Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘New Normal?’ Category

IRS: Illinois led nation in rate of income loss in 2023

Posted in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Dumb and Dumber, Economy, FUBAR, Illinois Policy Institute, Mad Cows, New Normal?, Pension Funding, Politics, Taxes on April 23, 2026| 1 Comment »

By Bryce Hill | Illinois Policy Institute

Illinois lost a larger share of income from outmigration than any other state in 2023, according to IRS data.

Federal tax returns show that Illinois lost a net of nearly 56,000 residents and more than $6 billion in income in 2023, the latest data available. When adjusting for total income per state, Illinois’ losses to net outmigration are the worst in the country — more than $11 for every $1,000 previously earned in the state.

While California ($13 billion) and New York ($10.6 billion) lost more income from outmigration, Illinois lost the largest share of a state total.

Meanwhile, South Carolina and Florida, two of the top three states adding the most total income from people moving in, also added the most as a share of their total income.

Part of why Illinois sees so much wealth flight is that high-income Illinoisans are leaving at twice the rate of other groups. People in all income brackets are moving out of the state, but those earning more than $200,000 a year have been leaving the fastest.

Article continues here.

Read Full Post »

(Ignoring public opinion) Pritzker says of BUILD Plan for homes would not cost taxpayers

Posted in Clown Car, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Fat Bastard, FUBAR, Mad Cows, New Normal?, Politics, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, Property Taxes, Real Estate, Springfield, Taxes, The Center Square, Topics Of Interest, Zoning Board on April 18, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Image courtesy PridesCrossing

By Jim Talamonti | The Center Square

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has ramped up his campaign for new housing in Illinois, and he expects taxpayers to pitch in.

After announcing the Building Up Illinois Developments Plan during his budget address in February, the governor urged support for it Friday at the City Club of Chicago.

Pritzker said the BUILD Plan is ambitious and comprehensive.

“It’s designed to eliminate unnecessary barriers and lower costs for housing construction and renovation, produce a wider range of family-friendly housing types and streamline permitting,” the governor said.

Pritzker said Illinois faces a gap of more than 142,000 housing units and needs to build about 225,000 units over the next five years.

The governor said most of the BUILD Plan would not cost taxpayers anything, but he said there would be an investment.

“The BUILD Plan also includes about $250 million to help spur development of housing and help people to afford housing,” Pritzker said.

Article continues here.

Related: “Gov. JB Pritzker’s ambitious housing plan for Illinois: More four-flats, looser rules,” “Pritzker to propose statewide zoning laws to spur homebuilding, limit local control,” “McLaughlin’s press conference video recording regarding Pritzker’s proposed municipal zoning powers grab posted,” “‘It’s just a bad idea’: Suburban officials oppose Pritzker’s plan to reduce local control over residential It’s just zoning”

Read Full Post »

Editorial: Before adding new rules on homelessness, let’s enforce the ones we have

Posted in Barrington Hills Park District, Chicago Tribune, New Normal?, OP/Ed, Politics, Property Taxes, Springfield, Taxes on April 15, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Tents sit near a burned section of ground in a homeless person encampment in Legion Park in the North Park neighborhood on March 4, 2026. (Eileen T. Meslar/Chicago Tribune)

By The Editorial Board | Chicago Tribune

Homelessness is punishing in itself without the fear of being fined or arrested simply for surviving outdoors. On the other hand, abandoning public spaces — such as parks — to lawless tent encampments isn’t fair to residents, either.

That’s why we’re concerned about a bill making its way through the statehouse. While well intentioned, House Bill 1429 would restrict when governments can impose fines or criminal penalties on unhoused people for certain “life-sustaining activities” on public property — and in doing so may actually make it harder to address encampments in public parks.

Some Chicago neighbors who have been fighting to resolve sprawling tent cities compassionately view this seemingly well-intentioned legislation — House Bill 1429 — as another potential obstacle. The bill wouldn’t bar cities from clearing encampments or moving people, but it does prohibit ticketing or arresting unsheltered individuals for basic survival activities, broadly termed “life-sustaining activities” in the legislation.

It defines “life-sustaining activities” expansively to cover essentially all basic human behaviors required to survive outdoors, such as sleeping and eating. But it also goes beyond basic survival to include storing personal property, which in practice is how encampments form and persist, as well as “protecting oneself from the elements,” which is incredibly broad and could create ambiguity around enforcement of activities like using propane tanks or open flames in the parks.

The bill also would require advance notice (generally seven days) and outreach before enforcement, absent an emergency, creating “a system where action can only be taken after a problem occurs, instead of allowing communities to prevent issues before they escalate,” said Restore Gompers Park Coalition’s Lynn Burmeister, whose group has long advocated for housing and services for people living in the encampments in addition to safety for neighbors.

Meanwhile, the encampment problem on the Northwest Side has become unsafe, untenable and unchanging. When the city clears one encampment, another pops up, often nearby.

With these settlements come reports of unsanitary and dangerous conditions, including reports of public sex, drug and alcohol use, and fecal matter in the parks.

Editorial continues here.

Related: “Illinois bill would override local law to allow homeless living in all public parks”

 

Read Full Post »

Illinois bill would override local law to allow homeless living in all public parks

Posted in Barrington Hills Park District, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), New Normal?, Politics, Property Taxes, Springfield, Wirepoints on April 14, 2026| 2 Comments »

 

Get ready to see homeless camps in parks across Illinois if a bill gaining traction in the Illinois House becomes law. It would override local restrictions to allow homeless encampments in all public parks. Local towns, park districts, cities, forest preserves and all other municipalities of any kind would have their home rule authority on the matter stripped away.

It’s House Bill 1429, the Local Regulation of Unsheltered Homelessness Act, which says local governments wouldn’t be able to establish or enforce a rule fining or criminally punishing homeless people for participating in “life sustaining activities.”

But “life sustaining activities,” under the bill’s definition, means most anything people routinely do. It would include, but not be limited to, “moving, resting, sitting, standing, lying down, sleeping, protecting oneself from the elements, eating, drinking 5(excluding alcohol), and storing personal property as needed to shelter oneself.”

It has 21 sponsors to date including House Speaker Chris Welch, and 872 homeless advocates and organizations have filed witness slips supporting the bill. An April 15 Housing Committee hearing is the next step.

Article continues here.

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.

Read Full Post »

Waymo begins testing in Chicago as bill seeks to legalize autonomous vehicles

Posted in Capitol News Illinois, New Normal?, Public Safety, Unions on April 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »

A Waymo vehicle drives through Chicago’s Near North Side on March 20 as the company begins testing and mapping the city. (Medill Illinois News Bureau photo by Georgia Epiphaniou)

By Jacques Abou-Rizk and Medill Illinois News Bureau 

CHICAGO – In downtown Chicago, people have been spotting Google’s Waymo automated vehicles testing and mapping the Windy City’s streets. For now, the autonomous vehicles must be driven by a human, as the industry seeks the endorsement of state lawmakers.

For the last year, legislators in Springfield have been trying to work through a variety of issues raised by skeptics of the autonomous vehicles, known as AVs. Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, said AV legislation has a long road ahead to address constituent concerns over safety, insurance and job losses for rideshare and cab drivers.

In January, he introduced the Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Project Act, which would open counties in Illinois with over 1 million residents, as well as the counties of Sangamon, Madison, St. Clair, and Monroe, to automated commercial vehicles. But the bill has since been held up in the Rules Committee, an early step in the process that means it’s far from passage, especially in the current legislative session. Other bills supporting the industry also have yet to get the necessary support.

While Waymo has started testing its vehicles with safety drivers in Chicago, the company has not yet announced plans to bring the robotaxis to counties other than Cook, according to Waymo spokesperson Chris Bonelli.

Article continues here.

 

Read Full Post »

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 4)

Posted in AI, Audio Recordings, Clown Car, Comprehensive Plan, Crime, Data Center, Deception, Dumb and Dumber, ePacket Agendas, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Land Use, Lennie, New Normal?, Newsletter, OMA, One Barrington Hills, OP/Ed, Open Meetings Act, Perjury, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Transcripts, Transparency, Village Attorney, Village Board, Village Clerk, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on April 3, 2026| 3 Comments »

Village of Barrington Hills board members (l-r) JC Clarke, Laura AB Ekstrom, Brian Cecola, Marsha McClary, David Riff and Jessica Hoffmann. Not pictured: Thomas Strauss.

Our Village Board of Trustees met Monday evening. This marked the third meeting since their December 2025 meeting when residents were blindsided to learn, “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board.”

The first speaker Monday night expressed their continued dissatisfaction with the Board as follows:

“All right. Good evening. My name is Aaron Becker. By now you probably know who I am.

I’m speaking tonight in regards to the Village attorney’s letter in response to my questions from January 27th,and I’ve got a couple other comments as well.

I really appreciate the Village responding in righting to my quick response. However, I ask respectfully and directly why several of my explicit questions and requests were not answered at all. They were just omitted, so… .

The response explains why it believes its past actions were lawful, but it does not confirm whether any of the safeguards I requested would be implemented. My question tonight is simple: was the omission intentional?

In the Village Summer 2021 newsletter, residents were told by Trustee Ekstrom, she’s not here today, and I’m going to quote her, ‘Most residents know that they can attend the Village Board meetings, many may not realize that committee and commission meetings are also open to the public. Our Village is a community above all else and having input from our residents reflected in our decision making is not only welcome but encouraged.’

I’ll say this much, I genuinely appreciate that perspective and I believe her. With that in mind, here’s some feedback:

Please confirm that all off-record communications with Brennan Development Group will stop.

Please stop project specific merit discussions absent of formal filings.

Please confirm that unsupported tax claims will not be repeated by the Village without substantiation.

Please confirm that records will be preserved.

Please do everything in your power to maintain true independence of the Plan Commission.

I’d also like the Board to reflect on some of the statements Board of Trustees members have made in the past. In the same Summer 2021 newsletter, residents were told by Trustee Strauss that quote, ‘We live in a special community, and the Board is committed to maintaining our heritage.’

And Trustee Riff said, ‘I would like to make certain that we remain focused on the budget, protect our residential zoning rights (or rather zoning laws), and ensure that our community remains safe and secure for all residents.’

So those are strong words. And they matter. So I’ll ask each of you as Trustee members, do you believe that based on all of the emails we have now seen and read that you have honored those commitments? That you are protecting our residential zoning rights. And that you are maintaining our heritage as a Village.

I’ll be honest, I don’t. I read all the emails. I don’t believe it.

You have to go to bed at night. You have to look yourself in the mirror and say that you believe you’ve protected the residential zoning rights with your actions and your words.

My wife spoke last month about actions and words and holding people accountable when their actions and words don’t align. And that’s what we’re here doing asking of our leaders for continuity between their actions and their words.

That’s all I’m asking. When you say you’re going to do something, follow through and do it. Please.

So, to summarize, respond to the five requests I had in the letter either acknowledging you made a mistake and how you’re going to fix it, or that you made no mistake.

Either way we deserve clarity we deserve responses to those.

That’s my comment. Thank you very much.”

The audio recordings from the March 30, 2026, Board of Trustees meeting can be found here.

Related: “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Follow-up),” “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 3),” “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 2),” “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1),” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

 

Read Full Post »

Build 220 Deserves the Same Transparency Taxpayers Are Being Asked to Fund

Posted in 220, Barrington Education Association, Barrington High School, Board of Education, Deception, District 220 referendum, Education, Ethics, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Letters to the Editor, Look For The Union Label, New Normal?, OP/Ed, Politics, Property Taxes, Real Estate, School Districts, SNAFU, South Barrington, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Unions, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on December 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »

To the Editor,

As Barrington 220 considers additional tax levies and future capital commitments, the community deserves a clear, accessible understanding of how recent voter-approved funds have actually been spent. Over the past several months, I have reviewed hundreds of pages of publicly available contracts, FOIA disclosures, construction work orders, and financial ledgers related to the Build 220 program. Several findings stand out and merit broader public awareness.

First, district records show that construction management overhead for Build 220 projects significantly exceeds common industry benchmarks. For K–12 CM-at-Risk projects, management overhead and fees typically fall in the 10–15% range. However, Barrington 220’s own Project Work Orders (PWOs) show overhead levels ranging from approximately 23% to as high as 28%, with some smaller project segments exceeding 30% (See: Build 220 — Construction vs. Overhead).

Key takeaway: On approximately $33 million of PWOs, overhead and soft costs account for an estimated $7–9 million. These percentages are nearly double typical industry norms and warrant closer public review

On just four major PWOs totaling roughly $33 million, this translates to an estimated $7–9 million spent on management reimbursables, contingency stacking, insurance loadings, fees, and pre-loaded allowances rather than direct construction labor or materials. A visual summary of this comparison is attached for readers.

Second, architectural and engineering fees have exceeded the district’s own contractual cap. The master agreement with the district’s architect set a limit of 7.4% of the construction budget, which equates to approximately $9.5 million based on the district’s budget reconciliation. Yet the district’s accounts receivable ledger shows approximately $11.7 million paid to date — an overage of more than $2.2 million (See: Build 220 — Architectural & Engineering Fees).

Drivers of the overage include: duplicated planning across firms, over-scoped civil engineering bundles later credited back, optional enhancements not included in referendum language, and avoidable redesigns

This increase appears tied to duplicated planning work across multiple firms, over-scoped civil engineering packages later reduced through credits, optional enhancements not included in referendum messaging, and avoidable redesign costs. At no point has the community been presented with a cumulative report showing how or why the 7.4% cap was exceeded.

Third, many costs that function like change orders were embedded directly into base contracts as lump-sum allowances — including webcams, temporary occupancy setups, traffic control, and other vaguely described “reimbursables.” Without a publicly released change-order ledger, taxpayers cannot easily determine which allowances were actually used, which were not, or how final project costs compare to what voters approved.

These findings do not allege wrongdoing. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about financial discipline, cost control, and transparency — especially when the district is asking the community to support additional levies.

Before requesting more taxpayer dollars, Barrington 220 should provide the public with:

  1. A complete Build 220 change-order ledger for each Project Work Order;
  2. A clear breakdown of construction dollars versus management and overhead costs;
  3. A reconciliation of architectural and engineering fees against the 7.4% contractual limit; and
  4. Plain-language summaries that allow residents to understand where their money actually went.

Barrington residents have consistently shown they are willing to invest in their schools. That willingness depends on trust, and trust depends on transparency. Clear financial reporting is not an obstacle to progress — it is the foundation of it.

Sincerely,

Sam Mehic
South Barrington

Related: “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture”

Read Full Post »

Riding Club fenagles private summit with IDOT Route 62 Study officials Tuesday

Posted in Algonquin Rd, Aunt Blabby, Barrington Hills Park District, Barrington Hills Polo Club, Bicyclists, Big Red, Clown Car, Deception, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Don't Change Barrington Hills, Equestrian Commission, Fox River Valley Hunt, FPDCC, FRVPC, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Use, Longmeadow Parkway, Massbach Hounds, New Normal?, Open Meetings Act, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Real Estate, Riding Club of Barrington Hills, Road construction, Roads & Bridges Committee, SOS Party, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Traffic, Transparency, Unions, Village Engineer, WTF on December 12, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The CAG is a collection of community representatives and serves as the focal point for the exchange of information between government entities and the local community. The CAG is made up of representatives of diverse community interests, local government officials, community representatives, property owners and residents, and stakeholders with technical expertise. The CAG assists IDOT in making better decisions on transportation related projects that benefit the community and environment. Members are invited based upon who they represent with the goal being an even distribution from each interest area.

The application window for the Community Advisory Group is now closed.

CAG Meeting #6 was held on Tuesday, December 9, 2025 from 10am-12pm. Materials from CAG Meeting #6 are available below.

CAG Meeting #6

Exhibits

Presentation

Editorial notes: The reader who was kind enough to forward this tip noted: “Of considerable note are the currently proposed designs for the Bateman Road and Old Sutton Road intersections: non-signalized Right-In/Right-Out with a U-turn, as depicted (below):”

(Click on image to enlarge)

Also, to appease the Riding Clan, IDOT included a graphic of a, “Potential Pedestrian Underpass,” as seen below:

Last, it’s unclear if the current Village Roads & Bridges Chair (A.B.) was invited to the meeting. We highly doubt it (for obvious reasons).

Read Full Post »

District 220 Board of Education meets tonight

Posted in 220, Agendas, Barrington Education Association, Board of Education, Conflict of interest, Countryside Elementary School, County, Deception, District 220 referendum, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Education, Elections, Ethics, His Master's Voice, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois State Board of Elections, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Lake, Land Use, New Normal?, Open Meetings Act, Organizations, Pension Funding, Politics, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, School Districts, Taxes, Transparency, Unions, Video Recordings, Video Streaming, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on October 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The District 220 Board of Education meets this evening at 6:00 PM at the District Administration Center, 515 W. Main Street. Items on their agenda include:

  • Special Public Comment on IASB Resolutions
  • FOIA Reports
  • Personnel Report
  • Consideration to Approve Reunification Contract with Willow Creek Community Church
  • Consideration to Approve a District Representative at the Lake County Lake Division Meeting
  • Consideration to Approve the Proposed Lake County Slate of Officers
  • Consideration to Approve IASB Resolutions

A copy of the agenda can be viewed here. The meeting will be live-streamed on the district YouTube channel.

Related: “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” “Ding Politicking on School District Property,” “District 220 Board of Education meets tonight (9.15.25),” “District 220 posts Notice of Tentative Budget Public Hearing,” “Dual School Board and State Rep Positions Legally Incompatible,” “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “District 220 Board of Education meets this evening (07.15.25)” “Ding Doubles Down,” “Ding’s D220 Deception,” “Chan Ding running in Democratic primary in 52nd,” “Three (3) Democratic candidates queued to run for the IL 52nd District House seat in 2026”

Read Full Post »

District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated)

Posted in 220, Barrington Education Association, Board of Education, Conflict of interest, Deception, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Illinois Federation of Teachers, New Normal?, OP/Ed, Politics, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, Property Taxes, School Districts, Transparency, Unions, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on September 26, 2025| Leave a Comment »

In response to a recent Observer article, “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” we received the following from a reader regarding Superintendent Winkelman’s and the D220 Board’s response to his concerns over the D220 Educator’s social media post:

(Click on image to enlarge)

In fact, there are D220 policies that require its educators to:

“adhere to the high standards for Professional and Appropriate Conduct… at all times, regardless of the ever-changing Social Media and Personal Technology platforms available. This includes employees posting images or private information about themselves or others in a manner readily accessible to students and other employees that is inappropriate…” 5:125.

We think that’s a reasonable policy. D220 policies further hold that:

“The District will not tolerate harassing, intimidating conduct… that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Examples of prohibited conduct include… threatening or causing physical harm…” 5:120.

What’s more intimidating to a parent or student that identifies as a Trump supporter to learn that one of the District’s educators is comfortable enough to publicly post her vitriol of the U.S. President, threatening the wish of physical harm to him? Seems to us that the Board policies referenced by Winkelman clearly allow for this D220 educator to be reprimanded, suspended or even terminated.

Why aren’t we, the taxpayers, parents and students of D220 entitled to know the outcome of the Board’s discussions on this matter, assuming there were any?

Related: “District 220’s Lack of Transparency”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »