Urbana looks to follow the Champaign City Council's decision last week to join the CUMTD in it's legal battles against the CSWMTD.
Urbana will likely join Champaign in attempting to intervene in a lawsuit over the creation of the Champaign Southwest Mass Transit District.
Meeting as the committee of the whole, the Urbana council, in a 6-0 voice vote, directed city staff to draw up a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. The issue will come up for a formal vote at the council's July 9 meeting. The Champaign council authorized legal intervention last week.
Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing, who is attending an out-of-town convention, asked the council to consider intervention in a June 20 memo.
This was inevitable. There's also this gem:
Charlie Smyth, D-Ward 1, said that southwest Champaign residents drive more to get to the central city and require a greater investment in city streets. If residents there want to go strictly to user fees, he said, they should also pay a carbon tax for their negative impact on the environment.
There's nothing quite like an Urbana Council member telling Champaign residents they should be paying more.
Now, just to reaffirm what I'm seeing on these maps of mine... this SW district isn't even part of the city of champaign right? And it sure as heck isn't part of the city of urbana right? and up until an annex without any referendum or vote they weren't part of CUMTD right?
Yet all these places they have nothing to do with suddenly want to mess with them and ensure they pay "their fair share" of "their mass transit" costs.
Am I finally understanding this right?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Uh oh, Urbana is joining the suit. That means bigger legal fees. Looks like Tapley will have to raise taxes on his neighbors to cover his suit TAPLEY vs CUMTD. Unless Tapley pays for it out his pocket, takes up a collection, or maybe little boys and girls can sell lemonade, or maybe Taley's lawyers will work for free. None of those are too likely, so it sure looks like Tapley's neighbors can expect a tax increase soon. Before long it will be the same rate as CUMTD, but best of all, NO BUSSES!
I wonder. Was the County Board part of CUUATS? If so, I wonder how Tapley voted then?
"There's nothing quite like an Urbana Council member telling Champaign residents they should be paying more."
The SW people aren't Champaign residents, remember? Nice try, though.
Well, you have grasped the basic idea, but I want to ask about the actual area under consideration (try this for confusing):
Although opponents frequently refer to the fact that the CSMTD isn't within the city limits of Champaign, I don't know whether that's true or not. I'd like to see a map of the district itself, and here's why: Except for Lincolnshire Fields proper (bounded by Kirby north, Duncan east, Windsor south and Staley west), a good portion of the area west of Duncan and south of Kirby is actually within the city limits and is entirely within Ken Pirok's District 5.
So what are the boundaries of the CSMTD, and what does Ken Pirok think about this? He supported the City of Champaign's involvement, but I didn't see that week's episode of City Council Theater so I don't know if he weighed in on the issue.
"The SW people aren't Champaign residents, remember? Nice try, though."
The vast majority of the residents of the CSWMTD are also now Champaign residents. Trails of Brittany, Ironwood, etc.
The vast majority of territory - acerage - in the CSWMTD is not in city limits.
Nice try, though.
Yes or no. Tapley lives in the City of Champaign. If yes, he is in the CUMTD by prior annexation agreement, he should have known when he bought his house, even if it was outside the city when he bought it. if no, he will be before long because State law allows municipalities to annex contiguous land. Once annexed, the annexation agreement between Champaign and the CUMTD kicks in. Champaign city and CUMTD have annexation agreements, so I don't see how the SWCMTD can thwart the annexation agreement that already existed between the city and the CUMTD. And if most of the houses, meaning taxpayer citizens (as opposed to developers and large farm ground owners) are already in the CUMTD then Tapley's suit must fail. And if the City of the Champaign , the City of Urbana, and the CUMTD were all signatories to CUUATS, then Urbana intervening is the correct thing to do, if they want. Lastly, Urbana can't impose a tax on other residents, but it CAN impose a tax on those who venture into the city. Automobile parking permits is the classic way, with a lower fee for residents than foreigners.
"Tapley lives in the City of Champaign. If yes, he is in the CUMTD by prior annexation agreement, he should have known when he bought his house, even if it was outside the city when he bought it."
Tapley now lives in the City of Champaign. His subdivision probably had a prior annexation agreement with the City of Champaign, but certainly did not with the CUMTD - you seem to confuse the City of Champaign and CUMTD, but they're not the same thing.
"if no, he will be before long because State law allows municipalities to annex contiguous land. Once annexed, the annexation agreement between Champaign and the CUMTD kicks in."
There is no formal annexation agreement between the City and CUMTD. CUMTD has stated that its strategy is to annex all property that is annexed by Champaign, Urbana, and Savoy. It has been unsuccessful in Savoy, and SW Champaign is TBD.
"And if most of the houses, meaning taxpayer citizens (as opposed to developers and large farm ground owners) are already in the CUMTD then Tapley's suit must fail."
Again, you seem to be confusing the City of Champaign with the CUMTD - they're not the same thing, despite CUMTD's strategy of wanting to annex all land within Champaign City limits.
There is no annexation agreement between the City of Champaign and the CUMTD? Really?
How about the CUMTD's right to annex contiguous property to area already in the CUMTD in which no corporate body has a pre-existing control, meaning municipal, and not district? That is why Savoy wasn't annexed.
Perhaps you are confusing Savoy (a Village) with Southwest Champaign, a loose confederation of neighborhoods within a city.
"There is no annexation agreement between the City of Champaign and the CUMTD? Really?"
Really. Annexation agreements (not the same as an intergovernmental agreement) are usually made between developers and taxing districts, usually with Cities who can require them of subdivisions to be platted within 1.5 miles of current city boundaries. Often, a city will also require a subdivision to have pre-annexation agreements with other districts, for water, sewer and yes, even mass transit. But that's not quite the same as what you're saying, and there was no such requirement for the areas in question in SW Champaign.
They have an intergovernmental agreement that the CUMTD will annex territory within the Champaign City limits, but CUMTD still has to follow all the normal annexation procedures - there's nothing in this agreement that makes such annexations automatic.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure I've garbled this explanation somehow.
"How about the CUMTD's right to annex contiguous property to area already in the CUMTD in which no corporate body has a pre-existing control, meaning municipal, and not district? That is why Savoy wasn't annexed."
You're mistaken. CUMTD is legally entitled to annex property in Savoy that is contiguous with CUMTD, regardless of the fact that it's in Savoy. The reason they haven't is because Savoy threatened to pre-emptively form their own Mass Transit District if the CUMTD went ahead with annexation plans without an agreement with the Village of Savoy. I think they're nearing the end of a two-year "cease-fire" in which CUMTD isn't annexing any more Village territory, and the Village has agreed to not yet form a transit district.
7. State Law. Illinois State law (attached as Exhibit 2) provides that transit districts can annex “…any territory, except property classified as farmland, which (1) lies within the corporate limits of a municipality as defined in this Act, (2) is contiguous to a local mass transit district organized under this Act, and (3) is not a part of another local mass transit district… Assuming this is the law, CSWMTD loses. The CUMTD (assuming it followed notice and hearing procedures) annexed the (or bulk of the) area PRIOR TO the CSWMTD coming into formation, before the CSWMTD existed. Sure, it was on the ballot in the CSWMTD, but the land was annexed PRIOR TO the formation of the CSWMTD. The law doesn't say anything about "on the ballot". It cannot be assumed it would pass and it cannot be assumed it would fail. The question is, ON THE DATE of the annexation, was 1, 2 and 3 followed? If yes, CSWMTD loses. If no, CSWMTD wins. And we all know the answer is "Yes", and the CSWMTD loses. The CSWMTD is too little, too late.
We've gone over this a hundred times.
You've decided that your interpretation of the law and how it applies to this situation is the only possible interpretation. The courts may very well agree with you. Or they may not - there is plenty of wiggle room in either direction.
Hey 3:32 Anon. #2 was not followed as the CUMTD annex part of Lincolnshire Fields subdivisions which are not in the city of Champaign and has no pre-annexation agreement to ever be annexed. So by your logic the CSWMTD wins. I hope the judge agrees with you.
For general information, as was published in the NG, the bountries for the CSWMTD are I-72 on the North, I-57 on the East, Curtis Road on the South and County Highway 19 on the West. It is noteable these district boundries were part of the petition to form the district long before the CUMTD annexed parts of the area or the City of Champaign did their mass annexation. Currently less than 10% of the area is in the city of Champaign or in the CUMTD.
Urbana joining the City of Champaign should just add more levels of government to the CU MTD legal efforts as these public servants all spend the taxpayers money sueing another governmental agency, the CSWMTD. Impressive use of time and money.
Disappointing news, indeed. Prussing used to be on MTD board. You don't suppose that has anything to do with it, do you?
I think every taxpayer in CU would welcome a "strictly use fee" system for the CUMTD. Notice I did not mention those on the various government payrolls. I also agree with as was suggested by Charliethen the CUMTD should be paying road use taxes for all the roads they travel that are not in either the city of Champaign or Urbana.
What a great idea from Charlie Smyth, "a carbon tax for their negative impact on the environment". Again, I think that every taspayer in CU would welcome this. However, are there any bets this would be accepted by the CUMTD?
If the facts are of interest to some of the readers of this blog you can take a look at the city boundaries and the land use plan on this site:
http://archive.ci.champaign.il.us/maps/councildistricts/council_district_map.pdf
http://archive.ci.champaign.il.us/maps/futurelanduse/FutureLandUseMap.pdf
This shows the current CUMTD boundaries: http://www.cumtd.com/aboutmtd/DistrictBoundaries.aspx
This is from the Long Range Transportation Plan 2025 a legally required and adopted planning document that the City of Champaign, City of Urbana, Village of Savoy, UIUC, Champaign County, and Illinois Department of Transportation unanimously voted to approved in 2004:
The Champaign County Regional Planning Commission website is not currently operating due to a lightening strike but you can go there and read the LRTP 2025 if you like when it comes up. www.ccrpc.org/planning/transportation/lrtp/lrtp2025.php
It is pretty clear from the commentary from the judge to date and any cursory review of the state enabling legislation that the CUMTD followed the state law in it's annexations and the CSWMTD also followed the laws. So, both districts are legally allowed and there is no law saying there cannot be two transit districts in the same location. So, the folks who voted to tax themselves in the CSWMTD who have already been annexed into the CUMTD voted to be taxed by two transit districts and there is no provision in the enabling legislation for creating a transit district by initiative petition for it to be dissolved. So, those folks who are in both districts may get to enjoy double taxation for years to come.
4. Expand the Transit District’s boundary to be coterminous with the urban areato the extent possible under the law.
Responsible parties: Mass Transit District
"So, the folks who voted to tax themselves in the CSWMTD who have already been annexed into the CUMTD voted to be taxed by two transit districts."
I have to differ with you as the people within the CSWMTD did not vote themselves to be taxed by two district because no one in the CSWMTD voted to be taxed by the CUMTD. The CUMTD specificly annexed subdivisions outside the city limits of Champaign against the wishes of those attending the public hearings. There was never a vote to join the CUMTD. In fact there has never been a vote since the District was set up decades ago. All these annexations have been at the whim of the non-elected members of the CUMTD Board over the objections of those being forcably annexed. The CUMTD would have foced annexed all of Savoy if there had not been a Village Government which has the authority to setup its own MTD.
Nice try Anonymous ---- is that you Bill Volk?
"The CUMTD specificly annexed subdivisions outside the city limits of Champaign against the wishes of those attending the public hearings."
All of the areas annexed into the CUMTD are part of the "urbanized area" which is dictated by the federal census and used to allocate federal transportation dollars which even those who live in Lincolnshire Fields benefit from. The people who voted to tax themselves who were already in the CUMTD did in fact vote to tax themselves twice and this includes the folks in Lincolnshire Fields. CUMTD never initiated annexation with Savoy even though with all the screeching and hysteria you would have thought it was the case. The CUMTD only asked the Village of Savoy if they wanted to do some annexation since a number of developers had requested it.
"So, both districts are legally allowed and there is no law saying there cannot be two transit districts in the same location."
Actually, there is a law that says that they can only be in one mass transit district. That's the heart of the dispute.
And long-range planning documents are just planning documents. I'm not aware of any penalties ever being imposed for a planning document not being followed, whether they were passed unanimously or not.
"Actually, there is a law that says that they can only be in one mass transit district. "
Nicely said...can you now cite the law? Thank you.
Sorry - it took me a while to find it:
(Emphasis added)
That's the only reason that the CSWMTD and Savoy actions make sense - if by creating their own districts, they can keep CUMTD out. Otherwise, if multiple MTDs were allowed in the same area, the CUMTD could just go ahead and annex regardless of what Savoy and CSWMTD did. This "one district per area" rule is the only thing deterring CUMTD at the moment.
"Actually, there is a law that says that they can only be in one mass transit district. That's the heart of the dispute.
And long-range planning documents are just planning documents. I'm not aware of any penalties ever being imposed for a planning document not being followed, whether they were passed unanimously or not."
Yes and the CUMTD had already annexed the part of the area included in the CSWMTD when the vote on that district was held. Planning documents do carry weight with the courts. Just ask some of the local developers who have challenged planning documents in the courts and lost.
"That's the only reason that the CSWMTD and Savoy actions make sense - if by creating their own districts, they can keep CUMTD out. Otherwise, if multiple MTDs were allowed in the same area, the CUMTD could just go ahead and annex regardless of what Savoy and CSWMTD did. This "one district per area" rule is the only thing deterring CUMTD at the moment."
This proves the point made in the statement by Mayor Prussing that the CSWMTD is a "hollow" mass transit district whose only purpose is to prevent mass transit. I wonder if the legislators who wrote and approved the legislation allowing the creation of transit district's by initiative petition ever imagined that it would be used not to create a transit ditrict but to prevent one. A perversion of the law if there was one.
"This proves the point made in the statement by Mayor Prussing that the CSWMTD is a "hollow" mass transit district whose only purpose is to prevent mass transit. I wonder if the legislators who wrote and approved the legislation allowing the creation of transit district's by initiative petition ever imagined that it would be used not to create a transit ditrict but to prevent one. A perversion of the law if there was one."
Actually, I think there are several "hollow" (your term, not mine) MTDs in the Chicago area.
That said, nobody yet knows what sort of services, if any, the CSWMTD will provide, not did the CUMTD wait to find out before annexing. None of the CSWMTD Board members, to my knowledge, have announced that it will be the district's policy to prevent mass transit. The CSWMTD board hasn't been in existance long enough to do anything besides scrap for survial, let alone begin discussions of providing services. This "hollow MTD" label is something that has been applied by the CUMTD and swallowed whole, without justification, by both Champaign and Urbana, in my opinion.
For that matter, the CSWMTD Board members are appointed by the Democratic County Board Chair - if he desired, he could appoint CSWMTD Board members who were committed to providing mass transit (if they're not already) or committed to contracting with CUMTD to do so. This "hollow district" argument is an empty one, again in my opinion.
"The people who voted to tax themselves who were already in the CUMTD did in fact vote to tax themselves twice and this includes the folks in Lincolnshire Fields."
How did you arrive at this fictious statement? There was only one vote for an MTD tax, to the CSMTD. The CUMTD property tax was not voted upon, it was forced upon the residents without any vote by the residents. The CUMTD has been forcing this tax without a vote for the past decade.
Here are some facts about Lincolnshire Fields subdivisions. None of the residents of Lincolnshire Fields Subdivisions ever voted to be in the CUMTD.
About 2/3rds of them voted to form the CSMTD. These residents do not fall into your quoted critiera from Illinois Law---"(1) lies within the corporate limits of a municipality as defined in this Act,"
The other 1/3rd petitioned with residents of Maynard Lake, the CUMTD and became members of that district long before the City of Champaign even had an interest in annexation these living area. Like all of the Lincolnshire Fields subdivisons, there was no pre-annexation agreement with the City of Champaign then and they remain outside the city limits of Champaign to this day.
The only "perversion of the law" you refer to is applicable to the CUMTD. They are required by Illinois law to hold 'public hearings' on a proposed annexation prior to making a decision to annex. The CUMTD has held these hearings but only to the "letter of the law". They document 'public hearing' was held, date, time, attendees, after which the CUMTD Board votes in every case of late without regard to the overwhelming objections voiced by the people living in the area to be annex, to go forward with the annexation.
Damn, Next they will be paving paradise to put up a parking lot.
What a mess.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Damn, Next they will be paving paradise to put up a parking lot.
What a mess.
Please do not give them (CUMTD) any more foolish ideas, Rex. Remember, all these governmental elected officials signed off on the CUMTD's insertion of the 'light rail' system for CU in the Long Range Transportation Plan 2025 for Champaign County. You know the 'cast in stone' Future PLANNING document, so 'highly' quoted by a Anomoyous poster on this thread.
If so many CSWMTD people are not in the City of Champaign, and none of them are in the City of Urbana, where do they get off complaining about the City of Champaign and the City of Urbana intervening in the Tapley vs CUMTD lawsuit? It's not their tax money.
If Tapley has such a strong case why should they worry about it?
"If Tapley has such a strong case why should they worry about it?"
I am not sure it is worry as much as laughter at all these elected governmental officials rushing, probably out of fear, to support these appointed governmental officals who are being challenged on their POWER to expand their TAX base at will. I use the word fear as there is nothing more terrifying to government officials than having the people question what they are spending tax dollars on or in this case how an unchecked, non-elected CUMTD Board expands their district.
I second Oil Man.
Gov't weenies get off on spending money. I think that even well-intending people get messed up when they start spending large amounts of other people's money. They start to think that THEY have money.
Take away the money, and you take away their self-esteem.
Anonymous 2:01
So why not let "Don Quixote" Scott Tapley pay for his own lawsuit, why levy taxes for the purpose of what is still a private person's lawsuit against the CUMTD?
Why didn't Tapley simply take up a collection? Why didn't he put a referendum on the ballot and NOT have the CSWMTD levy taxes? Because he is a politician, he saw an easy target, and he would rather spend his neighbors' money. But that's ok, because it is a NOBLE cause.
If he was a real stand-up guy, he would pay for it himself or rebate the tax hit, however small, that 29% of his neighbors are FORCED to pay for his personal suit against the CUMTD. This is NOT CSWMTD vs CUMTD, it is TAPLEY vs CUMTD.
When is the CSWMTD going to intervene? Just so you know, that will probably mean a whole new set of lawyers, meaning your CSWMTD tax dollars are going to lawyers.
MTD EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES - MTD BUSES WORKING IN QUAD CITIES
Den nis Toe ppen
PO Box 2400
Champaign, IL 61825
June 27, 2007
William Volk
CUMTD
801 E University Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801
Dear Bill,
As you may recall, MTD has made a practice of leasing articulated buses each year to Metrolink (Quad Cities mass transit entity) for the purpose of operating shuttle service to and from the John Deere Classic. Visit the link below for further information:
http://www.johndeereclassic.com/parking.php?PHPSESSID=4080ff2adf758ea624967b1b18514dd0
I recently requested communications, documents, contracts, etc. related to Metrolink leasing of CUMTD articulated buses for the John Deere Golf Classic. Your reply indicated that there were no documents which are responsive to my request.
I just called Metrolink. The person with whom I spoke stated that this year's golf shuttles will be operated using "big articulated buses from Champaign, like last year" or similar.
Clearly, CUMTD is renting articulated buses to some entity or individual in order to facilitate operation of golf shuttles in the quad cities this summer. Pursuant to the FOIA, please provide me with documents and communications related to leasing of MTD buses to anyone related to the John Deere Golf Classic. I don't know what sort of subterfuge you have arranged for this year, but I must insist that you provide me with documents and communications which relate to this activity, consistent with the IL FOIA.
Thanks,
Den nis Toe ppen
It's not Tapley's problem - it's everyone's problem. Tapley is the first one to step up to the plate and fight MTD on the annexation/taxation without representation issue. Anyone who cares about representative democracy should be behind Tapley.
CSWMTD is collecting MINIMAL taxes - - much less than residents would be paying if they had to pay MTD. Tapley is SAVING people money, not costing them money.
I see no reason for Tapley to take on the MTD at his sole expense.
I agree that lawyers suck.
it's only a MINIMAL TAX! That's like your wife telling you she bought 6 pairs of shoes at half price. She SAVED you money!
Being one off the 29% who didn't want the tax to pay for somebody's private lawsuit, there is NO SUCH THING as a minimal tax.
Savoy managed to hold off the MTD without establishing a taxing district, but not hot-headed Tapley.
Maybe discussions with the MTD before going off on a Quixotic adventure might have been a little more reasonable. So that leaves Tapley out.
Look up the word 'demagogue". Here, I'll make it easy for you. "A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power."
Interesting post Dennis since the CU MTD received a price break for those buses granted because they would be used for public transportation. Not sure my fellow golf addicts in the Quad Cities are really who the grant folks were targeting when they bestowed this on the CU MTD. I seriously doubt CU MTD lists these contractural 'money maker' private uses on all their Federal and State grant applications.
You know, Champaign Southwest MTD territory includes the Curtis Road interchange area. That future major commercial area will need real mass transit service, not a hollow district. That's why the mayor isn't siding with Tapley. He cares about the city's future and is realistic about the importance of mass transit.
With PRUSSING once on the board of MTD, don't expect anyone to dare challenge our bloated, wasteful MTD system. Just another example of government gasbags running to the aid of other tax wasters. Don't worry URBANA, you can always tax some more..there's plenty of money to spend! Gee I hope they lower my property tax rate so I can pay even more PROPERTY TAXES? Go figure....what an incredible overstep and waste.
If Urbana actually goes ahead and tries to join this suit, I will also file to join the suit on the side of Tapley. I encourage everyone who thinks this is foolish to do the same... but to do so individually. Certainly if the court humors the cities' arguments that somehow they have standing to argue a county matter.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
For what it's worth, most of the routes that use the articulated buses either don't run in the summer or make do with the shorter, regular buses.
In other words, the articulated buses are idle in the summer. Heaven forbid they be used to bring in revenue for the district that might save you being taxed more than you already are.
How many people on this website ever actually use the bus system, anyway?
I've used them maybe twice since I bought my house... not sense I bought a second car. I suppose they could ban car ownership to drive up MTD revenue too.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Happily, I live where I don't need a car, so I don't have to pay any money for that. However, no one has remotely suggested banning car ownership.
Still, given that you do pay for the MTD via taxes, is it really so terrible that they try to earn some money with their capital while it's not in use?
"Happily, I live where I don't need a car, so I don't have to pay any money for that. However, no one has remotely suggested banning car ownership.
Still, given that you do pay for the MTD via taxes, is it really so terrible that they try to earn some money with their capital while it's not in use?"
I'm not sure about this, but I think Dennis' point - and he's been after the CUMTD for a while - is that there's some sort of law that prevents those sort of leases by MTDs, in order to keep public, tax-subsidized transit operators from competing with private companies that also lease buses. I think Dennis has referenced that before, but don't hold me to it - my memory is sketchy, and I don't have time to look it up.
I can think of a some reasons why mtd should not be leasing its buses out:
- there are private companies who can do this. federal transit administration regulations prohibit transit districts from competing with private companies who are willing and able to provide such services.
- federal government (read: you) paid for these buses. buses are very expensive and they have a finite life. the life of these buses is being used up driving golf shuttles in quad cities. did legislators intend to facilitate golf shuttles when they voted to fund bus acquisition by transit districts? i doubt it.
- it seems fairly unlikely that quad cities mtd is paying the fully-allocated cost of using the vehicles. rather, they are probably just reimbursing mtd for lost mileage-based fta funding. mtd is probably replacing their funding, but not covering their full costs.
- volk is already engaged in enough conflict. he's foolish to engage in this sort of extracurricular activity when he's fully engaged already.
"Heaven forbid they be used to bring in revenue for the district that might save you being taxed more than you already are."
There is no basis in reality to support this statement. The CUMTD has always taxed-to-the-max. Even with the increases in tax evaluation and the added revenue from all those necessary annexations over the past decade, they never spread those extra dollars across their tax base. Despite their promises to the contrary, they banked a lot of those extra dollars rather that hold the line on taxation. Our local elected officials in their support of this district, do not want anyone looking too close at what this MTD does to get funding or how they use their subsidized equipment. They want the public to just keep it at a wonderful trust level. Why because if you lose the trust, you will have pick off a nice looking scab only to reveal a hugh infection for which there is no election cure.
I'd rather the MTD abandon property taxes all together like most other transit districts in the nation and charge only per-rider fees. I'd even tolerate having some county or township program that was funded through taxes that gave bus passes to the poor. But there is no reason that they need to extract property taxes from everyone for busses only a few ride. It encourages the bureaucratic imperialism and inefficient services that they are so well known for.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I am in possession of agreements and communications from prior year(s). I seem to recall that Metrolink FOIA response included emails which MTD response did not include. In other words, MTD was relatively unreponsive. I'll scan and post the old documents when time permits. They are in storage.
My recollection of the financial end of the deal is that MTD charged Metrolink a remarkably low rate for use of the buses - a rate *far* below the rate which Metrolink would have had to pay any legitimate commercial entity for such buses, The rate was also far below what I would expect MTD's amortization cost to be. It was more like what you'd expect to pay to rent a $25,000 minvan from Avis and less like what you'd expect to pay to use a $500,000+ bus. That's what I remember, anyhow.
I won't know the terms of this year's deal until MTD provides the requested documents. I suspect that they are doing their best to withold the documents prior to the event in order to make it difficult for FTA to take action until it's too late.
MTD does a very poor job of abiding by the spirit (and often letter) of applicable regulations, and they seem to have figured out that they aren't particularly accountable for their actions.
Strikes me as that its time for a citizens revolt and that people need to start hording MTD board meetings and county board meetings until this is solved.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"So why not let "Don Quixote" Scott Tapley pay for his own lawsuit, why levy taxes for the purpose of what is still a private person's lawsuit against the CUMTD?"
Some background on the origin of the lawsuit is in order. The CSWMTD Supporters Committee (which was set up by the court in accordance with the statute that said such a committee should be established "to see the referendum through to its conclusion") needed to file a lawsuit in order to defend the creation of the CSWMTD against the CUMTD's attempt to foil the referendum by annexing prior to the election date.
Since the other Committee members were reluctant to put their name on the lawsuit, I volunteered. So, it's hardly the "private person's lawsuit against the CUMTD" as you describe it.
"Why didn't Tapley simply take up a collection? Why didn't he put a referendum on the ballot and NOT have the CSWMTD levy taxes? Because he is a politician, he saw an easy target, and he would rather spend his neighbors' money. But that's ok, because it is a NOBLE cause."
The CSWMTD Supporters Committee did take up a collection--raised and spent around $20,000 for the first phase of the litigation. Expecting the same 150-200 contributors to continue bearing the entire burden of funding a lawsuit that may ultimately benefit everyone in the district began to seem unfair, so the CSWMTD board of directors (not Scott Tapley) placed a referendum on the ballot so the lawsuit could be funded equitably.
"If he was a real stand-up guy, he would pay for it himself or rebate the tax hit, however small, that 29% of his neighbors are FORCED to pay for his personal suit against the CUMTD. This is NOT CSWMTD vs CUMTD, it is TAPLEY vs CUMTD."
I wish I could afford $50,000 or $100,000 to file lawsuits on behalf of my neighbors for the collective good of the neighborhood, but I unfortunately cannot. The lawsuit would already have been dropped if contributors had not been so generous, and the lawsuit would have been dropped if the tax levy referendum failed (unless someone else wanted to take over the fundraising effort).
"When is the CSWMTD going to intervene? Just so you know, that will probably mean a whole new set of lawyers, meaning your CSWMTD tax dollars are going to lawyers."
The CSWMTD will probably intervene within the next several days. The stated purpose of the CSWMTD's tax levy was to fund the lawsuit against the CUMTD's annexation--that's not a new revelation to anyone living in the district. No new lawyers will be getting involved, though--Brett Kepley, the same lawyer who filed Tapley v. CUMTD, has been hired by the CSWMTD.
I do find it ironic that a group of people who oppose most, if not all, taxes and government intervention are ok with the CSWMTD raising a tax and intervening in what was originally a private lawsuit. I thought we just had an article here about how the rich like to donate? Surely you could have drummed up some more donations rather than going after a tax levy that not everybody in your district supports? Isn't this what all you free-market people are all about? I guess you do need the government to decide if some things are best for you, even if 29% of the voting populace doesn't agree.....let's remember this for the future....
Conservatives don't oppose all taxes and government intervention, you have us confused with libertarians. I have no problem when government is limited to what is necessary (as opposed to what is "prudent") and is as local as possible. If a neighborhood needs to levy a one-time tax to file a lawsuit and they all support it, I say go for it. At least in that case there was actually a referenda on the tax and you know what, an overwhelming majority supported it. It wasn't Tapley's decision it was about 70% of SW Champaign's decision (or whatever it was, I'm sure someone will correct me). I'm all for being asked each time someone wants to raise my taxes... I'd even be MORE in support of all tax levies requiring year-by-year approval and being considered "one-time" so we can start to weed away all the superflous programs out there that have long outlived their usefulness but still are on the taxpayer dole.
But let's be honest, the cities of Champaign and Urbana are joining suit in an attempt to not only try to bully SW Champaign, but to try to price Tapley & Co. out of the game. Yeah, they needed money to file a lawsuit, but we live in a civilized society where such debates can take place within the political process (and like it or not, the judiciary is part of the political process now). I suppose we could just go back to the days of picking up guns and shooting people, but I doubt you'd want that either. The problem isn't that 29% disagree, the problem is that 70% or so disagree with the cognizanti about what they need and the government doesn't think they should have that right. Sure, they can have free speech, but that doesn't mean the gov't need to give their voices any weight.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"I do find it ironic that a group of people who oppose most, if not all, taxes and government intervention are ok with the CSWMTD raising a tax and intervening in what was originally a private lawsuit."
Once the referendum was passed creating the district, it longer became a private lawsuit. The voters were then asked, again, whether they would like a tax increase expressly for the purpose of pursuing the lawsuit. They overwhelmingly said yes. What's ironic about that? If the CUMTD were willing to submit it's annexation plans and tax increases to referendum, we wouldn't be in a situation where the lawsuit was even necessary.
And, again, the CUMTD can make this lawsuit go away instantly by backing off its annexation of the territory in question. But they won't, because they want (but don't need) the property tax revenues from an area to which they will provide minimal service.
Geeze,
While I agree this seems to be a very sensitive matter and that the law is probably overlapping and needs to be decided in court, a continuing trend exists in this blog and others.
Many of the comments are well conceived and based on the best belief and interpretation of the author. Those comments may not set well or be in agreement with others who read an post and that is cool (kewl) too because that is how good solutions are conceived.
But disagreement expressed in the fashion of name calling or harsh adjectives like "Dumb", "Stupid", etc. serve no purpose except to erode and exacerbate the quality of comment. Frankly stated, it tends to "Piss People Off".
So out of courtesy and in the interest of encouraging creative comments, it a participant thinks someting is "Dumb" how about trying this or something like this.
"I am not sure your comment follows the facts and I'm uncertain it's meaning. Care to expand on your thoughts?"
A little sugar goes a long way.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Anonymous wrote at 5:19p on June 27: For what it's worth, most of the routes that use the articulated buses either don't run in the summer or make do with the shorter, regular buses.
Not entirely true - the 23E line has been running almost exclusively with the articulated buses, and doesn't do so during the regular year. I don't have the slightest clue why, as the 23E line never has a need for articulated buses. The 21 Quad is still running artic buses, but it's on Limited during the summer. The 22 and 26 aren't running, and they make up the bulk of the artic usage.