After early hope, Lightfoot batting .000 in Springfield
Mayor says she came ‘quite close’ to financial aid
As lawmakers ended their work for the year providing none of Chicago’s requested financial assistance, Mayor Lori Lightfoot pleaded for patience and said she deserved credit because her efforts in Springfield came “quite close” to fruition.
But close isn’t a victory, and Lightfoot’s second trip to Springfield since winning City Hall’s top office left her batting average at .000 in scoring difficult help from the state — most recently in changing casino taxes to benefit Chicago and her push for a graduated real estate transfer tax.
“I wouldn’t say that we struck out. We actually came quite close,” Lightfoot told reporters on Friday, a day after legislators adjourned their six-day fall session.
“But in a very compressed period of the veto session, there were a lot of people who raised a lot of concerns back from the spring that weren’t able to be accommodated in a very short period of time. So I feel optimistic, given how far we came in a short period of time, to get this right. And we’ll be back at it in January, and I feel optimistic that we’ll get it over the threshold at that point,” she said.
Lightfoot maintained that she is still “new to a lot of people that are down there” in Springfield and was “working on building relationships.” But now, in office for a half-year and with the importance she has placed on her wants from Springfield, the new-to-office meme may be losing its value as an excuse.
Back on April 10, when she made her first visit to Springfield as mayor-elect, Lightfoot stressed that her City Hall operation in the state Capitol already was working.
“We will be very active in Springfield. … We will make sure, as we have already, that we’re fully cognizant of the issues that are moving for a vote in the chambers of the General Assembly,” she said then.
“We’ll have boots on the ground here and I’m confident that we’ll be able to get the things advanced that are going to be necessary to move us forward,” she said.
Conversations about the city’s revenue needs, she said then, have “already started.”
But lawmakers adjourned their spring session in May, with leading legislators saying the city had made no formal requests for fiscal help other than to urge that Chicago’s interests in funding schools and infrastructure projects were represented.
In her State of the City address in August, Lightfoot made known she had two requests for Springfield: the graduated real estate transfer tax, to help fill the city’s estimated $838 million budget hole, and tax changes to make a Chicago casino more sellable to prospective operators.
A month later, a mayoral spokeswoman released a statement saying, “With Mayor Lightfoot only just recently taking office, the new administration is working to develop strong partnerships,” including “engaging with local and state leaders and the governor’s office.”
And yet, lawmakers already had lined up against the real estate transfer tax, with a group of city progressives arguing with Lightfoot over revenues to help fight homelessness and Republicans not wanting to be viewed as authorizing a tax increase.
At the same time, legislators had warned the administration that opening up the casino law would open the door to a variety of gambling interests which could end up killing any changes.
As Lightfoot arrived in Springfield on Tuesday for the final three days of the fall veto session, her agenda was given little chance for passage, raising the question of why she would make such a high-profile trip when she would get nothing in return.
To be sure, Lightfoot entered City Hall with financial problems not of her own making and fought against the Democratic “machine” to win her office, potentially making her power a bit suspect to the organization Democrats who run Springfield.
Additionally, Lightfoot was forced to divert some of her time and attention before the veto session to dealing with the Chicago Teachers Union strike that lasted 11 school days to achieve a new contract.
But some lawmakers, including Republicans, said privately that Lightfoot’s failure to deliver from Springfield represents a “learning experience” for the mayor.
“Springfield is not going to be a pushover. It took a lot of work with previous mayors (to advance their agendas). Springfield isn’t just going to roll over for a mayor of Chicago,” said one leading Republican lawmaker who asked not to be named to avoid jeopardizing working with Lightfoot.
Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat who is retiring in January, said the short nature of the fall session was no help to Lightfoot involving issues “that should happen over time.”
“She never has been in this arena, she’s never been down here,” Cullerton said, adding that Lightfoot’s predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, had a “huge advantage” with his legislative experience in Congress.
“So, she’s getting better at it, just like she’s learning to deal with her own City Council. So, that’s my observation,” he said.
Some Democrats credited Lightfoot for her latest Springfield visit, including a closed-door question-andanswer session with House Democrats. But they also faulted the administration for a lack of preparation in dealing with the fall veto session.
For her part, Lightfoot was optimistic that the problems her agenda faced in Springfield could be overcome when lawmakers reconvene in January, saying, “You’ve got to take the long view about Springfield.”
“We’ll just keep working hard to make sure we articulate what our agenda is, what our needs are, and build those relationships and understand what people outside of Chicago also need and want,” she said. “And I feel very good about where we are.”
But Southwest Side Ald.
Raymond Lopez, 15th, Lightfoot’s loudest critic on the City Council, said he’s worried the mayor’s confidence about delivering those items next year might be misplaced, and that the city will suffer because of it.
“We heard time and again she was confident she would deliver the real estate transfer tax, she was confident she would deliver the casino during veto session,” he said.
“Having delivered neither, she really needs to take a look at where she’s placing her optimism,” Lopez said. “I think she underestimated the need for human interactions and relationships with lawmakers who represent the whole state and the needs of their constituents.”