|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:28 PM CDT
Committee nears home rule recommendation
By ROB STROUD, Staff Writer
rstroud@jg-tc.com
CHARLESTON — A recommendation on whether the city should seek home rule status via a voter referendum could be made by as early as Sept. 2.
The Charleston Home Rule Ad-Hoc Committee has scheduled what could be its final discussion for 5 p.m. Sept. 2 at City Hall, 520 Jackson. Once the discussion is complete, the committee will make a recommendation on home rule to the city council for final approval.
Committee members have been researching and discussing home rule in Illinois since the group was formed in February by the council. Home rule status would shift more financial and regulatory authority from the state to the city.
Near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Jim Wood said he believes the group has reached a point where it can conclude its research and discussion.
Vice Chairman Pat Adair suggested the committee meet on Sept. 2 to hold possibly its final discussion before voting on a recommendation. Committee members were asked to forward any remaining questions they have about home rule to the city staff in preparation for the meeting.
Tuesday’s discussion centered on some of the economic development aspects of home rule.
City Manager Scott Smith said the city of Danville, which has home rule status, recently started offering property and sales tax rebates to try to recruit new businesses as well as encourage existing businesses to expand.
“Already established businesses are rewarded for reinvesting,” Smith said. “We need to grow what we already have, and this allows us to do that.”
Smith said the rebates in Danville’s share of a portion of the property and/or sales tax revenue generated by a new or expanding business are phased out over the course of five years. Then, Danville receives its total share of the property and sales tax revenue.
Wood said tax rebates would help a business with the critical start-up period after it opens or expands.
“That would go a long way toward making the business profitable during the first five years,” Wood said.
City Attorney Brian Bower said Charleston, without home rule status, is mainly limited to offering tax incentives within the Coles County enterprise zone. Retail businesses are not eligible for the enterprise zone’s incentives.
Adair asked if home rule status would give the city greater authority to deal with long vacant commercial buildings, such as the former Lu Lu’s restaurant building on Lincoln Avenue. This building is readily identifiable by its “How Y’all Are” sign.
Mayor John Inyart said some community members have asked about establishing a “vacancy tax,” but the buildings might still sit vacant anyway. Bower added a vacant building might become less desirable for purchase if it has tax liens against it.
Bower said home rule status would give the city economic incentives to encourage the development of vacant commercial buildings.
Smith said some northern Illinois communities with home rule status have dealt with vacant buildings through strengthened property maintenance requirements regarding architectural appearance.
“(The Lu Lu’s building) is an eyesore and it is not the only one,” Adair said.
Contact Rob Stroud at rstroud@jg-tc.com or 348-5734.
Add your comments
Not already registered?
Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raptor wrote on Aug 23, 2008 6:41 AM:
The hand picked committee is generally for the "Home Rule" law. There is very little representation for those who are against it. Most of the appointed members didn't show up enough to even achieve a quorum for voting.
Each of the proponents who presented their cases painted a picture of doom without and nirvana with "Home Rule".
The facts are not being reliably conveyed to cover both sides of the issue. The issue is much more complicated than the media coverage provides.
It is instructive that the issue of the drinking age gets much more press. Even though it will not be lowered.
The points raised in the article about buildings that are eyesores may not even be addressed with "Home Rule". The LU LU building is not a productive piece of property by most peoples standards. However it is an emotional hot button which gets publicity.
The real concern to the community is the continued loss of you rights. Your property rights are being frittered away by the Historic Preservation Committee. "Home Rule" will allow illegal entry into your property. And so much more.
"Home Rule" allows for fewer people making decisions about your rights. Doesn't anyone care?
"Home Rule" was created for towns with a population exceeding 25,000. We are a town of 10,000. But we have an industrial/academic base that brings us to 22,000.
We have the laws and abilities to solve our problems now. We don't need to cede more power to the government.
Please help stop the madness and attend the September 2nd meeting at 5:00 pm at City Hall. "