The Champaign City Council has on its agenda a Resolution Authorizing the Intervention into Cases Involving the Creation of the Southwest Transit District [sic]. You can read for yourself the WHEREAS's to see the reasoning behind the City's desire to intervene. All of the basis for the City's intervention is predicated upon the assertion that the CSWMTD board is determined not to provide transportation services--clearly a matter of opinion and not substantiated by any CSWMTD board members.
I'm not an attorney, so I don't understand how the City has any standing intervening in my lawsuit against CUMTD--regardless of whether the CSWMTD chooses to intervene (to me, the CSWMTD has an obvious and legitimate interest in an intervention).
Maybe the CUMTD feels its case is weak and/or the law is so vague they think that believe having the political support of another municipality will help them curry favor with the court?
The City's intervention may be irrelevant, though, because the questions to be decided by the court are: 1) is the CUMTD's annexation power constitutional (forced annexation without any public petition or vote)? and 2) can the CSWMTD district's voters' rights be disenfranchised by an intentional act by CUMTD to thwart a referendum process to create a separate transit district that began before the CUMTD started their annexation process?
These questions have nothing to do with whether the CUMTD's actions are consistent with the City's agenda, plans or opinions.
Give Volk and Costello credit, they sure try to work all the angles in keeping their empire alive.
It will be interesting if the new City of Champaign elected members 'roll over' , 'play dead' or 'bow to the power" of Volk & Constello's Empire called the CU MTD.
Any bets on the outcome?
So let me get this straight... I'm paying the MTD to fight a lawsuit against SW Champaign voters who don't want their money taken without consent... now I'm also paying the City of Champaign to argue basically the same thing even though the MTD is a county agency. I'm already paying the MTD to waste my money to expand the MTD empire... do I have to pay the City of Champaign to waste my money for the same reason?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
You are sharp, John, and way ahead of most Champaign residents.
First we were overrun with huge, sometimes double MTD buses running around streets under contract with Unit #4. Then we were forced annexed into the Champaign Urbana Mass Transit District. Then Champaign cut a deal to annex some farm land so they could annex most of the subdivisions at one time. Now the City is teaming with the MTD against voters wishes.
ENOUGH GOVERNMENT-----LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!!
Welcome to living in the city. You can't hand-pick the services you receive. You may never visit the parks, but you pay for them. You may not have kids in school, but you help pay for them. Public transportation is a service. Knowing how much the cities have grown in the past couple of decades, you should have known that a new subdivision would soon be right in the thick of things. If you don't want to pay for urban services, live in a rural area.
You forgot RULE#1 of Giverment Bodies." ALL GIVERMENT BODIES WILL SUPPORT EACH OTHER TO INSURE A FREE FLOW OF MONEY, ANY ATTEMPT TO DISRUPT THIS CASH FLOW WILL BRING AN IMMEDIATE REPSONSE FROM OVER GIVERMENT BODIES" Sort of like when MTD makes a contribution of your $$ to WILL RADIO, etc. Round up the wagons...
Perhaps we, the citizens in the annexation zone, should cooperatively purchase a golf car and make scheduled runs from the Lincoln Shire Fields Golf course club house to all the subdivisions on Staley Avenue (note the recent change from Staley Road) like Copper Ridge, Trails at Brittany et. al., Glenshire and Turnbury Ridge; especially when city council members play their rounds on Sunday morning at this lovely golf links. We could call that our "mass transit operation." Since it would also be an electric conveyance, it would be much more earth-friendly then the noisy, ozone-depleting, CUMTD diesel conveyances trafficing and smoking up our subdivisions, while damaging our property by short cutting over our curbs and lawns to pick up Unit 4 children for school?? Clearly the Champaign City council has many more pressing issues to spend our tax dollars pontificating (under age campus-town binge drinking, smoking ban and enforcement, where does Unit 4 build is next school to comply with the federal Consent Decree, campus town parking, slum lord apartment housing than to take up another bureaucratic agency's personal vendetta against the citizens of southwwest Champaign and Mr Scott Tapley, who had the moral courage to fight "business as usual" and underscore their constitutional priveleges as American citizens in a democracy to Vote "NO" on several confusing and cryptically worded referenda. Once we voted YES and then we had to vote NO. CUMTD has lost twice in two sperate election processes: a loud and clear mandate from these citizens AGAINST annexation and for the formation of a SW Champaign MTD. Fortunately, the concerened citizens of SW Chamapign told their elected representatives that they DID NOT want annexation and preferred, instead, to persue their own choice in public mass transit. What a uniquely American concept! A basic freedom and the American Liberty which I have twice-placed my life in jeopardy to defend on battlefields in Kuwait and Central America. They once had a tea party during the late 1700s in Boston Habor over similar "taxation without representation" issues, before some brave patriots told the English crown to "go away" and take the tea and zero tax revenue with you. Perhaps our City Council should read their Revolutionary War history again, as adult political leadership, and allow the democratic voice of southwest Champaign to speak loudly and clearly in their Council chambers. From my civics classes, the City Council are our elected public servants. Whose interest are they serving when the bring a questionable suit on behalf of their "wounded" bedfellows?? Richard S. Ellenberger Major, USA (retired)
Unfortunately government has too much power. It has become common to have multiple units of government band together and gang up on citizens in an effort to carry out their agenda. The agreement between Champaign, Urbana, Savoy and the U-C Sanitary District regarding annexation practices comes to mind. Now the folks in southwest Champaign find themselves the recipients of the City's wrath, not to mention the CUMTD's.
We seem to have become a society of not speaking until we are directly affected. What we should be learning is, by that time, it is too late. The tail is already wagging the dog.
Case in point, the City annexing large territories when they are supposedly limited by law to annex small areas. When Champaign Township Officials took a stand for the folks in Champaign Township and said enough is enough, people ridiculed us and called us names. It's unfortunate that some Township residents are caught in the middle of the dispute. Be that as it may, at least someone finally stood up to the City.
I see allot of commonality between the City versus Champaign Township issue and the City and CUMTD versus CSWMTD.
When Champaign Township Officials took a stand for the folks in Champaign Township and said enough is enough, people ridiculed us and called us names. It's unfortunate that some Township residents are caught in the middle of the dispute. Be that as it may, at least someone finally stood up to the City.
Yeah, "unfortunate" that the actions of the township will cause some residents to be taxed by two different taxing bodies for the same service. That is just the word I was thinking.
I am all for "standing up to the City", but still don't think that is the way.
The statement "that the actions of the township will cause some residents to be taxed by two different taxing bodies for the same service" is untrue. You shouldn't believe everything you read in the Gazette.
All of the basis for the City's intervention is predicated upon the assertion that the CSWMTD board is determined not to provide transportation services--clearly a matter of opinion and not substantiated by any CSWMTD board members.
Is that why SW started it's own MTD - so that they could provide transportation services? C'mon, everyone knows that CSWMTD was formed because the people in that area neither wanted bus service, nor wanted to pay for other people's bus service. They were going to have no taxes for this, and then when the lawsuit came along they levied a small tax to raise - what was it - $35,000? They are going to run bus lines with that? When Red State Wannabe says "taxed by two different taxing bodies for the same service" I can only presume that he's talking about legal services, because CSWMTD is not going to be providing transportation services anytime soon. Whether you agree or disagree with the city on this issue, we should at least be honest about this.
I, for one, don't agree. I pay taxes for schools, and don't have children in Unit 4. I pay taxes for police and fire, but was neither assaulted nor had my house catch on fire last year. People talk about the couple hundred bucks they pay to the MTD like it's the world's greatest injustice. I pay way more than that for schools that I don't use.
"untrue".
Which part? That they are paying taxes to two townships? Or "for the same services"? What did the NG not tell me?
When Red State Wannabe says "taxed by two different taxing bodies for the same service" I can only presume that he's talking about legal services, because CSWMTD is not going to be providing transportation services anytime soon
Sorry for the confusion, D-man. I was talking about the township thing, not the mass transit thing.
They once had a tea party during the late 1700s in Boston Habor over similar "taxation without representation" issues, before some brave patriots told the English crown to "go away" and take the tea and zero tax revenue with you.
Does this mean if a bus wanders into the neighborhood, a group of citizens are going to rise up against it and dump it into the Phinney Branch? :)
Here is the untrue part RSW
Your statement; "Yeah, "unfortunate" that the actions of the township will cause some residents to be taxed by two different taxing bodies for the same service. "
The root cause of the Champaign township's action was the City of Champaign not the township. This occurred as a result of their annexation of such a large portion of the township's taxing area. Some would say the City needed those large tax dollars to replace Bradley Ave and other projects within the previously existing city limits. The annex subdivisions see littlebenefit except an increase in their property taxes of almost 30% and the excess tax of being in two townships as a result of the city's greed.
As for the CU MTD getting support from the City of Champaign. I think it is a great step forward to see this cooperation between governmental agencies as they both via to extract more tax dollars from the public. This is quite a change from the time Champaign built up the north Prospect commercial business district without any provisions for MTD bus service to that heavily congested traffic area.
RSW, John Schmidt is right. Here are a few facts.
1. All residents in the County will pay into some township government and only one township government.
2. People in the City of Champaign and Champaign Township will pay more in taxes than residents of the City of Champaign and the City of Champaign Township.
3. Residents of the City of Champaign and Champaign Township will have the road in front of their own home maintained by the City of Champaign. Unless of course they live on a state highway.
4. Every resident of Mahomet, Savoy, Gifford, Rantoul, Homer, and virtually every other city in the state of Illinois will be in the same position as those residents, which is they will pay township road tax and have their residential street maintained by their city government.
I think there are two points in this debate that get missed and which I find baffling. First, when you get annexed into the city of Champaign Township you will also end up paying CU public health tax, which is a fairly significant amount and which narrows the differential on taxes for these people. This is rarely noted in the news reports. The second is that all these other municipalities pay township road tax. Every resident of the village of Savoy north of Church street is paying to the Champaign township road district. It's been happening since the the existence of Savoy. But it's gone without debate because that is how it works. But as soon as it happens to residents of the City of Champaign, the City of Champaign PR machine kicks into gear and treats this like it is something unusual, when in fact it is a situation shared by hundreds of municipalities around the state.
ok, Oil Man, I know the City "started it" by the annexation. But many places get annexed by the city, and not all of thes residents get the priviledge of also continuing to pay taxes to the original township. The Champaign Township forced the vote - that is what resulted in these residents getting stuck - it didn't have to do so.
Mr. Shelden, thank you for the instruction. So they are not paying into two townships, but they are paying two taxing bodies to provide the same services - the city of Champaign and Champaign township - and as a result are paying higher taxes than they would be paying if they had gone to the City of Champaign township.
redstatewannabe,
Don't forget who created the situation. The City Council. There was no forcing a referendum. The law gives voters of Champaign Township the right to vote on the issue. I suspect the voters in the territory annexed by the CUMTD wished the statutes giving the CUMTD the authority to annex territory included a provision that let the them voter whether or not to allow the annexations.
This thread makes me want to abolish township government at the next Constitutional Convention, purely for the sake of sanity.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"The law gives voters of Champaign Township the right to vote on the issue. "
It is an option, not a requirement, correct?
The statute does not require that a referendum be held. But it seems to me that elected officials are adhereing to their fiduciary responsible by affording voters their right to vote rather than to withholding the opportunity from them. It's called government by the people. What a wonderful concept. Again, I'll bet the folks involved in the MTD dispute wished that provision was in the statutes that allow MTD districts to annex territories.
The elected officials gave a major majority of the township the opportunity to vote that a small minority of people in the township would get a raw deal - wonderful.
If the entire mass transit district got to vote about whether small areas would be added, the outcome would be the same. Most people vote based on their own pocketbooks.
The elected officials screwed these people. How about the fiduciary responsibility to them?
Anonymous said: "If you don't want to pay for urban services, live in a rural area."
We tried that...but CUMTD force-annexed our property without any petition or electoral process whatsoever.
Yes, we all knew we'd be in the city--there was a pre-annexation agreement. But why should a taxing body be able to force-annex whatever territory they want without residents having any say in the matter? And why should the CUMTD's annexation be allowed to disenfranchise our right to the result of our referendum which passed 79%-21%?
Those are the questions before the court...and the City of Champaign has no legal basis for intervening in our lawsuit.
Being one of the people who was 'forced annexed' by the CU MTD in recent years, I would have enjoyed some voting rights. But like all the other people in the CU Mass Transit District, I had no voting rights. I could not vote to be in or out of the district. Now that I am in the district I cannot vote for the Board members who tax me.
I have to disagree with you again RSW as NO ONE in the CU MTD can vote for anything or anybody regardless of their pocketbook. That organization is not an openly elected government body. They have no direct oversight by the public or responsibility. When the CU MTD made a BIG deal about sharing the costs of their services across everyone in the district at their "Public Hearings", it was all propoganda. The tax rate voted by the Board after all these forced annexation was the MAXIMUM allowable by law. There is no planned reduction across the CU Mass Transit District as the revenues from the annexations of all these subdivisions both in Champaign and Urbana came in last year and continue this year.
There is no good news for the people in the CU MTD district, outside of those few politically appointed Board of Directors, can do anything about it. We should be cheering on the SW MTD folks----not having our Champaign City Officals partnering with these heavily funded UNTOUCHABLES.
Let us not forget, also, that the MTD raised its tax rates on at least one occasion to the maximum, I beleive, not because they needed the money or had a plan for it, but because they were afraid that at some point, their ability to raise taxes would decrease. I forget exactly how they thought that was going to happen, but I remember very clearly the quote from the MTD.
I think it's time to repeal MTD's ability to levy property taxes. How do we proceed?
John Schmidt said: "I see allot of commonality between the City versus Champaign Township issue and the City and CUMTD versus CSWMTD."
It's ironic but in the township disconnection case, the City of Champaign is actually sticking up for the little guy by trying to prevent him from being skewered by the Champaign Township. It makes no sense for people to continue to pay taxes to a township that will no longer plow or pave its streets.
Despite Mark Shelden's comments about how commonplace this situation is throughout Illinois, it still isn't right to have to pay two municipal entities when services are only being provided by one.
One commonality with the CSWMTD is the fact that there was a referendum involved. Champaign Township can cite the fact that the referendum to disconnect failed. But if we weren't so busy with the CSWMTD referendum, we would have done a better job educating voters on the disconnect issue (the disconnect referendum passed in Champaign #2--the only precinct that was fully blanketed with literature on the disconnect issue).
What government body or bodies have the authority to make CUMTD accountable to the public? Are they the creation of the county? Townships? Can the organization be changed to allow for more accountability to the public or is there an unbreakable long term contract?
I don't understand the CUMTD situation very well so any explanation would be appreciated. The concept of an unelected body allowed to raise taxes seems a bit unnerving to say the least, let alone the expansionist moves.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
John Schmidt said: "Again, I'll bet the folks involved in the MTD dispute wished that provision [referendum requirement] was in the statutes that allow MTD districts to annex territories."
Absolutely!...and the MTD's annexation process could soon be changed by the courts. Illinois MTD's are the only taxing bodies in the United States (according to our legal research) that has unlimited power to annex without any democratic process.
It would be shocking (to me) for the courts to find that within the U.S. Constitution.
Glock21 said: "What government body or bodies have the authority to make CUMTD accountable to the public? Are they the creation of the county? Townships? Can the organization be changed to allow for more accountability to the public or is there an unbreakable long term contract?"
The Champaign County Board appoints CUMTD board members who seve 4-year terms and basically can't be fired unless they commit misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Illinois statutes do not allow for MTD boards to be elected directly by the public. Attempts to change state legislation to allow them to be directly elected (Chapin Rose and Shane Cultra have submitted bills) have been killed by Speaker Madigan.
"I don't understand the CUMTD situation very well so any explanation would be appreciated. The concept of an unelected body allowed to raise taxes seems a bit unnerving to say the least, let alone the expansionist moves."
That's why we're asking the court to nullify the CUMTD's annexations on the basis that their power to annex is too broad and undemocratic. If the court doesn't agree with that argument, we're also asking that the CUMTD's specific annexation of territory within the CSWMTD's boundaries be vacated because our right to the results of our referendum shouldn't be disenfranchised by the CUMTD's annexation (which occurred after we began the process to create the CSWMTD).
D-Man said: "Is that why SW started it's own MTD - so that they could provide transportation services? C'mon, everyone knows that CSWMTD was formed because the people in that area neither wanted bus service, nor wanted to pay for other people's bus service."
If we prevail in our lawsuit, don't you think we could meet the demand for mass transit services in our district by spending less than the $400,000/year CUMTD is taking? Whether (and how much) service is provided will be up to the CSWMTD board, which will likely hold hearings and do what the residents in the district tell them they'd like them to do (quite unlike the CUMTD board).
The Champaign County Board appoints CUMTD board members who seve 4-year terms and basically can't be fired unless they commit misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Illinois statutes do not allow for MTD boards to be elected directly by the public. Attempts to change state legislation to allow them to be directly elected (Chapin Rose and Shane Cultra have submitted bills) have been killed by Speaker Madigan.
So I presume that you feel similarly about the Sanitary Sewer District Board which is also appointed by the County Commission, our duly elected representatives, as you do about MTD. The Sanitary Sewer District makes money, expands it boundaries, and builds and operates new facilities without ever taking a vote. Everyone who gets sanitary sewer service has to agree to be annexed into the cities. So, no one has the choice about how they want to handle their sewage. That sounds like pretty stinky taxation without representation to me. Add in the fact that they can also use eminent domain to gain right-of-way and they have much more impact on residents that the occasional bus that might drive by your house.
So why don't you start a campaign against the Sanitary District? There are other taxing districts that have unelected boards. You should start a campaign against them too. For example: The Champaign County Public Health Department, The Housing Authority, Forest Preserve, etc. In fact here is the link to the county webpage that lists all the appointed boards many of which impose taxes, make decisions, expand boundaries, etc. without asking for a public referendum every time. http://www.co.champaign.il.us/COUNTYBD/appts.htm
I think per chance you doth protest too much. I cannot remember the last time I saw Mr. Tapley in the newspaper other than his campaign against CUMTD. Did they run over his foot or something? Jeepers.
Nice try Anon 11:01 but I do not see your comparison between the CU MTD and the Sanitary District having much validity. First the Sanitary district only operates the treatment facilities and interceptor lines in the cities, not the whole system like the CU MTD. There is private sewer ownership as well as system ownership by the cities of Champaign and Urbana. The sanitary district is not force annexing various subdivisions to raise revenue like the CU MTD is doing. Consider this. When was the last time you saw an TV or NG ad showing sponsorship by the Urbana Champaign Sanitary District? Is the UCSD cutting contracts with the schools, the U of I, private businesses or selling advertising space on their manhole covers? The Sanitary District is a great example of providing a public service for a minimum cost. If the UCSD charged its district members, like the CU MTD, your tax bill would have a line item for UCSD. Also, the UCSD bills on actual usage for everyone, not through contractual school or age DEALS for some but not others. The UCSD is helping the environment while the CU MTD pollutes the environment.
Next time just say you do not like or agree with Mr. Tapley.
I support Mayor Jerry Schweighart. He cares more about the city of Champaign than this bunch of whiners who are short on facts but long on opinions, and especially Tapley, a quixotic character without the charm given by Cervantes, who files suit goes "on the cheap" and convinces his neighbors to pay a BRAND NEW TAX to cover his legal bills in his silly protestor suit.
I support the Mayor beause he cares about all of us not just himself. He works to keep taxes down not to make certain neighborhoods pay extra tax like Tapley did.
Without taking sides in the campaign of suburbanites trying to fend off MTD taxes, I would like to make it clear that the very last thing we need in this County are addiional taxing districts. They will live forever, will probably increase their services and rates and, if they duplicate existing units of government, will be most uneconomic. Please fight it out without balkanizing mass transit. Ralph Langenheim
Anono's comments sound suspiciously like the mayor's new coucil puppy, Karen Foster. Remember Foster's definitive statement, ("I will follow the mayor's lead."), when asked how she would vote on the repeal of the smoking ban?
Anono's comments sound suspiciously like the mayor's new coucil puppy, Karen Foster. Remember Foster's definitive statement, ("I will follow the mayor's lead."), when asked how she would vote on the repeal of the smoking ban?
Errr... I've met Karen. It's true that her stance on the smoking ban repeal got her some votes and contributions, but she didn't seem like she'd be into taking potshots at people. So I'd really doubt that "Anono" was Karen Foster.
Not even you Ralph, dispite your total support of this organization, can stop or change this unaccountable taxing body called the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit Distrct.
Anonymous said: "Everyone who gets sanitary sewer service has to agree to be annexed into the cities. So, no one has the choice about how they want to handle their sewage."
If the first sentence above is correct (and I'll take your word for it), then people are making a choice to join the UCSD and the City. That's all the CSWMTD voters wanted--to exercise their free will rather than have annexation jammed down their throats.
You are incorrect about the other taxing bodies annexing property without any democratic process. All of them with the exception of Illinois mass transit districts are required to have a pre-annexation agreement, a petition, a referendum, or some other democratic participation by the landowners in order to annex territory.
You are entitled to your opinion that I protest too much, but I vigorously represent my constituents' interests (don't need my foot to be run over by a bus to get motivated) and would gladly take up your cause against another unjust taxing body if you provide me with a legitimate complaint.
Anono,
I didn't make anyone in my neighborhood pay any "extra tax." They chose, of their own free will, to vote for a taxy levy (placed on the ballot by the CSWMTD board--not Scott Tapley) to fund a lawsuit which was filed on their behalf by me (the CSWMTD Supporters Committee had legal standing, and I filed the suit as President of that organization, which was created by the Judge in accordance with the legislation that authorized our referendum). Previous to enacting the tax levy the suit was being funded by charitable contributions--some of which were offered unsolicited by people living outside our district.
Double talking bs. It's your banner to carry, your suit, and some MAY have contributed, but you have FORCED many to pay taxes to fund your own little crusade.
Following the advice from another commenter to yet another commenter, I will say directly, I don't like you, I don't like the way you have put on the Knight in Shining Armor, while actually being selfish and self-centered.
People are now taxed who were not taxed, BECAUSE OF YOU, AND ONLY YOU.
"Double talking bs. It's your banner to carry, your suit, and some MAY have contributed, but you have FORCED many to pay taxes to fund your own little crusade."
The residents of the district voted to fund it. Voting for it is hardly being forced, no more so than any other tax, and certainly less so than the CUMTD's.
"People are now taxed who were not taxed, BECAUSE OF YOU, AND ONLY YOU."
You're having trouble understanding that they're being taxed because the residents of the district voted to pass the referendum. It's not like Tapley was the only voter eligible to vote in that election. And the thousands of other voters could have just as easily voted no.
Well, well wasn't the conversation tonight at the Champaign City Council interesting. What was it they called Mr. Tapley's campaign, I think it was balkanization. Here is the definition of the word:
1.
to divide (a country, territory, etc.) into small, quarrelsome, ineffectual states.
2.
) to divide (groups, areas, etc.) into contending and usually ineffectual factions: a movement to balkanize minority voters.
(often lowercase
Small, quarrelsome and ineffectual that pretty much says it all in a nutshell, or nut job.
Damn those voters... they should just do what they're told and open up their wallets... They should be grateful the government lets them keep anything to begin with.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
The voters of Champaign voted years ago to form a MTD. Some opposed it, but it passed by popular vote.
Fast forward to 2006, a renegade, outlaw faction tries to withdraw, not from the city, but the MTD.
A vote is taken in the little enclave attached to, and part of the city and it passes at 71%. Nineteen percent do not want to pay a new tax to fund an adventurer's self-serving lawsuit.
Either majority rules and since you joined the city, you are in and in the MTD, or
minority rules, and you are taxing 19% of your neighbors against their will.
And this whole thing about the MTD being unaccountable is silly. The County Board appoints the MTD Board. Tapley is on the County Board. The voters could have voted in a whole new County Board to change the MTD. The voters didn't do that. Tapley's political frustration is overwhelming his common sense, his sense as a community member, and his sense plain and simple, and shockingly manifested in creating a new taxing district and collecting taxes, money soley raised to be spent on legal fees.
Beware false prophets.
"Fast forward to 2006, a renegade, outlaw faction tries to withdraw, not from the city, but the MTD."
You're confused - the voters voted to form their own MTD, not to withdraw from the CUMTD. Go back and read the referendum.
"Either majority rules and since you joined the city, you are in and in the MTD, or
minority rules, and you are taxing 19% of your neighbors against their will."
You're confused again - the City and the MTD aren't the same thing, and they never have been.
If you don't like the idea of competing MTDs, you can just say that - you don't have to make up things.
outlaw faction--My old friend Scott Tapley?
Puhleese...
Don't refer to the edge of Champaign as a suburb. Champaign is a rural town. Most Chicago suburbs have larger population, more services, and more legitimate commercial activities going on in them than Champaign ever will. Champaign is not a city by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who calls Champaign a city is deluded.
Referring to the outskirts of Champaign as "suburban" is completely idiotic.
Please stop.
"Well, well wasn't the conversation tonight at the Champaign City Council interesting."
Indeed, it was...they rehashed all the same old weak arguments. My favorites, in order of most weak to least weak were:
1. Bruno said (I'm paraphrasing must less eloquent than he) everyone benefits from the schools and everyone pays for them; everyone benefits from CUMTD so everyone should pay for it, too--i.e., people in the CSWMTD are trying to freeload on everyone else. (This is the most absurd argument of them all. The IL constitution clearly states that everyone must be in a school district, but nowhere does it state that everyone has to be in an MTD. Obviously, there are many communities, and parts of communities, in IL that aren't in MTDs. The notion that everyone benefits from the MTD is also absurd. 90% of the MTD's riders live within approx. a 1-mile radius surrounding the campus. The empty buses throughout the rest of the community are a nuisance--not a benefit. The CUMTD shot their own "we're just trying to spread the tax burden" argument to pieces when they levied, in their own words, "every dime we can get," instead of lowering their tax rate and truly spreading some of the burden to the newly annexed folks. Someone referenced people living in Pesotum and Broadlands--maybe they benefit from CUMTD's empty buses and should be forced to help pay for them, too.)
2. Pirok said you can't "cherry pick" which services you want. (Well, actually, you can, and do, pick which services you want by where you live. If I'm really adamant about not being in an MTD, I can move to St. Joe or Mahomet. I thought that's what I did when I bought property outside the CUMTD's district.)
3. Dodds said something to the effect of what the CUMTD did was wrong but to fight back with a cudgel and create your own MTD is worse--show some willingness to compromise. (I'm curious as to what alternatives residents of SW Champaign had or have. How do you negotiate with an organization as arrogant, heavy-handed and untrustworthy as the CUMTD? If SW Champaign residents hadn't acted quickly to put their referendum on the ballot, they would have been force-annexed without any recourse whatsoever. Now that we have some leverage, shouldn't CUMTD be the ones trying to seek out a compromise? If CUMTD rescinded their annexation, they could avoid the risk of having all IL mass transit districts' annexation powers stripped by the courts and end this silly lawsuit. Then they could have a chance to negotiate a compromise such as Dodds suggest would be preferable to duking it out in court.)
4. Someone (Bruno?) said having duplicative government entities is inefficient/wasteful. (This is probably the strongest argument put forward at the meeting. It's not relevant to the issue before the court in Tapley v. CUMTD--soon to be Tapley and CSWMTD v. CUMTD and, perhaps, City of Champaign, but at least it is logical. Unfortunately, the CUMTD's heavy-handed tactics left SW Champaign residents with no choice. But the way I look at it, the CUMTD is so inefficient that this might be one case where two entities is more efficient than one, because I have no doubt that the CSWMTD could meet 100% of the demand for mass transit services within its borders for much less than the $400,000/year in CUMTD taxes its residents are currently paying.)
There were other weak arguments...these were just my favorites!
Anono said: "I will say directly, I don't like you, I don't like the way you have put on the Knight in Shining Armor, while actually being selfish and self-centered."
I'm still trying to make up my mind whether I like you or not.
Anono said: "The voters of Champaign voted years ago to form a MTD. Some opposed it, but it passed by popular vote."
That is actually one of the central arguments in our lawsuit. We aren't being treated equally under the law because the original residents of the CUMTD had a chance to vote on whether they wanted to be in it. We had it foisted upon us without any say in the matter.
"Fast forward to 2006, a renegade, outlaw faction tries to withdraw, not from the city, but the MTD."
Actually, we attempted to avoid forced-annexation. The statute that allowed withdrawal from MTDs was repealed some time ago.
"A vote is taken in the little enclave attached to, and part of the city and it passes at 71%. Nineteen percent do not want to pay a new tax to fund an adventurer's self-serving lawsuit."
That would be 29%, and they will be funding the CSWMTD's lawsuit (which will likely be combined with mine).
"Either majority rules and since you joined the city, you are in and in the MTD, or minority rules, and you are taxing 19% of your neighbors against their will."
Joining the City has nothing (legally) to do with joining the CUMTD. Lincolnshire and parts of Turnberry and Glenshire are not in the City, yet they were force-annexed by CUMTD (so, the MTD's excuse that they're just following their agreement with the City isn't true).
"And this whole thing about the MTD being unaccountable is silly. The County Board appoints the MTD Board. Tapley is on the County Board. The voters could have voted in a whole new County Board to change the MTD. The voters didn't do that. Tapley's political frustration is overwhelming his common sense, his sense as a community member, and his sense plain and simple, and shockingly manifested in creating a new taxing district and collecting taxes, money soley raised to be spent on legal fees."
MTD appointments, to my knowledge, weren't made the centerpiece of anyone's county board campaign, so this argument is a little bit of a stretch. I don't feel any political frustration, but I will feel some frustration with the court system if it allows the CUMTD to prevail in its attempt to force-annex our property and disenfranchise our right to enjoy the result of our referendum.
"Beware false prophets."
Good advice!
A few truths which seem to be missing in this discussion. I do not live in the City of Champaign. My home has sewer service from the Urbana Champaign Sanitary District. My home has water service provided by American Water Company. My street was constructed with mine and my neighbors dollars and maintained by the Champaign Township. My home has no pre-annexation agreement with the City of Champaign and given last nights action by the City, will never have one as long as I own it. The City of Champaign does nothing to support my residence yet they side with the Champaign Urbana Mass Transit District who is destroying my street and some of our yards with their buses, while polluting the air with waste and noise. I signed a petition with my neighbors that would allow us to chose whether or not we wanted to form our own MTD. An MTD that would be responsible for the public transportation in our area. Within a month of filing that petition we were FORCE ANNEXED in the Champaign Urbana Mass Transit District. Why is the City of Champaign siding with the obvious abuse of government power by the Champaign Urbana Mass Transit District against us?
29% of your neighbors have been forced into the CSWMTD. What are you willing to do for them, let them opt-out, and not pay any taxes to the CSWMTD? If not, why not? Or are you willing to rebate them the tax money you are forcing them to pay? If so, how do I go about getting my tax money refunded?
as we have heard many times, the CUMTD is accountable to almost no one. I think for the City to back them, at the one instance when their dominion is being challenged, is disgusting. This feels way too much like a good ole boys, taking-care-of-each-other approach by the smarter-than-us gov't officials.
"are you willing to rebate them the tax money you are forcing them to pay?"
I'll pay your $25 or $30 CS MTD tax each and every year if you will pay my current CU MTD $319.00 assessment and whatever they jack it to next year. Deal?
"29% of your neighbors have been forced into the CSWMTD."
"Forced" into the CSWMTD by the votes of their neighbors?
By your reasoning, I'm "forced" to have Rod Blagojevich as my Governor because 50% of my neighbors voted to re-elect him.
I think that everyone is missing something here. What's really going on is that City of Champaign and CUMTD are trying to make the world a better place. On the surface, their actions seem idiotic, unfathomable, contrary to the public interest and so on. But in reality, they are doing everyone a big favor. Their actions are SO unreasonable that the populace will rise/is rising up against them, and this uprising will inevitably lead to legal battles/statutes/etc. which prevent knucklhead little weasels like Volk et al from engaging in the sort of outrageous conduct which they are currently engaged in. In other words, MTD has pushed things SO far that the backlash from their actions will make the world a better place. Had MTD not pushed things so far, they could have stayed under the radar. But they blew it. Now, we're on to them, and things will change.
Change, Schmange!
MTD is concerned with one thing, and one thing alone. They are trying to gather together enough $$ to build a trolley (or do you say tram) before the Head Gnome retires. MTD knows that they are facing a backlash, but they also know it takes time for folks to get organized and do something about it. While that's going on, they're pushing as hard as they can to gather the larges possible horde of cash for their rail project. By the time they get slapped down by the courts or legislature, they will have already amassed the cash they need to build the trolley which Champaign and Urbana both voted against.
Change will not come fast enough, and Volk and his little minions know it.
That's right IP. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. I'm forced to pay for schools. I'm forced to pay for battleships. I might not like it but it is for the common good of more than just me, it is for all of society's good. When citizens try to opt-out or secede anarchy results. That is one definition of anarchy. My house hasn't burned or been broken into. I shouldn't have to pay for fire or police. But if my neighbor's house catches on fire, I sure want the fire department to protect my house. I don't drive drunk, but I sure want the police to arrest drunk drivers. This is even if they don't drive drunk in my neighborhood, in my path, or when they are driving anywhere for that matter. Sometimes we must accede to government especially when it not only doesn't help us directly but harms us directly, because it is for the common good. The other way, Tapley's way, is just selfish.
"it is for all of society's good"
this is not a "given" in this arguement - is driving a big bus thru a rich neighborhood good for society if nobody rides it?
"uhleese... Don't refer to the edge of Champaign as a suburb. Champaign is a rural town. Most Chicago suburbs have larger population, more services, and more legitimate commercial activities going on in them than Champaign ever will. Champaign is not a city by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who calls Champaign a city is deluded." I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. You're totally wrong. My suburb, Elmhurst,was not self-sufficient -- Champaign is. Savoy is a suburb of Champaign-Urbana - you can't live in Savoy without occasionally venturing into the cities for service. C-U is certainly not a rural town. St,. Joe is a rural town. You sound like whineallday with your broad statement lacking any support.
10:15 AM, Anonymous -
You're making an Excludability argument. A public good is excludable when, for instance, those who don't pay for it are not able to recieve its benefits.
MTD is somewhat excludable, somewhat not.
IF, and that's a big IF, MTD benefitted society in general, then MTD's benefits would not be excludable. But what are the benefits?
- Economic growth? Maybe. MTD probably subscribes to all the APTA publications and knows how to parrot arguments about economic growth. But its not all that clear to me that MTD's economic growth benefits exceed MTD's costs to area businesses, property owners, and citizens.
- Emission reduction? No way. If MTD weren't on campus, people would walk. And most of the MTD buses I see off-campus are empty. No way in hell MTD reduces emissions. They are probably the biggest mobile source polluter in Champaign County.
- Congestion reduction? Again, no way! The number of people on MTD buses is insufficient to have any impact on congestion, now or in the forseeable future. Furthermore, what congestion? Some Champaign arterials are crowded 20 minutes a day. So what?
- Inexpensive transportation for those who prefer not to travel in a private automobile? YES. MTD is good for that.
OK, so we've identified a few non-excludable benefits which are all either totally invalid or shaky, and one excludable benefit which is probably valid. So now, let's talk about taxes.
If we support MTD with sales taxes in the whole region, everybody pays for MTD but few benefit - and there is very little correlation between paying and receiving benefits. If we support MTD with user fees (fare revenue), then precisely those who want the service pay for it. If we collect property taxes from those who live in MTD's service area, then there is a stronger correlation between payment, use, and benefits than with sales taxes, but a weaker correlation than with user fees.
So what?
You're arguing that MTD's benefits are non-excludable. I totally disagree.
A fair and equitable way to fund MTD is to collect property taxes, but to allow regions to opt in or out of MTD. Those who opt in receive the direct benefits and generate a mild positive externality for others (in the form of the tiny non-excludable benefits which accrue to those who don't pay for MTD). Those who opt out don't get stuck with the bill for services they don't want or need. If you want to deal with the tiny inequity created by the positive externalities, just remember that the majority of MTD funding comes from FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which everybody funds through property taxes.
In short, I totally support Tapley's approach. If I buy property outside of MTD service area specifically to avoid paying for MTD, I ought to be able to stay out of MTD.
"That's right IP. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. I'm forced to pay for schools. I'm forced to pay for battleships. I might not like it but it is for the common good of more than just me, it is for all of society's good. When citizens try to opt-out or secede anarchy results. That is one definition of anarchy. My house hasn't burned or been broken into. I shouldn't have to pay for fire or police. But if my neighbor's house catches on fire, I sure want the fire department to protect my house. I don't drive drunk, but I sure want the police to arrest drunk drivers. This is even if they don't drive drunk in my neighborhood, in my path, or when they are driving anywhere for that matter. Sometimes we must accede to government especially when it not only doesn't help us directly but harms us directly, because it is for the common good. The other way, Tapley's way, is just selfish."
This has been repeated endlessly in this thread, but some things are recognized as universally beneficial (schools, library, etc.) and as such every resident in Illinois is required to be in a district that provides those services. Mass transit isn't one of them, because mass transit isn't universally beneficial - ergo, people should have some sort of choice as to whether they want to be annexed into a mass transit district.
If you have a problem with that, talk to Sen. Frerichs and Rep. Jakobsson about passing a state law that requires every citizen be a resident in a MTD. But stop saying that mass transit is universally beneficial - it's not, and the law clearly states that it's not.
"which everybody funds through property taxes."
I meant income taxes.
10:36 AM, Anonymous:
I don't know where you got your definition of the word City. And nothing about this little rathole is self-sufficient.
really? you have to leave C-U to get bread, water?
I didn't realize that bread and water were the only things which are consumed here.
Here is the definition of City:
cit·y
/ˈsɪt
i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sit-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural cit·ies.
1.
a large or important town.
Champaign is not large. Champaign is not important. Therefore, Champaign is not a City.
rat·hole
/ˈrætËŒhoÊŠl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rat-hohl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
.
any small and uncomfortable room, office, apartment, etc., esp. one that is dirty or disordered: He lives in a rathole near the docks.
Champaign is small and uncomfortable, and it is dirty and disordered. Therefore, Champaign is a rathole.
City: (by Merriam-Webster)
1 a : an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village b : an incorporated British town usually of major size or importance having the status of an episcopal see c capitalized (1) : the financial district of London (2) : the influential financial interests of the British economy d : a usually large or important municipality in the United States governed under a charter granted by the state e : an incorporated municipal unit of the highest class in Canada
Champaign received its charter of incorporation as a city in 1861 and has grown extensively since then. (See history of Champaign)
So to the fine folks that make these claims about our "rathole" such as "Champaign is not a city by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who calls Champaign a city is deluded." or "I don't know where you got your definition of the word City." should probably stop deluding themselves.
Unless they want to argue with the dictionary, State law, the City itself, and almost every other non-deluded person living in it about whether or not it really is a city.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Can we safely call Chicago then a large rathole?
Fine, you win, mass transit is not universally beneficial.
Next time you go on vacation, drive. Don't take a bus, a train, a boat or an airplane, because those mass transit conveyances are not universally beneficial.Any special taxing district that I have to pay one single dime for is wrong. I was born before Midawy, Willard, and O'Hare were built. I didn't need them, ask for them, or want them and I don't care who does use them, I shouldn't be forced into some taxing scheme to pay for them. If the State of Illinois has used even one dime for O'Hare, Midway or Willard, it's wrong, it's against what I wanted before I was forced in. There wasn't a citizen vote to build O'Hare, Midway, or Willard.
How do I get my State of Illinois taxes reduced by the share that goes to the U of I to operate its Willard Airport?
To say mass transit is not universally beneficial is wrong. It may not be universally accepted as a benefit (when it comes to the CUMTD apparently, but about the others????) but it is universally beneficial.Unless you have narrow little provincial ways about you. Then the whole world is wrong, and that makes you, well, different, if you get my meaning.
Mr. Tapley the MTD board members are appointed by the County board. The MTD I think only services the city's of Urbana, Champaign a little of Savoy and the Uof I, no other parts of the County. Why is the County Board the only one to appoint board members and the governmental body’s from those directly served by the MTD not have a direct say in who sets on that board.
"To say mass transit is not universally beneficial is wrong."
Let me try one more time. If expanding service to Trails of Brittany is a universal benefit, what about expanding service to Philo and Tolono? I just want to see if there are any rational limits to this universal good.
"Fine, you win, mass transit is not universally beneficial.Next time you go on vacation, drive. Don't take a bus, a train, a boat or an airplane, because those mass transit conveyances are not universally beneficial."
OK - I just did. Florida and back, 800 miles or so, about a 12-hour-drive each way.
"To say mass transit is not universally beneficial is wrong. It may not be universally accepted as a benefit (when it comes to the CUMTD apparently, but about the others????) but it is universally beneficial.Unless you have narrow little provincial ways about you. Then the whole world is wrong, and that makes you, well, different, if you get my meaning."
And as I said, if you don't like the law that says everyone doesn't have to be in a MTD, work to change the law. Don't pretend that the law doesn't exist, or that it says something you want it to say rather than what it says.
Everyone in Illinois is required to live in a school district. Heck, even in a library district. But not in a mass transit district. There's a reason for that, one which you don't like. So work to change the law.
I'd say Chicago is more of an Eden than a rathole.
I'd say Chicago is more of an Eden than a rathole.
Well, it does have an Edens expressway. *waits for groans*
Then again: http://chicago.about.com/cs/governmen1/a/Chicago_rats%20.htm
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I agree, IP, that law is that not everyone has to live in a MTD. However, the law also says that MTDs can annex. The CUMTD did that. If you don't like it, call Chapin Rose and work to change the law.
The CSWMTD was formed TOO LATE. The CUMTD already annexed that area. Tapley said at the City Council last night, "it's not our fault we couldn't hold a referendum before the CUMTD annexed" or words to that effect. He is wrong. it IS his and the others' fault. They could have done this in 2000, or 2001, or etc, but Tapley waited until AFTER the area was annexed. Follow the law? Sure. You (and Tapley), too. Now Tapley demogogues his way into getting a brand new tax, voted down by 29% of his neighbors, that pays for, and ONLY pays for "Tapley vs the CUMTD" lawsuit.
I'm curious: if the Court dissolves the CSWMTD, who pays back the tax once it has been collected and spent, Tapley? Don't hold your breath.
Well, I think the CSWMTD petitions were filed before the CUMTD annexed. That's the dispute at the heart of the lawsuit, and we'll see what the court decides.
One other thing - residents to be annexed get some sort of input/escape close before being annexed by most other (all other?) taxing districts, but not mass transit districts. That also is at the heart of the lawsuit.
From what was published in the NG regarding the judge's rulings in 2005, the CUMTD hurried the annexation of SW Champaign area after the judge refused MTD's request to invalidate their petitions to put the question on the ballot at the next general election. So 01:46 PM your arguments have no bases in fact.
Right - the sequence of events was:
So the "we were here first" argument isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be, and that's the reason for the lawsuit.
And, if you're really upset about the tax dollars being used for the lawsuit, this whole suit could go away if the CUMTD would de-annex the disputed territory. Then both Districts could get around to serving their residents rather than in court. Yet you blame Tapley, and Tapley alone.
CUMTD expresses interest in annexation.
Then CSWMTD petitions to put a referendum on the ballot are filed.
Then CUMTD annexes.
Then referendum passes.
Too late.
The referendum needs to pass before annexation, not after.
The referendum had to have passed, that is, there had to be a CSWMTD in existence before annexation. It did not exist at the time of annexation.
Whether the referendum passed, failed, or may have been knocked off the ballot for defects is all speculative before the annexation. It passed, but too late. It should have been passed earlier, a CSWMTD should have been created, and the CUMTD couldn't have annexed.
This isn't an embryo, it's a corporate body, and they don't exist until born (created), regardless of intentions.
Follow the law.
If it was that simple and clear cut, why is there even a lawsuit? Wouldn't Tapley have been tossed out of court?
And, seeing how CUMTD operates, no matter when Tapley started his organizing process, CUMTD could have done an annexation before the election. They have the power to move much faster than he can. Under that scenario, there is no possible way the CSWMTD could have ever been "properly" formed.
RSWB, you have figured it out. The CSWMTD was doomed from the beginning.
Why was there a lawsuit? Because demogogues can be litigous. All it takes is a piece of paper and forty bucks.
Why hasn't the lawsuit been tossed out? Good question.
Why should 29% of the voting population of the neighborhoods be FORCED annexed into the CSWMTD and be FORCED to pay CSWMTD taxes? Another good question, I think.
Because a majority voted that way? Would you be willing to let ALL of Champaign vote whether to allow the CUMTD to annex the CSWMTD area?
Why was there a lawsuit? Because demogogues can be litigous. All it takes is a piece of paper and forty bucks.
NO because our legal system allows it.
Why hasn't the lawsuit been tossed out?
Because there is a basis.
Why should 29% of the voting population of the neighborhoods be FORCED annexed into the CSWMTD and be FORCED to pay CSWMTD taxes?
Not a good question--A better question is why a 100% of the CUMTD voting population are being FORCED to pay the increased CUMTD taxes when they had excess funds from the lower assessment in previous years they are banking.
Because a majority voted that way?
Yes, that is the normal process.
Would you be willing to let ALL of Champaign vote whether to allow the CUMTD to annex the CSWMTD area?
That would be unlawful. As a district member you have no voting power over the CUMTD, for any reason----its against the law.
Speaking of rats, I saw a rat the size of the taco bell dog wading upstream in the boneyard just west of Garbers the other day. I threw a couple of rocks at it (came close but missed), but it didn't seem to care. I was surprised that the rat considered a shallow waterway as suitable as a sidewalk for transportation.
Whatever happened to letting the people speak? This is the shot in the arm that the CUMTD needed to reform.