My criticism of the original article is that Michael infers that spending on sports venues and riverwalks takes monies away from crime fighting. That isn’t necessarily the case, as monies for those projects are not likely to be allowed to be spent on crime.

Rockford is an old city with old infrastructure, old roads, and a lot of new roads and neighborhoods too. Not too much smart growth. The new growth doesn’t support repairing the old or paying the bills on the new growth. Property values and household incomes are relatively low, so a small number of people with small incomes and under-valued property wind up paying a good chunk of change to support the old and new parts of the city.

If Michael was to say “the city and the county should focus any discretionary spending on fighting crime” I might agree with that. That would mean that any monies coming from the general fund or any other discretionary funds (the county’s tipping fees) should be spent on crime. That would be a big change. Discretionary funds are often distributed to non-profits, community groups, and other groups with limited funding sources. Not too many politicians would be comfortable with this. What you might do is reach out to the community and get everyone to buy into this all out focus on crime. So, if you’re going to convince politicians to follow this path, you’ll need to convince the community to stop asking for donations.

So, now we’ve convinced the community and the politicians to spend all available free resources on crime. Now you have to determine how to spend that money as effectively as possible. Those steps, those strategies could be the focus of a future article.

Rockford is a place with problems, I don’t think anyone would deny that. The question is whether to try to fix them, or to leave.

Now if you have a city where property values are lower, and you want police enforcement and anti-crime measures on the same level as other communities of like size, then it seems to me obvious that your taxes may be higher than some of those other communities. Add to this that Rockford has had problems of crime, unemployment, and poverty since at least the late 1970’s (which is as far back as I remember), then you can only expect that it would take extra to keep the streets safe.

Maybe you don’t want that, in which case it probably is true that you’ll want to leave. I think that is the place where Rockford is. Lowering taxes isn’t going to improve law enforcement, and I don’t buy the case that upkeep on a river walk is going to break the police force.

Without the government you wouldn’t have streets, or fire departments, garbage pick up, schools, or any of a number of other things that Ayn Rand doesn’t mention. But though she was a stupid philosopher, that’s nothing compared to how bad a novelist she was.

I don’t know who is having a hysterical fit. I am just tired of people trying to make it seem that the taxes here are low and we should be thankful for what we get.
If you think that being an informed and concerned citizen is being hysterical, then I guess I am guilty. Everyone is either leaving the state or going to one of the satellite communities like Rockton or Winnebago where the people get more bang for their buck when it comes to property taxes (i.e. low crime, good schools, and stable property value).

I used the Trulia website to get an average example of a house that is currently for sale and what the taxes were for that property. The percentages vary greatly in the Rockford area since it depends on what is funded in each tax bill and how the property is zoned. Each tax year differs as well. I moved from Rockford to just outside of the city and my property taxes dropped by 400% since my land is zoned agricultural. Sorry, there is no academic journal or JSTOR for real estate prices. Your own link shows that Winnebago CO. is up there with places in NY & NJ out of the thousands of counties in the US. Municipal govts. are not known for being forthcoming or making tax information easy to find, especially if they are on the high end of the spectrum.

So, your thesis is that since our houses are more affordable, it is OK that we pay high taxes? The houses are affordable because of the high crime, bad schools, and lack of well paying jobs. Why should we pay higher taxes to foster that kind of environment?

The bottom line is that the Rockford Area cannot thrive if the local taxes keep going up. Illinois already does its best to scare away growth and businesses, local politicians should not make the matter worse. You can bring all the water parks, plays, and Monster Trucks shows here (which are all paid for by the tax payer in this area, i.e. Metro Center, Coronado, and Magic Waters), but it will not fix the core problems of the area. The money that should be going to pay for extra police officers and fire trucks are spent on those edifices of incompetence.

“The government was set to protect man from criminals–and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.” -Ayn Rand.

Now this could easily be used by you and Mike to make a point (note I say he may indeed have a point), but not to have a hysterical fit. The numbers (and they aren’t as new as they should be) also might be construed to suggest that Rockfordians are getting pretty inexpensive houses for their income level.

It is also a pretty obvious point that Illinois numbers will be higher due to Chicago, a point included in your post but from which you draw no conclusions.

Nobody is saying that all’s rosy in Rockford; but 1. compare apples and apples, 2. don’t mislead on where funding comes from for projects, and 3. you’re hyperbolic tone just makes you sound hysterical.

And then you make a bazillion claims that have nothing to do with Rockford or the original article.

What I’m saying is that when writing an article (note I didn’t write an article and I’m making no claims and therefore have no burden of finding out the “right” information when I can simply show that your info is bs) you should start with facts, not ideology. But only if you want to convince someone. You clearly don’t, but keep up the good work.

Since you lack the ability to live within the realm of reality, let me show you some facts that are irrefutable. For one, if someone believes that the taxes in Rockford and Illinois in general are not high, then they have never lived anywhere else before or they are living a lie.

According to Trulia.com (a real estate website), the average listing price for a home in Rockford (ending the week of June 27) was $115,706.00. I picked a home on Applewood Lane in Rockford that was selling for that approx. amount (I will not post the exact address for privacy matters). I looked up the tax data on the Winnebago County website and guess what?[http://www.rockfordtownshipassessor.net]
The owners have to pay two installments of $3,919.90 for the tax year 2012. Total of $7,839.80. That is almost 8% of the homes value. That is a large portion of a families income every year–just in taxes. Even in the liberal state of California, they passed a law (Proposition 13) that says the govt. cannot collect more than 1% in tax of the total property value. A $115,000 home in California would have a maximum property tax of $1,150. According to 24/7 Wall Street, a financial website, Illinois is #7 in the top 10 worst states when it comes to property taxes.
[http://247wallst.com/2011/04/05/the-ten-states-with-the-worst-property-taxes/2/]

Here is their description of IL:
“Average Property Taxes as % of Median Income: 4.64% (7th Most)
> Average Median Property Taxes Paid on Homes: $3,271 (7th Most)
> Unemployment Rate: 8.9% (23rd Highest)
> Average Median Income for Home Owners: $67,144 (18th Highest)
> % decrease in Median Home value (2006-2009): +0.8% (35th greatest increase)

Besides owning the 7th highest rate of property taxes as a percent of homeowner income, the key economic indicators related to home ownership and residence taxes fall near the national average. However, there are major disparities between counties in the state. In the wealthier areas, like Kendall County near Chicago, the median home value is $240,600, with residents paying 6.3% of their incomes on homeowner taxes. On the other end of the spectrum, the average property value in Vermilion County, which is in the Eastern part of the state, is a third of that – $78,300 – and residents only spend 2.8% percent of their incomes on home taxes.”

To top it off, Illinois is also the worst state in the Union when it comes to sales tax. A survey of business leaders across the country named IL the 3rd worst state to do business with last May. It was reported by the Chicago Tribune: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-02/business/chi-illinois-3rdworst-in-nation-for-business-ceo-survey-says-20120502_1_ceo-survey-worst-states-illinois]

They write, “Illinois received low grades in part due to its state and local tax burden, which stands at 9.97 percent, or .17 percent above the national average. One CEO commented that “Illinois is in a race to the bottom,” according to the survey, which can be found at Chief Executive’s website.” Recently Rockford made undesired lists like, “One of the 10 most Dangerous Cities in America” [http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/news-mostdangerouscitiesinamerica/3/]
and “One of the 20 most miserable places to live in America.” [http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-miserablecities/rockford/]
What are our tax dollars getting us besides misery and crime?
Finally, here is another article that explains how awesome our property taxes are in Illinois. [http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/property-taxes-best-and-worst-states.htm]

They write,”Worst States for Property Taxes

The Tax Foundation found that homeowners in these states paid the most in property taxes compared to home value. The percentages represent the percentage of home value that homeowners pay in property taxes.

New Jersey – 1.89%
New Hampshire – 1.86%
Texas – 1.81%
Wisconsin – 1.76%
Nebraska – 1.70%
Illinois – 1.73%
Connecticut – 1.63%
Michigan – 1.62%
Vermont – 1.59%
North Dakota – 1.42%”

Joseph, if you could find some contrary data, please post it for everyone. I see you did not put any numbers up yourself, you just agree with Paul and try to act as if Michael and I are the ones that are spreading “misinformation.” What is so extreme about being fiscally responsible and paying bills? What is so extreme about worrying about public safety over entertainment? I guess you think the founding father’s were extremists as well.

But, I am sure you knew all of this already with your “careful research” you have been doing? Right?

I write grants and I make budgets every year where I work. The only reason we have government is to protect the people and their rights. We do not have govt. to entertain us or to make us feel warm and fuzzy. No country, state, or city has ever taxed its way into prosperity.

But this is unsurprising. The original article, as well as your comment, are coming from a place of extreme ideological adherence. Who cares if your facts are wrong? There may indeed be a point to the original article, but anyone who thinks that a point is best made through reasoned argument and careful research will necessarily miss it.

And yes, millions of dollars are being spent on sporting facilities, but if you’ve done your research, you’d know those facilities are a huge economic plus to the region. The players, coaches, and families that come here drive our relatively thriving hotel industry. We have open space, space for baseball, softball, soccer and more, space that other communities have traded in for strip malls.