The News-Gazette gave the CUMTD a quarter-page guest commentary to respond to Sue Schimmel's letter to the editor, and since they refused to print Sue's rebuttal you can only read it here on IP:
I am sorry that Mr. Anderson feels discouraged by criticism of the CU-MTD. I am not sure what issues he feels we strayed from, but allow me to be clear where the "vocal minority" stands on the issues we feel need investigation.
- We simply don't understand how a "vocal minority" can be blamed for the lack of communication between the MTD board and those that want and need MTD service. Where buses are needed most (Public Health District, Plastipak, the North Prospect area as examples), a deaf ear is the result. The MTD professes great interest in serving the community, but they manage to slight those that need it most and force themselves upon those that don't use the service. It seems that listening is not one of the MTD board's fortes. A very vocal MAJORITY told the MTD board that service was not wanted or needed in certain areas, but the result was forced annexation. They insist that they know what's best for every element of our community, yet areas where buses are needed and wanted, service is lacking. It stands to reason (also not an MTD forte) that we question their motivations.
- Mr. Anderson tells us that we should feel good that the Federal government regularly reviews MTD operations. Frankly, Mr. Anderson, the Federal Government doing anything does not make me feel good. Rather "the vocal minority" would like to see some local investigation of what we feel are glaring inadequacies--the wastefulness and inefficiency of empty buses running where they are not needed, rate fare increases, and the highest tax rate of any MTD in the state of Illinois. How are all of the millions and millions of dollars they receive from taxpayers each year being spent?
- The MTD's mantra that the "vocal minority" are uncaring, self-serving members of this community who care not a whit about the "visually impaired, physically disabled and those who choose to use" the MTD is an offensive, unfair insult. There are many in "the vocal minority" who give generously to wonderful community organizations that benefit the entire CU community. There are also many more of the "vocal minority" who give of their time and talents to a multitude of community organizations. In this case, Mr. Anderson, you don't have the "full story." And if you think we don't pay taxes to support the MTD, I ask you where the $210,333 comes from that Unit 4 pays annually to the MTD to transport students? Where does the $12.5 million come from that the State of Illinois gives you? Where does the Federal grant money you receive each year come from? All of that money is OUR money, OUR tax dollars, OUR contribution to the MTD. We are tired of being painted as "self-serving" community members by the MTD board! To imply that we are shirking our responsibility to this community simply because we don't want the CU-MTD in our area is ridiculous.
- "The vocal minority" is pleased that the MTD can brag about the fact that 94% of 54% of households in CU are satisfied with the MTD. I wonder if the parents of the most recently killed student are among that group? Let me remind you of another set of statistics. The areas which contain the "vocal minority" voted 79% to 21% to establish our own MTD district. Why? Because we know we can assess our areas needs and serve the very few who need public transport FAR more economically and efficiently that the CU-MTD. The "vocal minority" does not believe in taxation without representation, a concept on which this country was founded. We put a question on the ballot and people voted to fund our own MTD. That happened before we were forcibly annexed into the CU-MTD district.
- I strongly question that the CU-MTD should brag about "reduced congestion" and "improved air quality." My neighbor and I carpool to the North Prospect area and on our way stop at the Community Recycling Center to drop off our plastic, glass, cardboard, tin, magazines and catalogs. I suggest we are being far better stewards of the environment than the numerous empty MTD buses we see on our way spewing fumes, wasting fuel, and causing traffic backups!
Constructive criticism is the way most people change their bad habits. I ask that the CU-MTD take this criticism to heart and start to listen to ALL elements of the community, make a public accounting of every tax dollar they receive, and stop making negative references about "the vocal minority" who are sick and tired of being slandered simply because we choose to question the aggressive behavior (forced annexations) of the MTD board.
--Sue Schimmel, Champaign
Wow. I don't know Ms. Schimmel, but I hope she's not as nasty as she sounds. No wonder the N-G wouldn't run it.
The article is RIGHT-ON! Here is something that I just learned. MTD takes a bus to the new Patterson Dental Building way out on Rt 150 for ONE RIDER. The Public Health Department and Plastipak have more people than that who desperately need the bus service. Why did MTD choose to go to Patterson??? How do they pick their routes????
I can see why the N-G didn't run Schimmel's rebuttal to the MTD's rebuttal. Her whining gets tiresome. So, she car pools and recycles. Good for her. That has nothing to do with whether the MTD is a resource our community should support.
"The vocal minority" is pleased that the MTD can brag about the fact that 94% of 54% of households in CU are satisfied with the MTD. I wonder if the parents of the most recently killed student are among that group?
Yeah, that's a fair, reasond argument
From the letter above...
The areas which contain the "vocal minority" voted 79% to 21% to establish our own MTD district. Why? Because we know we can assess our areas needs and serve the very few who need public transport FAR more economically and efficiently that the CU-MTD.
I would be interested in hearing the details on how the SWMTD is currently "serving the very few who need public transport." Last I heard all they have done is implement an additional tax to support a private citizen's lawsuit, but I may be missing something.
If Ms. Schimmel and her vocal minority (the SWCMTD) care about the people in the SWCMTD area so much why don't they volunteer to take all the elderly and handicapped people who call into the CUMTD from SW Champaign and Savoy asking for rides to their doctor's offices? All this conversation on how horrible the CUMTD is never goes anywhere constructive. How about putting your money where your mouthing off is? Start transporting people in wheel chairs, the blind, and the disabled where they need to go. There are dozens of folks stranded. Yes, I know, why did the handicapped people buy a house outside of the CUMTD is your answer. That is very Christian of you. How about people who were able-bodied who have lived there for a long time and now cannot drive. I guess you think they should try to sell their houses and move?
The people on this site who profess Christian values and post all these ugly snarling comments should be ashamed of themselves. Where is your commitment to helping the poor and disabled? Just last night we saw an CUMTD bus and the employee was helping an elderly person get to their house from their ADA ride. When was the last time you did that? And, BTW, CUMTD is providing service to the health district even though the health district moved without ever checking the routes or even contacting CUMTD to ask for new service. The comments from Ms. Schimmel are mean, inaccurate, irrational, and plain wrong. She should find something useful and helpful to do with her time!
"Her whining gets tiresome."
You obvously did not read Chairman Anderson's guest commentary.
"Last I heard all they have done is implement an additional tax to support a private citizen's lawsuit, but I may be missing something."
Actually I believe the last I heard the SWMTD was denied representation on Champaign County's Long Range Transportation Board. However they were allowed to attend the meetings like the rest of the public.
"Here is something that I just learned. MTD takes a bus to the new Patterson Dental Building way out on Rt 150 for ONE RIDER."
I was lead to believe Patterson Dental pays the MTD an additional fee for this service, like the school boards, the U of I, John Deere Classic etc. Remember 'When you gotta get there' you pay more.
Typical biased action by the News-Gazette in their support of the CUMTD. They allow the CUMTD Board President to run a Guest Commentary which picks out Ms. Schimmel by name then they deny Ms. Schimmel, private citizen, a rebuttal.
"allow the CUMTD Board President to run a Guest Commentary which picks out Ms. Schimmel by name then they deny Ms. Schimmel, private citizen, a rebuttal."
From the intro by Scott, my impression was that the reason Mr. Anderson mentioned her by name is because he was responding directly to her letter to the editor. In fact, his guest commentary was actually the rebuttal in this sequence, in reply to her initial attack. Ms. Schimmel's further response, then, would have been a rebuttal of a rebuttal.
Ideally, he should have just sent his own letter to the editor, and not been granted the guest commentary. That would probably have been the fairest way to go. As it is, since it would probably not be reasonable to expect the NG to continue giving them both guest space ad infinitum, they had to cut it off somewhere.
I would have cut it off one commentary earlier (by not granting his), but at least they both got one shot at each other.
To "Anonymous" (3:37 pm post):
It makes no sense to have two transit districts serving the same residents, so before the CSWMTD can start providing services the legality of the CUMTD's forced annexation of part of CSWMTD's territory must first be resolved. The pending lawsuit (referred to as a "private suit" by another misinformed individual who refuses to acknowledge the fact that the law required a resident of the CSWMTD to file suit and that said lawsuit has been paid for thus far by donations from dozens of residents).
Why do you resort to attacking all of the residents within the CSWMTD's boundaries, calling them unchristian, uncaring and insensitive, just because they think they can meet the demand for transit services in their area for less than the $450,000/year the CUMTD is levying? What is so unamerican or unchristian about that?
Ms. Schimmel is a tireless volunteer, cares deeply about her neighbors, community and country, and her response to the CUMTD is right on the money.
I have yet to see/hear anyone defend the CUMTD with anything but ad hominem attacks on its detractors, or the same old tired saws about how wonderful mass transit is (regardless of how inefficient, inconsiderate, arrogant or heavy-handed the provider is).
MTD has a new shuttle service dedicated to transporting drunks to the Illini football games. It runs down Goodwin from University, over to 4th at Gregory, and then down to Pennsylvania.
Anybody have any thoughts on that use of taxpayer money?
I always liked walking to the games. Being part of a huge, orange crowd of drunks was kind of fun. And it burned off some of my beer calories. Why do people need to ride buses to games?
MTD sure likes to promote laziness. Not to mention sprawl.
People will still walk to games. But perhaps some people who DROVE to the games and whined about the parking situation will now take the bus from the free lots. The parking lots have always been full, there has never been a shortage of people who don't like to walk anywhere, including to Illini games. There was certainly no shortage of private vehicle traffic headed that way this afternoon.
There were still plenty of crowds of drunken orange-clad kids out there this afternoon, despite the rain.
Sprawl, you say? Much of the sprawl development in this metro area (including the various luxury student apartments going up in Savoy) is not in the area currently served by the MTD, or with anything like reasonably frequent bus service. No, the vast majority of those people drive their own private vehicles. Some of the apartments do provide their own private shuttles (part of the "luxury," I suppose) to give that wonderful "living in a senior retirement community in Vegas" feel, though. You can see them picking up students at the Illini Union, next to the MTD stop.
MTD facilitates sprawl by immediately servicing new peripheral developments.
Are there any jews in the CSWMTD area to comment on this issue?
"I have yet to see/hear anyone defend the CUMTD with anything but ad hominem attacks on its detractors, or the same old tired saws about how wonderful mass transit is (regardless of how inefficient, inconsiderate, arrogant or heavy-handed the provider is)."
You are not alone, Scott. Many are waiting any meaningful defense of this dictitoral organization, especially of its taxation and annexation policies.
As a resident of SW Champaign who sees very large, very empty buses driving through my neighborhood, I am convinced that CUMTD could just pay for a taxi whenever anyone out here needs a ride, and be way ahead financially at the end of the year. Seriously.
I'd like the CUMTD start by establishing more logical, regular routes in the interior of CU and then extend it out to further areas. Providing special transport for special needs riders outside of the area could be integrated.
But my experience is that lots of people within 1-2 miles of their workplace drive constantly in CU and Mass Transit should start with "Mass" before it moves on to exhaustive service of the whole area.
I question whether Ms. Schimmel knows what "Constructive Criticism" is.
"She" also would do "better" to use less "quotation marks" around her words in order to "mock" and "be condescending" to "her" "enemies".
Xian, was your post intended to be satirical or just hypocritical?
I always go to mass before riding on the mtd for the week. Never know when you'll get run over by a bus and need absolution.
BUSES GOOD.
MTD BAD.
Tapley: Both. The first post was clearly constructive. The second post was tonal, which I still feel was constructive, but slightly ironic.
But I mean let's face it, it was a pretty crappy letter. Even if it was not printed because of content--which would be unacceptable for a city paper--the writer certainly gave the NG enough good excuses to not print it.
I don't think such a letter helps anyone, including those who share it's point-of-view. Therefore, I imagine it was either an honest mistake brought on by sincerity mixed with outrage, or someone who just likes being nasty to others. I suppose the same could be said about you posting it here as you did, although with you I can say pretty clearly that it's the former.
Maybe...
BUSES GOOD.
CUMTD BAD.
No facts, no amount of logic or information has any impact on folks who hate the CUMTD. Mr. Tapley has found his hate of the district to be a wonderful publicity tool and I expect he will never give that up. How he can feel that these sorts of statements prove his point I do not know.
Maybe...
BUSES GOOD.
CUMTD BAD.
It sounds more like a cheer from a football game than anything else. The buses in this community are equipped with automatic people counters and the number of people they report riding are based on the actual number of people getting off and on the buses and it is not just students. The surveys done by several different entities in town show a very high percentage of the community uses the buses. There are no taxi cabs in this community that are accessible for the handicapped so I do not know how the folks on this website who suggest that this should be the system for the disabled is supposed to work. I think the truth is you really do not care. If you cared you would talk to the local organizations who represent the handicapped, like PACE, to hear what they say about the issue. PACE, BTW serves on committees within the CUMTD to provide them with input on service needs. And, BTW, those folks living in the CUMTD district can qualify for half-price cab fare so this is one of the services that is provided if you care to investigate it. http://www.cumtd.com/ridingmtd/services/Default.aspx
Certainly Mr. Tapley not everyone in SW Champaign is as uncaring and greedy as the many posters to this website who continue to insist, despite the rather large about of data provided, that the CUMTD is a very effective, efficient, and responsive public transit service. I know that I am wasting my breath. You can all continue with your false statements that the buses are empty, when I can never find a seat when I ride, and that the system is arrogant, blah, blah, blah. I think you are arrogant to suggest that you represent all the people in the SW part of Champaign. The people I know who live in SW Champaign and want and need transit are afraid to say so. One of my friends who lives out in Lincolnshire, where Ms. Schimmel lives, told me they would not speak up because their neighbors would burn their house down. So do not tell me you know what the area wants or that you are taking care of your neighbors. You have bullied and frightened the people who want transit into silence.
P.S. Why don't you share with us your plans for transporting the elderly, handicapped, and disabled Mr. Tapley? Perhaps the board of the SWCTMD will tell everyone how they plan to provide the same level of service currently offered through CUMTD without taxes? Instead of avoiding the issues by attacking the CUMTD why don't you say what your are going to do?
Euthanasia is clearly more cost-effective than transportation.
The above comment is disgusting.
I believe it was sarcastic in nature. Either that, or disgusting. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Anonymoujs (3:12 p.m.) said:
"The surveys done by several different entities in town show a very high percentage of the community uses the buses."
I wish Anon would have enlightened us with some actual data. I would love to see some data on actual ridership south of Kirby Avenue and west of Neil Street. I've just always thought that CUMTD kept that under wraps because it does not support their case.
Can the MTD apologists at least concede that CUMTD should provide buses where there is an existing need, rather than follow a "Field of Dreams" approach, i.e., "if we run the buses long enough, eventually someone who wants our service will move out here?"
I they probably include students from both College and Local public schools.
If you are actually interested in seeing some of the data that is available you can look at this website: http://www.ihavemiplan.com/shared/pdfs/CUMTD_onboard_report_ver_9_.pdf
The number of passengers on a bus in the outlying areas of the community will naturally be lower than in the core. In the morning the trips are mostly going from the outlying areas into the core and then the reverse. So if you get on the bus at Kirby and Prospect there will be a fewer people, but as the bus heads into the core it fills to capacity. The same is true on the way home. The bus is packed in the core and as it drops riders at their destinations fewer and fewer people are left. Peak hour service is more frequent than the rest of the day and many of the routes are shortened in the evenings and overnight.
To suggest that because the buses are not always full of people they should not be operated is like suggesting that since our streets are not always being used by vehicles they should not be paved. Our streets are empty the majority of the time does that mean we do not need them? There are many people who want the service who live in the outlying areas. As the new developments with multi-family housing are built there will be more and more people wanting to ride. Developers who build new housing request bus service for their developments.
Yeah, I think some people are missing the fact that it costs very little to run a bus extra stops on any side of its route. An empty bus is not by itself a sign of waste.
Once again an anonymous CUMTD shill spews vitriolic, insulting remarks, talks about data with no specifics and suggests that anyone who isn't gleeful about being force-annexed--with no democratic input in the process--into the highest property tax rate MTD in the entire state of Illinois is some kind of hater of the poor, the elderly and the handicapped.
It's a good thing that Illinois mass transit districts are the only taxing bodies in the U.S. with unfettered annexation power, because with the logic expressed (anonymously) above, we'd all be publicly shamed (actually forced) to turn over all of our assets to anyone claiming to help the poor, elderly, handicapped or any other good cause with tax dollars.
Isn't it possible to support mass transit without supporting CUMTD's heavy-handed, money-grabbing, arrogance?
The CUMTD's rationale for forced annexation is that "everyone benefits," for the "reduced" congestion in Urbana-Champaign, and like police, fire, parks, and roads, everyone should pay their fare share. But everyone IN THE WHOLE STATE who has students at UIUC, or visits here, or does business here "benefits" -- so why doesn't the CUMTD annex all the way to Chicago, the Mississippi, and the Ohio Rivers? Heck, I shouldn't be giving them any ideas.
Unlike, of course your accusation that a poster was an "anonymous CUMTD shill spewing vitriolic, insulting remarks." Totally respectful and fair minded, that.
I'm no expert on the CUMTD, but I do ride it a lot. I don't know where these routes are that were put in place to serve only one person, but when I ride in to work in the mornings, it's rare to see less that 30 people or so by the time the bus gets to my stop. I actually counted on the way home Friday. There were 48 people on board shortly after I got on board.
To Big E:
Well yeah, in SW Champaign the buses will be mostly empty. That sounds like near the edge of town. By the time the buses get out there most people will have gotten off. Or, perhaps it's a bus that's just about to start it's run. There won't be many people on it at that point. As it gets to where people want to go, it will fill up. I don't see any other way it could possibly be.
My personal experience with taking the MTD buses to and from the SW District has matched the description given by the anonymous poster. Typically when I get on the bus in the SW District the bus is nearly empty. Often the people getting on at my stop are the first ones on the bus. By the time we actually get to one of the bigger transfer stops it is typically at least half full with even more people getting on board. On the way back the buses empty out quite a bit before they get to the outlying area where my stop is.
During the early morning and afternoon/evening quiite a bit of the ridership appears to be students and low income workers getting to and from class/work. Especially from the apartments along Kirby. That particular route goes to a major transfer point both on campus and in downtown Urbana where people can connect to almost any other route to anywhere in town. The other two daytime routes that are around or near the SW District have similar big transfer points or end stops later down the route. Perhaps I've just missed the times that the #4, #10, or #9 has used articulated buses but it must not be the norm. I used to ride the 4 daily, I ride the 10 fairly often, and haven taken the 9 every now and then over the years among others. The big articulated buses I've seen have almost always exclusively been primarily campus routes that actually need the space.
While the complaints about the MTD's management appear fairly legitimate to me and the lack of accountability troublesome, the MTD service itself has always been pretty impressive to me. It's not as good as the mass transit I've seen in larger cities but compared to cities of similar size it seems pretty top notch. I'm absolutely no fan of how the MTD went about thwarting the democratic process in order to annex the SW District and pretty troubled by the stories about how it is managed with little accountability... but I have a hard time buying into the horror stories of the services they provide, especially on the routes I take or have taken fairly regularly.
My biggest worry about the SW District getting its own MTD is a reduction in service where it is needed. I hope they can live up to the promises of providing better service cheaper, but I haven't really seen anything other than promises that convince me that's the case. As far as the annex fight and the problem with CUMTD accountability I think their arguments have at least some merit. But am I supporting a group who will end up cutting services I rely on in the end?
I've seen a great deal of arguments that many of the current services are unnecessary wastes of resources even though the three daytime routes that go around or near the area go along routes that allow people to have access to Parkland, U of I, the court houses, both downtowns, clinics, and major transfer points that allow access to most of the cities. It doesn't seem to add up.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
IF I lived in the SWCMTD district right now 9thank goodness I don't) and I needed transit servces, I would call Mr. Tapley and or every SWCMTD Board member until they came and picked me up and delivered me to my in-town destination. I would give them a dollar.
If they refused, I would ask them: " since I am FORCED to pay taxes (for services I don't get, all I'm getting for my money is meetings and lawsuits) why can't I get a ride?
What is the home number of Tapley and each of the SWCMTD Board members and what are their work telephone numbers, too, I might need a ride during the day.
"If they refused, I would ask them: " since I am FORCED to pay taxes (for services I don't get, all I'm getting for my money is meetings and lawsuits) why can't I get a ride?"
You're not being forced. Your neighbors overwhelmingly passed a referendum implementing those taxes.
Please tell me - when was the last time CUMTD had a referendum, either for a tax increase or for an annexation?
Why don't you call your fairy godmother, too. Maybe she'll give you a ride.
"Please tell me - when was the last time CUMTD had a referendum, either for a tax increase or for an annexation?"
What's that got to do with it? Is acting like the CUMTD the right thing to do? Heavy handed, dragging almost a quarter of the population into a distriict they were against and then taxing them, and, worst of all, providing no services, at all, except meetings and lawsuits.
Bash the CUMTD all you want, but at least it provides someting tangible, unlike the SWMTD. I know, it's a lower tax, but if I'm taxed at all I ought to get something for it. The SWMTD has FORCED a quarter of the voters in, taxed them, and given them nothing. Why not let those people opt out of paying taxes? Put THAT to a referendum.
And, lastly, how often will the SWMTD hold referenda? Will it be often to test the will of the people, or will it be rarely, JUST LIKE the CUMTD?
That's pretty obvious. Once you start a governmental entity, especially a taxing body, they don't go away, they only expand, and tax, and expand, and tax and ...
"What's that got to do with it?"
You're the one claiming that you're being "forced" to support the CSWMTD, even though your neighbors overwhelmingly approved this tax rate.
"Bash the CUMTD all you want, but at least it provides someting tangible, unlike the SWMTD."
I don't bash the CUMTD. I think it does an excellent job in providing transit in CU. I wish they were a little more accountable, but that's a minor gripe, and one that could be fixed by having an elected rather than appointed Board.
"And, lastly, how often will the SWMTD hold referenda?'
I don't know, but that's not my point - my point is that it's hardly valid to say you're being "forced" to pay a tax that your neighbors supported overwhelmingly. The CSWMTD didn't "force" anything on you. They asked, and your neighbors approved. If anything, your neighbors "forced" it on you by voting their preferences, one voter at a time. But griping about your neighbors isn't the axe you want to grind, so you'll continue to misplace blame.
For years the CU MTD had a district annexation policy which required any area outside the district to have a common boundry with the district, clear need for public transportation and desire by those in the area to be annex. I am told this was the CU MTD policy when the Maynard Lake area was annex over a decade ago. They were adjacent to the district, requested bus transportation and petitioned (majority of the homeowners at the time signed) for annexation. Apparently there was opposition to this at the time but they were in the minority. The CU MTD annexed the Maynard Lake Subdivisions and those Lincolnshire Fields Subdivision east of I-57.
In recent years however, the CU MTD has updated their annexation policy to one of a Force Majeure type due to their unique lack of local oversight. There little doubt the CU MTD could do a better job of providing service and there is evidence the CU MTD wastes precious resources by serving the outlying areas. However, the CU MTD most valid criticism is their abusive power over the public enabled by the lack of local voter oversight. That abuse is clearly reflected by their new annexation policy and bestowed complete validity for the formation of the CS MTD through petition and referendum.
Anonymous (10:03AM):
The stated purpose of the CSWMTD referendum was to fight the lawsuit challenging the CUMTD's forced annexation--not for the purpose of providing services. CUMTD provides service, albeit limited service, to the CSWMTD territory now, so if you called me for a ride I would direct you to the CUMTD.
If the court doesn't invalidate the CUMTD's annexation the CSWMTD will dissolve itself, as it would be senseless to have two mass transit districts serving the same territory.
In regard to how frequently the CSWMTD will hold referenda, that would be up to the CSWMTD board of directors. The CSWMTD's property tax levy is constrained by the "tax cap" (once again, thank God for PTELL!), so there is little worry about it turning into a sprawling, out-of-control bureaucracy like CUMTD.
"The stated purpose of the CSWMTD referendum was to fight the lawsuit challenging the CUMTD's forced annexation--not for the purpose of providing services. CUMTD provides service, albeit limited service, to the CSWMTD territory now, so if you called me for a ride I would direct you to the CUMTD."
The majority of the CSWMTD is not in the CUMTD so how are is the CSWMTD planning to provide transit service to those residents? You may have transit service Mr. Tapley, but the majority of people in your new district do not. Mr. Tapley's phone number is: 351-7031
Those of you wanting Mr. Tapley's phone number can find it in the phone book, or on the County Board's website.
Of course, that won't stop this fellow from trying to grind this particular axe.
Yeah, if you would, it might be a good idea to delete the phone number. I know it's public knowledge, but I always get creeped out by that kind of information being available on a blog like this.
The CSWMTD's property tax levy is constrained by the "tax cap" (once again, thank God for PTELL!), so there is little worry about it turning into a sprawling, out-of-control bureaucracy like CUMTD.
Just to clairfy - CUMTD's property tax extension is also constrained by PTELL and has little to do with the CUMTD's growth, which I believe has primarily been through annexation and federal funding. CSWMTD could also grow by annexation and would possibly be eligible for federal funding as well. .
Bob Loblaw
Anonymous: The majority of the CSWMTD residents were annexed into CUMTD, and they voted better than 3-to-1 to create their own district in an attempt to avoid annexation and nearly 3-to-1 to pay a tax to fight the annexation in court.
Xian: Thanks for your concern but my phone number is easily obtainable by anyone who knows how to use Google (or a phone book). I don't get very many calls--haven't had a single negative call or e-mail regarding CSWMTD/CUMTD from anyone who doesn't work for CUMTD (and I've received dozens of unsolicited well wishes, offers of support, etc.). The anonymous poster telling everyone to call me doesn't even take his own advice.
Mr. Loblaw said: "Just to clairfy - CUMTD's property tax extension is also constrained by PTELL"
Just to clarify, CUMTD jacked their tax rate up to the maximum allowable by law right before PTELL went into effect, they have levied the maximum allowable ever since, and property tax has been a major source of their growth as their levy has doubled (half of the growth coming via forced annexations) in the past few years.
Just to clarify, CUMTD jacked their tax rate up to the maximum allowable by law right before PTELL went into effect
Throughout the state, when faced with the implementation of tax caps, all kinds of taxing districts did this including schools, parks, townships, villages & counties. This type of activity was not limited to the CUMTD. While it certainly screwed the taxpayer, from a business manager's standpoint it was the prudent thing to do to ensure that no property tax money was "left on the table" in future years.
I'm no fan of the CUMTD either, Scott, and I truly hope you guys out there win your lawsuit, but why does it seem that you get so cross when someone makes a post that doesn't whole heartedly agree with your position? I was simply pointing out that as far as PTELL goes the CUMTD and the CSWMTD operate under the same limits. Annexations (forced or voluntary) and new construction are the only ways for any capped taxing district to increase their extension above the rate of inflation without having a referendum to increase the rate of taxation or to waive the PTELL limit.
Bob Loblaw
How are you planning to provide transit services to the residents of the CSWMTD? If you should happen to win the lawsuit how are you going to provide service to the disabled, elderly, etc.? You spend all your time and energy attacking the CUMTD. How are you going to provide good service?
a: Mobile euthanasia suites.
While it certainly screwed the taxpayer, from a business manager's standpoint it was the prudent thing to do to ensure that no property tax money was "left on the table" in future years.
Golly, that is a nice way to put it. Heaven forbid a taxing body "leave money on the table".
Heaven forbid a taxing body "leave money on the table".
I'm not defending or condoning the practice but it happened throughout the State as tax caps were passing. For a taxing district such as a school district, constantly faced with unfunded state and federal mandates as well as iffy funding from the State, it made sense to max out your levy prior to tax caps. For a mass transit district with no such mandates it is much harder to defend.
Bob Loblaw
I'm not defending or condoning the practice but it happened throughout the State as tax caps were passing.
Agreed.
I just find it distasteful for any taxing body to essentially consider the maximum possible legal tax levy as "their money", and that if they don't take it all they are doing the taxpayers a great favor. It kind of sets me off. It is especially irritating when the taxing body doing so never has to face the voters.
Tip of the hat to ya SCOTT.....if there are this many comments about the MTD, let's all agree it's not the most prudent enterprises the government has offered. This is an arrogant, lazy, bunch of people who spend money willy nilly with no regard to the wishes of the taxpayers. They are beholden to no one unless you count a weak county board as having oversight. Whilst VOLK flies to TAMPA for lunch with no regard to anyone, all the MTD employees continue the "NEW GUEST" posts to prop up the king. How disgusting...Let's see what our MTD has accomplished
1) ERECTED THE FABULOUS TRANSPORTATION CENTER, a nice hub of vulgar youths, fights, and assorted crazies. This is quite the place, not sure if it's listed in the MICHELIN GUIDE yet.....
2) A NICE PARADE OF EMPTY BUSES: Who cares ...it's not our money. Check out the MTD to WILLARD....wow, I counted 2 people on 1 trip and up to 2 on another.
3) The highest tax rate in ILLINOIS....
4) GOBBLING UP SW CHAMPAIGN and god knows who else
Anymore?
It is especially irritating when the taxing body doing so never has to face the voters.
Most especially so.
Bob Loblaw
What I'd like to know, if it comes to it, is how do we work out the logistics of having two MTDs? Is the SW-MTD proposing to buy their own buses? If so, do they intend to run them only on the streets of their own district, or would they want to run them on the CU-MTD streets too? If it's the former, then there will have to be one or more transfer stops along the boundary between the districts, if it's the latter, then there will be two sets of buses on the streets. If their buses are allowed to use CU-MTD streets, then is the SW-MTD prepared to chip in for the maintainence and repair of CU-MTD streets? Maybe all these questions have already been answered, but will someone out there be kind enough to answer them again?
Whilst VOLK flies to TAMPA for lunch with no regard to anyone, all the MTD employees continue the "NEW GUEST" posts to prop up the king.
I'm issuing this challenge to both JohnBoy and Scott.... come up with some real evidence that Volk is misappropriating funds by traveling around "for lunch" or prove that anybody who makes a post in disagreement of what the CSWMTD is an agent of the CU-MTD. Seriously. Every time JohnBoy opens his browser on this subject, it's to make accusations of gross misappropriation of funds. Anytime someone doesn't agree with Scott, they're apparently an agent of the CUMTD. Never mind the facts that:
1) it's good for officials to travel to other areas and bring back ideas for here. It sparks innovation and tries to make their service better for their taxpayers. Governmental agencies (and private business) do it all the time, and the CUMTD isn't any exception, nor should they be. Let's see some PROOF of this RAMPANT ABUSE of PUBLIC FUNDS for PERSONAL RECREATION, or SHUT UP about it.
2) You may have 71% of the residents in the CSWMTD in agreement with your personal vendetta against the CUMTD, but that means 29% of the CSWMTD thinks you are wrong. I seriously dobut all 29% of those people (especially in those neighborhoods) are working for the MTD. People disagree with you, learn to come back with a real response instead of bitching that every person who disagrees with you must be part of the "Sinister Cabal of MTD Employees out to Discredit Scott Tapley". Paranoid much?
How is the CSWMTD going to provide transit service? All this hysterical carrying on about the CUMTD, most of which is inaccurate, does not answer the primary question. If you have a transit district how are you going to provide service? If you want FTA or state funds to operate you will have to have a revenue stream which means taxes. In order to even come close to the service the CUMTD offers you will have to spend a good deal more money than the CUMTD since your district is so small you will not be able to get discounts on handicapped accessible vehicles by buying larger numbers of vehicles. You will have to provide handicapped accessible vehicles to meet federal ADA laws.
Please enlighten us as to your plans for the future of our community.
"1) it's good for officials to travel to other areas and bring back ideas for here. It sparks innovation and tries to make their service better for their taxpayers."
While I agree with this statement, it is difficult to apply to the CU MTD regarding their European fact gathering trips while viewing Train/Tram systems with the potential of being adapted to CU. Obviously there would be no documentation showing abuse, but neither could these trips be justified as prudent use of the district's tax dollars given the vote against the CU MTD's proposed 'light rail system'.
"2) You may have 71% of the residents in the CSWMTD in agreement with your personal vendetta against the CUMTD, but that means 29% of the CSWMTD thinks you are wrong."
I would consider myself quite fortunate to have 71% of any group of people agreeing with me. Scott should feel proud and rightly so. Please detail the last time you witnessed a 71% approval rating?
How is the CSWMTD going to provide transit service?
Read Scott Tapley's posts.
The stated purpose of the CSWMTD referendum was to fight the lawsuit challenging the CUMTD's forced annexation--not for the purpose of providing services.
They have no intention of providing transit service. They will not need to purchase buses. Their sole purpose is to keep the CUMTD out of their neighborhood.
PS. I do not work for the CUMTD and do not have any close friends who work there. I don't even ride the bus to work since I need a vehicle for my job. However, I did ride the bus when finishing up my degree at the U of I and also rode the shuttle from the Assembly Hall lots when I briefly worked at the U of I. I appreciated the available services when I needed them and I continue to pay taxes to them even though I no longer use the service. BTW I also pay a lot of money to the Unit 4 School District and I no longer have children in school!
New subdivisions need annexation agreements with Champaign, Urbana or Savoy to get sanitary sewer service. When annexation occurs the residents should not get to cherry pick the services they want.
Bob Loblaw: "...why does it seem that you get so cross when someone makes a post that doesn't whole heartedly agree with your position?"
I don't intend to come across that way, but I understand how some of my short (terse?) replies could be seen as such.
Arvid: "I'm issuing this challenge to both JohnBoy and Scott.... come up with some real evidence that Volk is misappropriating funds by traveling around "for lunch" or prove that anybody who makes a post in disagreement of what the CSWMTD is an agent of the CU-MTD."
I posted a copy of Volk's travel voucher (obtained through a FOIA request) for his trip to Ft. Myers, Florida, at taxpayer expense, to attend a "retirement luncheon" on IP last year. I'll try to find it and post a link to it again in this thread. He flew down and back the same day for lunch for around $800.
Several posts have asked what services the CSWMTD will provide and when, and others have suggested they know the answers to those questions.
All such questions will be answered by the CSWMTD board of directors--not Scott Tapley--and only after the court has resolved the challenge to the CUMTD's annexation.
Scott,
That post is right here.
Thanks, Gordy. I just re-scanned it but was having difficulty figuring out how to post it.
No worries.
I just used the search button on the top right of the page, and searched for "Volk lunch". :-)
I'm really glad sometimes that all of our migrations haven't caused us to lose any old posts or comments. Going back now to read some of them is hilarious.
The guy who retired (volk lunch) is the same guy who signed off on some fta complaints relating to MTD, i think. That stuff is all at badcumtd.com.
Scott,
In a post on your blog made 8/23/2005, you suggest that since property taxes only represent around 15% of the CUMTD's budget the levy could be eliminated by making some small changes in operations (smaller buses, reducing lobbying and travel expenses and seeking more federal funding are mentioned). I was just curious, if the property tax levy was eliminated do you think the residents of the CSWMTD would still be opposed to being annexed into the CUMTD?
It is amazing that with the money the CUMTD gets from student fees and contracts with areas outside the district their property tax rate is the highest in the State, by .10 according to the last available edition (2004) of Property Tax Statistics. It is also amazing that there are only 4 or 6 MTDs in the State that even levy property taxes (depending on which table you look at in the Property Tax Statistics). Does anyone know the total number of MTDs there are in the State?
Bob Loblaw
Bob Loblaw:
It has been my opinion from the start that a majority the opposition to CUMTD annexation would evaporate if CUMTD didn't have such an onerous property tax rate. People in the CSWMTD have other objections, too, but I think the resistance would drop below 50% without a CUMTD property tax.
Sorry, I don't remember how many MTDs there are in Illinois. I thought it was around 20.
Scott
I am curious. Maybe I have my facts wrong. Do both the CUMTD and the SWMTD have potential taxing authority in the SWC area? What if the courts decide that the CUMTD was right, and the SW area was properly in the CUMTD area? Is the county treasurer collecting taxes for the CUMTD in that area? If not, what happens to the tax liability if the residents are in the CUMTD, will they have to pay up for the taxes that weren't paid? If the treasurer IS collecting CUMTD taxes and the CUMTD doesn't win the lawsuit, what then, will there be a rebate to SW area residents?
Taxes can be withheld, but soon or later they have to be paid, right?
A few points in reference to purplelady's post;
" I do not work for the CUMTD and do not have any close friends who work there. I don't even ride the bus to work since I need a vehicle for my job. However, I did ride the bus when finishing up my degree at the U of I and also rode the shuttle from the Assembly Hall lots when I briefly worked at the U of I."
I am in the same position and had exactly the same experience with one exception, the buses I rode were not owned and operated by the CU MTD at the time and they were not supported by property tax dollars. Those facts make me even more appreciative of the service I enjoyed while attending and working at the U of I.
"New subdivisions need annexation agreements with Champaign, Urbana or Savoy to get sanitary sewer service."
This is a relatively new requirement by the cities and villages in this area of the state. It is a "carrot on the stick" approach used by municipal governments to encourage petitions/agreements for annexation. The sewer reference is interesting as there are areas within the limits of the cities which do not have sanitary sewer service. School boundries do not line up with city limits. There are many people in the Unit #4's school district who are not in the City of Champaign or Savoy.
"When annexation occurs the residents should not get to cherry pick the services they want."
There is NO "cherry picking' being done by the residents of those areas recently force annexed into the CU MTD. These annexations by the CU MTD neither occured in conjunction with the cities annexation nor did they annex the same areas. CU MTD annexes areas both inside and outside the city limits, just as they chose to serve or not serve areas within their district.
"The stated purpose of the CSWMTD referendum was to fight the lawsuit challenging the CUMTD's forced annexation--not for the purpose of providing services. CUMTD provides service, albeit limited service, to the CSWMTD territory now, so if you called me for a ride I would direct you to the CUMTD."
You should be more careful running your mouth in public, Mr. Tapley.
The only allowable purposes for creating a Mass Transit Act under the Local Mass Transit Act are "For the purpose of acquiring, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining mass transit facilities for public service or subsidizing the operation thereof a local Mass Transit District may be created.." 70 ILCS 3610/3
Not to mention the whole lawsuit was doomed from the start since the CUMTD annexed before the referendum passed. You can't have two districts in the same place providing the same exact services. The circuit court was wrong not dispose of this from the start.
This is the guy trying win a lawsuit against the CUMTD? Those people who gave you donations should be demanding their money back.
"The only allowable purposes for creating a Mass Transit Act under the Local Mass Transit Act are "For the purpose of acquiring, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining mass transit facilities for public service or subsidizing the operation thereof a local Mass Transit District may be created.." 70 ILCS 3610/3"
Scott's comment was referencing the purpose of the referendum, not the purpose of the District itself.
Reading is FUNdamental, especially if you're trying to be as insulting as you were.
"Not to mention the whole lawsuit was doomed from the start since the CUMTD annexed before the referendum passed. You can't have two districts in the same place providing the same exact services. The circuit court was wrong not dispose of this from the start."
Clearly the Court feels that there are issues worth considering. Perhaps you should allow them to do so?
"Scott's comment was referencing the purpose of the referendum, not the purpose of the District itself."
Nice spin attempt. The purpose of the referendum was to create the SWMTD. Follow your own advice and at least do a little basic reading on the situation.
"Nice spin attempt. The purpose of the referendum was to create the SWMTD. Follow your own advice and at least do a little basic reading on the situation."
There were two referenda, and you're confusing them.
The first was to create the CSWMTD. The second was to fund the lawsuit, and is the purpose to which Scott Tapley is referring above.
Follow your own advice and at least do a little reading on the situation.
You should be more careful running your mouth in public, Mr. Tapley.
Sounds wike someone is a widdle bit angwy.
More spin. Both referendums have the same purpose. Trying to opt-out of services that any reasonable homeowner purchasing property would have known would eventually exist. The name of the MTD is the Champaign-Urbana MTD. You think maybe that if you buy property in the City of Champaign (or where an annexation agreement exists with the City) that eventually you might have to pay for that service.
When is the referendum concerning 'acquiring, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining mass transit facilities for public service or subsidizing the operation thereof'? Scott has stated numerous times that he his only intention was to block the CUMTD from SW Champaign. Anyone following this situation knows this.
"More spin. Both referendums have the same purpose."
First referendum (2006-03-21):
Second referendum (2007-04-17):
Clearly, despite a string of false statements from you, the two referenda had a different purpose.
The first referenda was for creation of a district with an unstated mission - and until passage, there was no Board appointed to set a mission. To date, even if Mr. Tapley had made statements about the mission of the CSWMTD, it wouldn't matter. Tapley doesn't serve on the CSWMTD Board, and therefore has no vote on what the District's mission is or is not.
The second referenda was for a tax increase, which the CSWMTD Board stated was for the express purpose of funding a lawsuit to see if the District could continue to legally exist. Again - Mr. Tapley is not on the CSWMTD Board.
I'm not anti-CUMTD, but if you're just going to make stuff up and insult people, I'm going to keep refuting it, using links and facts and such to do so. Since you can't back up your personal attacks, maybe you should stop making them?
Thanks SCOTT for the info on the VOLK LUNCH TAP OF $800. I'm getting dizzy with all the spin on how this trip is "necessary". Everytime I see these old folks on pensions scrapping by, I have this picture of VOLK flying off to FLORIDA for a lunch date.....you gotta be pretty calloused not to think this is abusive.I'm holding my breath there's not a rumor of a TRAM being built in TAHITI....whew..
"I'm holding my breath there's not a rumor of a TRAM being built in TAHITI....whew.."
Actually the CU MTD has it in our Long Range Transportation Plan. So you can just sit back, relax, pay your property taxes, vote for whoever and the CU MTD will build a TRAM system right here in CU.
No one on the CSWMTD has ever discussed their ideas regarding how they plan to provide transit service to the elderly and disabled, much less anyone else living in their district. Mr. Tapley has never mentioned how he hopes the district will provide transit. All they have ever done is trash the CUMTD. Once they mentioned they would megotiate with the CUMTD for service. They must be drinking too much Koolaid if they think that is going to happen.
"No one on the CSWMTD has ever discussed their ideas regarding how they plan to provide transit service to the elderly and disabled, much less anyone else living in their district. Mr. Tapley has never mentioned how he hopes the district will provide transit."
In my opinion, it would be premature to have those discussions until the lawsuit is settled, providing for whether the district can legally exist.
"All they have ever done is trash the CUMTD."
I don't think that's "all they have ever done."
I agree that the CUMTD has been attacked too often. But some of the complaints about CUMTD have merit, and some don't.
On September 8th, 2007 at 01:43 PM, cheesy poofs said:
From the letter above...
The areas which contain the "vocal minority" voted 79% to 21% to establish our own MTD district. Why? Because we know we can assess our areas needs and serve the very few who need public transport FAR more economically and efficiently that the CU-MTD.
I would be interested in hearing the details on how the SWMTD is currently "serving the very few who need public transport." Last I heard all they have done is implement an additional tax to support a private citizen's lawsuit, but I may be missing something.
Five days and counting now with no details provided. Are we to assume that they are not doing this as the letter writer claims? If not, are they not in violation of the state statute referenced above? I usually agree with you IP, but in this case it looks like the intent in the forming of the district was just to block the annexation of the MTD and not to provide services. I applaud the crusade against taxation without representation, but is creating another taxing body that serves nobody really the answer?
"I usually agree with you IP, but in this case it looks like the intent in the forming of the district was just to block the annexation of the MTD and not to provide services."
What we think was "the intent in forming the district" is irrelevant. The referendum was worded to create a district without mention of services, and and the referendum passed overwhelmingly.
Now, if you want to talk about the mission of the district, that's a little different - but the mission of the District is set by the CSWMTD Board, and can be changed by that Board whenever they'd like.
I assume that the CSWMTD Board (on which, I repeat, Scott Tapley does not serve) is waiting until the lawsuit is settled to decide what services, (if any - I don't know what their plans are), to offer. I make this assumption because it makes so much common sense. Why start announcing services and buying equipment and hiring people and signing contracts when, six months from now, a court might rule that you never legally existed?
And, in addition, the CUMTD is already providing limited service to the CSWMTD area. Do we really want both districts providing services to the same area, competing for the handful of riders in the area?
Common sense says that CSWMTD should wait for the outcome of the lawsuit, and that's just what they're doing.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as I feel that the intent in forming the district is very relevant in light of the state statute referenced above. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, putting ears on it dont make it a bunny. One thing we agree on is that it is for the courts to decide.
"I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as I feel that the intent in forming the district is very relevant in light of the state statute referenced above."
First, I think you're confusing "intent" and "purpose."
Intent in the creation of an MTD is impossible to judge, because, before it's formed, there's no Board and nothing official, other than the wording of the referendum. How do you determine what exactly is the "intent in forming the District?" On the campaign literature? On the mission statement of the PAC that supported the campaign? On the words of a spokesman? I'd argue that none of those are "official," as they each mean absolutely nothing if the Board appointed post-creation wants to go in a different direction.
Purpose, on the other hand, sounds to me more like "mission." And the mission/purpose can only be stated by the official body itself, in this case, the Board. And there is no Board before before the referendum passed and before the District was created. And the Board is empowered to change the mission/purpose whenever they want - that's their role.
Now, I would argue that the CSWMTD is in a strange limbo - the referendum passed creating it, but nobody knows if the courts will allow it. It's in a sort of "pre-creation" state.
Second, at this point, given that we have no idea if the CSWMTD is even a legal entity, it's premature to begin accusing them of violating statutes. The people who do so are essentially saying, "We think the courts will decide that you don't exist, but you need to follow the laws as if you do." By accusing them of not following the laws required of MTDs, aren't they conceding/arguing that CSWMTD exists?
Sorry for long-winded parsing. But that's what it's come to when you're waiting for the courts to rule on technicalities.
So, is the CSWMTD the result of evolution, divine creation, or intelligent design?
"The only allowable purposes for creating a Mass Transit Act under the Local Mass Transit Act are "For the purpose of acquiring, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining mass transit facilities for public service or subsidizing the operation thereof a local Mass Transit District may be created.." 70 ILCS 3610/3"
If you read farther down the page, you will see that this section applies to municipalities that create mass transit districts, not mass transit districts created by referendum. It is not clear from the statute whether this "purpose" applies to a district formed by referendum petition, which is discussed later in the statute.
In any event, any service(s) that are provided by the CSWMTD will have to be determined by the CSWMTD board of directors--not Scott Tapley. Presumably, since the CSWMTD was borne out of the CUMTD's unresponsiveness to residents' desires, the CSWMTD board will do its best to ascertain the demand for services and do its best to adequately meet those demands. So repeatedly asking "What services does the CSWMTD plan to provide? and What services is Scott Tapley in favor of providing?" is a bit premature at this time.
If the treasurer IS collecting CUMTD taxes and the CUMTD doesn't win the lawsuit, what then, will there be a rebate to SW area residents? Taxes can be withheld, but soon or later they have to be paid, right?
Very good questions. CUMTD is currently collecting taxes, and CSWMTD will begin collecting taxes next year. My understanding is that if CUMTD loses the lawsuit, they get to keep the taxes residents have paid unless each resident files a tax protest suit.
The state law was changed some time ago so it is no longer possible to file a class action suit to protest taxes; therefore, each plaintiff would have to consent to be listed in any such suit.
Due to the logistical nightmare of organizing such an effort--and the fact that the lawsuit challenging the CUMTD's undemocratic annexation is not just about taxes--the CSWMTD Supporters Committee is leaning toward NOT filing a tax protest suit.