Mayor Daley must be really eager to tamp down all this tax increment financing (TIF) talk.  Appearing on WBEZ on November 1, he talked at length -- and not entirely truthfully -- about the benefits of this economic development tool.  At a November 13 press conference, he hectored aldermanic critics of the TIF system.  Then yesterday the mayor took yet another crack at defending the management of his $1 billion "slush fund," this time via a Tribune op-ed penned by his Chief Financial Officer Gene Saffold. "[T]he Chicago Tribune perpetuates the myth that the program collects one large pot of money that is controlled with a singular, secret budget and spending plan," Saffold wrote. "That notion is fundamentally untrue." More from the piece, headlined "Revitalizing Neighborhoods":

Chicago taxpayers and their aldermen are involved in every step of the way. From the formation of the goals, objectives and proposed budget of their local TIF district, to the drawing of the district boundaries, to the approval of every redevelopment and infrastructure project, there are community meetings, public hearings and City Council meetings with active public participation. Aldermen have a great deal of spending oversight, as they endorse and approve every disbursement of TIF funds.

As new TIF projects are proposed, the Department of Community Development must weigh their viability and purpose against a district's available funds and projected future revenue.

The department's evaluations for allocating TIF money are never static and are concluded only when the project is approved by the City Council and the construction work is complete.

Saffold's rosy depiction of an open, transparent, rigorous process simply doesn't jibe with reality.

Not only does Daley appoint members of the so-called "independent" oversight body, the Community Development Commission (CDC), but he hand-picks those overseeing the park district, schools, and libraries. Those taxing bodies are then represented on the statutorily-mandated Joint Review Boards and, as the Reader's Ben Joravsky once explained, no one asks the tough questions:

The Joint Review Board consists of representatives from the taxing bodies -- the parks, the schools, the county, etc -- whose property tax dollars are diverted to TIFs, so you'd think they'd have an interest in examining them closely. In fact, the board's packed with lower-level bureaucrats also beholden to the city for their jobs. It routinely approves whatever the planning department recommends.

In other municipalities, by contrast, the members of the Joint Review Board aren't as beholden to their local executive and therefore aren't afraid to push back.

It's also useful to remember here that the push for more TIF oversight began earlier this year when two aldermen, Manny Flores (1st Ward) and Scott Waguespack (32nd Ward), were themselves unable to get some basic information on how the infamous Republic Windows spent its $9.6 million TIF subsidy -- before abruptly shutting its doors and leaving 250 employees high and dry.  “I want to know what the return on our investment was,” Flores said back in January, after the city's planning department failed to provide answers. “This is bad public policy," he ultimately declared.

Since then, a series of huge corporations have been awarded millions more in taxpayer funds.  But 10 or 15 years from now, will it be any easier to answer Flores' question and demonstrate the "return on investment"?  There's no indication it will be.

In the meantime, more aldermen are speaking up about being left in the dark. For instance, at Wednesday's City Council meeting, a bewildered Sharon Dixon (24th Ward) questioned what's happening with the special taxing districts in her own Lawndale ward. "I have five TIFs," she said during the budget debate. "I should see something more than I see today."

Until there is some system in place to assess the nearly 160 TIF districts that currently exist -- to determine what has worked and what hasn't -- more aldermen should follow Brendan Reilly's lead and push back against efforts to grow the system further.  In the face of Daley and Saffold's ongoing "marketing," we need to ask: Has the city learned anything over the 25 years since the first TIF district was created? Or has every single one of these districts, in their eyes, been an unmitigated success?

UPDATE (1:00 p.m.): The Reader's Ben Joravsky responds to the op-ed by offering to meet Daley and Saffold for lunch:

As an bonus, I'll explain how the TIF tax is shielded from taxpayers by keeping it off property tax bills. And how a lot of the money goes to the wealthy even though it's supposed to help the poor. And how it takes money from the schools. And ...

On second thought, you might need to schedule two lunches to learn exactly how the darn thing works.