Jump to content

City of Chicago & CTA


Recommended Posts

​Not sure where the original post by NewFlyerMCI went, but I agree with it.

​The arrow button in the gray bar of the quote box in my post works, but you have to hover over it to find it. Maybe I should list this on the new software thread?

I had moved my reply, since I didn't think it was relevant to the 7900s thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Seems like as relevant a topic as any to put this:

Sun-Times: CTA ripped after president a no-show at City Council hearing

Regardless of the merits of the demand, the City Council seems to have a legal point, although not necessarily the discretion to withhold the money.  65 ILCS 5/8-3-19(i):

Quote

...by ordinance adopted without a referendum, a home rule municipality with a population in excess of 1,000,000 may increase the rate of an existing real estate transfer tax ..., for the sole purpose of providing financial assistance to the Chicago Transit Authority. All amounts collected under such supplemental tax, after fees for costs of collection, shall be provided to the Chicago Transit Authority pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement as promptly as practicable upon their receipt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2022 at 5:19 PM, Busjack said:

Seems like as relevant a topic as any to put this:

Sun-Times: CTA ripped after president a no-show at City Council hearing

Regardless of the merits of the demand, the City Council seems to have a legal point, although not necessarily the discretion to withhold the money.  65 ILCS 5/8-3-19(i):

 

Yes more ways to rip us off so the city & CTA can get more richer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Busjack said:

Seems like as relevant a topic as any to put this:

Sun-Times: CTA ripped after president a no-show at City Council hearing

Regardless of the merits of the demand, the City Council seems to have a legal point, although not necessarily the discretion to withhold the money.  65 ILCS 5/8-3-19(i):

 

You have to love Chicago Politics and this is another prime example of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Busjack said:

Seems like as relevant a topic as any to put this:

Sun-Times: CTA ripped after president a no-show at City Council hearing

Regardless of the merits of the demand, the City Council seems to have a legal point, although not necessarily the discretion to withhold the money.  65 ILCS 5/8-3-19(i):

 

 

14 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

You have to love Chicago Politics and this is another prime example of it.

 

5 hours ago, Busjack said:

You're right about that. Despite the blowhard alderman, no legal way that money can go to anything else.

I was discussing this on twitter, but I'm of the opinion that while Carter should've shown up, I also don't really care what any of the aldercreatures have to say about sending funds to CTA. Especially if their reaction is to consider withholding it; their next move will be to complain the level of service CTA is providing, etc, which they'd be at least somewhat responsible for by hamstringing them. They want Dorval to explain what CTA is going to do with the funds but A) it's just going to be the same thing CTA has been doing since it's inception and B) even if he does explain, are they are going to be able (and/or willing) to understand?

IIRC, these are also some of the same aldercritters who've refused to implement some of the dedicated (bus) lane enforcement policies that would increase/improve bus service w/o increasing operating costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

 

 

I was discussing this on twitter, but I'm of the opinion that while Carter should've shown up, I also don't really care what any of the aldercreatures have to say about sending funds to CTA. Especially if their reaction is to consider withholding it; their next move will be to complain the level of service CTA is providing, etc, which they'd be at least somewhat responsible for by hamstringing them. They want Dorval to explain what CTA is going to do with the funds but A) it's just going to be the same thing CTA has been doing since it's inception and B) even if he does explain, are they are going to be able (and/or willing) to understand?

IIRC, these are also some of the same aldercritters who've refused to implement some of the dedicated (bus) lane enforcement policies that would increase/improve bus service w/o increasing operating costs.

Somewhat related. CTA  station announcement saying that, due to staffing shortages due to COVID,  CTA  is operating as much service as possible,  but there can be longer than usual waiting times.

Someone will have to ask Dorval Carter why he didn't show up for the City Council meeting.   My question is was his presence required?  It was noted that this was usually a routine matter, or were the alderman intent on having a b*tch session and were angry that they couldn't?  While I felt that some CTA employees are taking advantage of the pandemic,  there's no denying that many people have gotten sick with these last 2 variants of COVID.   It's unfortunate these silly alderman don't understand that CTA is affected just like everyone else. To me, this is nothing more than grandstanding. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Funny typo, but the city sending money to CTA makes one of these entities "less rich". 

Not really. The law I quoted says "All amounts collected under such supplemental tax, after fees for costs of collection, shall be provided to the Chicago Transit Authority pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement as promptly as practicable upon their receipt." It isn't the city's money. It's like someone Zelled you money and the bank collected it but won't deposit it into your account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Not really. The law I quoted says "All amounts collected under such supplemental tax, after fees for costs of collection, shall be provided to the Chicago Transit Authority pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement as promptly as practicable upon their receipt." It isn't the city's money. It's like someone Zelled you money and the bank collected it but won't deposit it into your account.

So if I'm understanding, the city would be the the one "ripping off" the citizens off by playing keep away with the dollars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

Somewhat related. CTA  station announcement saying that, due to staffing shortages due to COVID,  CTA  is operating as much service as possible,  but there can be longer than usual waiting times.

Someone will have to ask Dorval Carter why he didn't show up for the City Council meeting.   My question is was his presence required?  It was noted that this was usually a routine matter, or were the alderman intent on having a b*tch session and were angry that they couldn't?  While I felt that some CTA employees are taking advantage of the pandemic,  there's no denying that many people have gotten sick with these last 2 variants of COVID.   It's unfortunate these silly alderman don't understand that CTA is affected just like everyone else. To me, this is nothing more than grandstanding. 

I'd guess "required", but not legally mandated, and hard agree on everything else you said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

So if I'm understanding, the city would be the the one "ripping off" the citizens off by playing keep away with the dollars?

City eventually would have to pay the CTA. Only foreseeable means of retaliation would be to repeal the tax ordinance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2022 at 5:19 PM, Busjack said:

Seems like as relevant a topic as any to put this:

Sun-Times: CTA ripped after president a no-show at City Council hearing

Regardless of the merits of the demand, the City Council seems to have a legal point, although not necessarily the discretion to withhold the money.  65 ILCS 5/8-3-19(i):

 

I'm guessing that requiring the tax money to go only to the CTA, may not be legal, as the real estate transfer tax has nothing with transit & the state supreme court has thrown out a couple of other taxes in past years, because the tax was on something, that had nothing to do with what was being taxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 1:17 AM, strictures said:

I'm guessing that requiring the tax money to go only to the CTA, may not be legal, as the real estate transfer tax has nothing with transit & the state supreme court has thrown out a couple of other taxes in past years, because the tax was on something, that had nothing to do with what was being taxed.

You're guessing wrong. See the statute I quoted above.

Anyway, this B.S. is over (Sun-Times). Also find the error in the caption.

_____________________

If you are making an argument based on Guns Save Life v. Ali, first it would have to be in court by a plaintiff with standing, second the case deals with a tax affecting a fundamental right, and basically recording a deed is not a fundamental right. If the purpose rule were universal, there would have been no need for the constitutional amendment that all transportation taxes and fees have to go to transportation (Ill. Const. Art. IX, sec. 11).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

The Jeffery Jump wraps were never intended to be forever. They were only supposed to make people aware of a new service. They were paid for by part of the grant used to establish the J14. Once the wraps started looking a bit ratty, as wraps usually will, they came off.

New York has decided to make the "Select Bus" wraps permanent, so they are replaced as needed, and added to new buses as they are assigned to the service and removed if a bus is assigned to regular service.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Sun-Times article with a couple of relevant points:

  • CTA bus cameras will be used to ticket cars parked in bike and bus lanes. As in the beginning of this topic, the aldercreatures say it is not about the money.
  • Lightfoot's appointment to the CT Board was bottled up in the Rules Committee. No surprise for a lame duck, but I thought that the Board was short a member or so at the March meeting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Sun-Times article with a couple of relevant points:

  • CTA bus cameras will be used to ticket cars parked in bike and bus lanes. As in the beginning of this topic, the aldercreatures say it is not about the money.
  • Lightfoot's appointment to the CT Board was bottled up in the Rules Committee. No surprise for a lame duck, but I thought that the Board was short a member or so at the March meeting.

 

Well we know the city gone get alot of tickets themselves 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

According to the Sun-Times, while the pubic commenters gave Carter a "rough ride," it was smoother with the City Council committee, which seemed to accept the plan to restore service, but there were complaints about lack of security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Busjack said:

According to the Sun-Times, while the pubic commenters gave Carter a "rough ride," it was smoother with the City Council committee, which seemed to accept the plan to restore service, but there were complaints about lack of security.

Yea I read about that. Lots of alderman's were saying bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...