Proceeds from the tax will fund increases in spending to address homelessness
In a recent editorial, the Tribune Editorial Board argued, without evidence, that Mayor Brandon Johnson’s real estate transfer tax plan will cause major property owners in the city to panic and sell their properties as quickly as they can. In “Owners are scrambling to unload high-profile buildings. Is this a backlash to Mayor Johnson’s ‘mansion tax’?” (Tribune, 11/15/23), the editorial board also adds, again without evidence, that the recent mandated increase in tipped-workers’ wages, and a new city law creating legal minimums for paid time off, may have caused the closing of a popular Michigan Avenue restaurant.
Here’s the problem: the editorial does not even briefly explore the possibility that the real estate transfer tax, which will dramatically increase the amount of money the city spends to address homelessness, could have any positive impact. But think of the benefits of funding long-term services aimed at eliminating homelessness. Who in the city, major property owners included, wouldn’t benefit greatly from such an increased investment in eliminating a fundamental social problem?
And are we seriously going to compare such a continuing social investment adversely to the one-time only increase in tax consequences to the very largest property owners in the city? Haven’t those owners all benefitted from years of city investment in infrastructure and from years of reduced property taxes? Isn’t a big part of the value of any major real estate property related to years of working people all over the city getting their jobs done, paying their property taxes, and driving Chicago forward?
Why would any property owner in Chicago leave now, just when the city is tackling chronic problems with genuine vision? Why would a property owner in Chicago sell now, leaving all that future value behind in a city where homelessness has been eliminated?
