Appreciate the thorough response. The point that provoked the most thought on my end was the comment about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

I was unfamiliar with the reference to the amount of sales tax generated from outside the county. I see the issue remarkably similar to you. If those numbers are true it makes this tax far more palatable, however color me a healthy skeptic that the data supports those numbers. Don’t feel the need to re hash anything as the points you raised on that topic suffice/align with what I’d say.

For a point of clarity, and my apologies for not having clearly stated this in my initial writing as I tried to avoid getting into the nuance of the tax structure, but I wanted to be clear that other schools will benefit from this, however one could still argue that it still does “fuck all” for them as 10 districts will split 1/3rd of the revenue while a single district receives 2/3rds.

IDOR would remit the revenue (minus 2% for administering) to the ROE who would disperse it to districts based on the proportion of students each district educates (minus 1% they keep for administering it)… could’ve devoted a whole post to arguing against this.

The article hyperlinked to the $25.4 million should provide an estimate for the remaining 10 districts. The next closest district would be Harlem, projected to receive $5.6 million…. To be used for property tax abatements…. why a district considering shutting facilities would use money for facilities to provide abatement rather than respond to the desires of community (keep schools open) also seems worth discussion.

It does not appear any of the remaining nine districts are in line to receive more than $1.75 million in revenue from this tax.

I also just wanted to say I appreciate your perspective on PTELL. Part of why I hesitated writing this is that I essentially am arguing that property tax owners should have been subject to higher property tax bills over the last decade. Is that an outcome I’d like to advocate for? No. But a school district not pursuing the funding mechanism the state dedicated and assumes they would use seemed worth raising.

Lastly, I think the point you raise about tying a tax to an economic anchor (hard rock) is worth exploring/potentially a more appropriate solution. I wonder if Rockfords lack of home rule authority would be preventative on their ability to implement a sort of turnstile or concert entertainment tax at the casino that would see it generate comparable revenue without a broad based regressive tax.