Here's someone who may be viewing a TIF as hurting the schools. Compare with my most recent column in which I pick up briefly on Trustee Milstein's cooperation model as calling first of all for giving TIF $ back to schools. This 9/12 opinion piece, by Joel Ostrow, does not quite say that, however. In fact, it's mainly a (cogent) defense of Dist. 97 as responsible spender, except for teacher contracts, a big "except," and argument for its deserving an ok on its coming referendum -- which could not come at a worse time, with all the complaints about higher taxes.
Another view-giver, Rex Burdett, does not agree. He opposes a Dist. 97 referendum, accusing it of over-spending, nailing the League of Women Voters, whose
proposed solution (greater state funding of education) fails to quantify inevitable massive individual state income tax and, worse, ignores the root cause of the current dilemma-namely out-of-control local school expenditures due to salary increases far in excess of inflation and staffing increases disproportional to enrollment trends.
It's certainly true that schools-supporters have a mantra here, which he attacks, namely that it's the state's fault. Maybe so, but this alternative view is in order.