McHenry County Blog

Earlier McHenry County Blog predicted that the McHenry County Conservation District would not hold a referendum at next April’s consolidated municipal, school and park election because Nunda Township had put an open space referendum on the ballot.

Nunda Township is still the county’s third largest township in population with a 2000 population of 35,000 people.

It makes little sense to run a countywide referendum to raise taxes at the same time that a township with more than 10% of the county’s population is doing the same thing.

Odds are that people in Nunda Township would not vote for two tax hikes for the same purpose on the same day.

Now a new idea has arisen to compete with the Conservation District purchase of land.

It is backed by the same type and probably some of the very same people who have previously backed Conservation District referendums.

A major pitch of MCCD has been that it will slow down growth.

Not much evidence of success on that front, is there?

The reason is that--with some major exceptions like Glacial Ridge--MCCD buys land upon which homes cannot be easily built.

A Kishwaukee Valley Water Authority, which could limit the taking of water from western McHenry County to provide water for subdivisions in the eastern part of McHenry County, on the other hand, might actually limit growth.

But that water authority referendum, which will be in April if a mere 500 signatures can be obtained, will ask for 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.

So, if MCCD put its tax hike referendum on the ballot next April, there would be three anti-growth tax hike referendums on the ballot at the same time.

Maybe 20% of the county would have two similar tax hike referendums on the ballot at the same time.

One of the water authority’s proponents’ pitches will be that proceeds from the extra 3 cent in taxes could be spent to buy development rights from farmers on whose land houses could actually be constructed.

It doesn’t take much of an understanding of why taxes increase to figure out that retaining farmland does not raise taxes.

When corn and soy bean feeds turn into fields of kids, taxes go up.

From the map of MCCD referendum results that is re-published here, it is easy to see that the areas covered by the proposed water regulation authority were most negatively inclined toward MCCD 2001 tax hike proposal.

Of course, the folks in the western and northern parts of McHenry County--especially the established farmers--know that the Conservation District pays more than market rates for marginal land. That’s probably one of the big reasons that their precincts voted so negatively in 2001--many under 40%.

It is easy to predict that area developers will pour at least $100,000 into defeating the water authority referendum.

Their direct mail pieces will stress that a tax hike is involved.

So, if you lived in an area where the Conservation District is buying most of its land would you be likely to vote for two tax increases?

And if two tax hikes were on the ballot, one which said money would be used to keep more homes from being built by buying development rights and another which promised to preserve natural sites, which would you vote for?

Each can answer that question for him/herself, but tax avoidance usually trumps recreation in my experience.