.

Chicago can't just commandeer neighboring suburbs, sorry.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by fusillirob1983

Chicago can't just commandeer neighboring suburbs, sorry.

I believe that the suburbs / municipalities involved would have to agree to be absorbed, probably via a vote by some percentage of their populations, but can also see many of the "broke" south suburbs (some of whom are near bankruptcy) voting overwhelmingly to do so. Others, like mine, would likely resist, but who knows what shenanigans would be pulled by the County / Legislators if the absorption benefitted Chicago enough. Are you familiar enough with the laws regarding this to expound? I know that Burr Ridge beat out Willow Springs in absorbing the old "Tiedtville" unincorporated area (where Santa Fe Raceway was located) some years ago, but forget exactly how that worked. There was an article a year or two ago about Chicago expanding itself via incorporation, I'll search for it. Makes me wonder how unincorporated areas near McCook (if they still exist) have managed to survive this long.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

I believe that the suburbs / municipalities involved would have to agree to be absorbed, probably via a vote by some percentage of their populations, but can also see many of the "broke" south suburbs (some of whom are near bankruptcy) voting overwhelmingly to do so. Others, like mine, would likely resist, but who knows what shenanigans would be pulled by the County / Legislators if the absorption benefitted Chicago enough. Are you familiar enough with the laws regarding this to expound? I know that Burr Ridge beat out Willow Springs in absorbing the old "Tiedtville" unincorporated area (where Santa Fe Raceway was located) some years ago, but forget exactly how that worked. There was an article a year or two ago about Chicago expanding itself via incorporation, I'll search for it. Makes me wonder how unincorporated areas near McCook (if they still exist) have managed to survive this long.

Here are some links, but they are merely floating the idea, I haven't found a serious proposal made yet by anyone in power. I had thought Lightfoot proposed the idea during the election, but I was mistaken, it was Garry McCarthy - so my bad on giving the idea more legs than it deserved.

https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life...-with-Chicago/

https://patch.com/illinois/oaklawn/c...evergreen-park

With respect to debt owed by Cook County municipalities, this link is good but a couple of years old now:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...0-in-six-years

How in God's name are we ever going to be able to pay for all of this?

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by OKParker

Are the debt issues in Chicago going to impact the suburbs?

Maybe, maybe not. But my guess would be likely yes.

Originally Posted by OKParker

Is it a state issue, a Chicago issue, or both? And how does this play out with Evanston, Forest Park, Naperville, Lemont?

It's an issue for everybody, no matter in what hip, posh, or impoverished suburb you live, because the debt isn't just a city of Chicago thing (although they've got a lot): there's debt at the suburban municipality level, the county level, and the state level. Worrying about Chicago's debt is missing the bigger picture, as you're all citizens of the state (whether city residents want to admit it or not), and there's debt owed at the highest level.

Now how the issues will eventually be addressed when the time finally comes to address them is a bigger question...

[TheEnigmaMachine]

Lightfoot was not shy about her ambitions to have the rest of the state assume some to Chicago's debt. Her idea was to consolidate city pension money with smaller downstate and suburban pension funds in a new statewide system. The governor shot down that idea pretty quickly:

“To be clear, the state is at just above junk status in its credit rating, so there are not liabilities that can be adopted by the state that would not drive us into junk status,” Pritzker said at a news conference at CTA headquarters on the Near West Side to tout his $45 billion infrastructure improvement plan. “So that is not something that we can do.”

Despite Lightfoot's rhetoric about how people outside the city should be "investing" in Chicago, I highly doubt you will find many suburbanites and downstaters who will see it that way if you try to come after their money. Not to mention, many other municipalities in the state have their own issues with debt to contend with, as does Springfield.

In short, nobody is coming to save Chicago. They will have to reach into their own pockets to solve their problems, which residents will likely get a taste of in Lightfoot's speech tomorrow night.

[fusillirob1983]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Here are some links, but they are merely floating the idea, I haven't found a serious proposal made yet by anyone in power. I had thought Lightfoot proposed the idea during the election, but I was mistaken, it was Garry McCarthy - so my bad on giving the idea more legs than it deserved.

https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life...-with-Chicago/

https://patch.com/illinois/oaklawn/c...evergreen-park

With respect to debt owed by Cook County municipalities, this link is good but a couple of years old now:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...0-in-six-years

How in God's name are we ever going to be able to pay for all of this?

1. Unincorporated areas are completely different.

2. Just because some guy who was the head of a police department gets a platform and makes some proposal doesn't mean it just happens. He couldn't even explain how he can sell that idea to anyone from those towns. I propose that someone gives me $3 million today, no questions asked, and I owe no tax on it. Doesn't mean it will happen. I mean, read the Patch article. Sandra Bury, Mayor of Oak Lawn, is trying to be nice.

Jim Sexton, Mayor of Evergreen Park, uses the adjective "interesting", which is not really what he means. The history of Evergreen Park is literally based on incorporating in 1893 to avoid annexation. They got rid of their 60642 zip code in the 1990s to lose all affiliation with Chicago. They installed cul-de-sacs on most side streets bordering 87th Street to keep people from driving through during the 1990s, and then started the "EP Sticker" on the bumper in the latter half. If there's any town among the 130 or so in Cook County that wants nothing to do with being annexed into Chicago, it's that one.

Burbank went through the same thing several decades ago regarding incorporation. Harwood Heights and Norridge did the same after WWII.

Both of these towns have some of the fiscally healthier school districts among the inner-ring suburbs according to the document in the Chicago Mag article.

There's a bunch of south suburbs in financial trouble east of I-57, like you stated that perhaps would benefit. At the same time, many people that live in those suburbs left the city to escape CPS and get their kids in suburban schools, even though they may only perform marginally better. Maybe they'd consider annexation, but they'd be no help to the city probably. It is bizarre that these "journalists" are grouping towns like Merrionette Park, Evergreen Park or Elmwood Park with a town like Harvey.

There's some other towns with funding issues like Cicero or Oak Park - some of which are mentioned in the Chicago mag articles.

The author of the first article writes: "By joining Chicago, suburbs would not only lower their property tax rates; they’d no longer have to support separate police departments, fire departments, and city halls. Municipal consolidation would mean lower taxes and less government. Who doesn’t want that?"

Honestly, the property taxes are lower in Chicago, but at the same time, I don't think there's a poster on this board that would make the argument that annexing with Chicago "would mean lower taxes and less government." That's literally the biggest complaint people have on this board. I don't think anyone would buy that argument for a second.


I understand Lightfoot's argument that it's "everyone's responsibility" because most people in the suburbs benefit from Chicago. How you do that, I'm not sure, but I can't see too many suburbanites voting for annexation.

I am not familiar with local laws to expound, but what I do know is that if the city of Chicago was allowed to annex other incorporated neighboring towns without their buy-in, they would have done so over the last several decades.

[OKParker]

So I guess I hadn't considered that we have county specific debt, but that makes sense. I have seen a few suburbs debt obligations, but what does Cook County's debt look like (per person, total, etc.) and our Il debt?

Also, I heard a rumbling of a tax on anyone who works in Chicago.. is it legal to income tax suburban and city residents who work in the city?