Well I just got some new information on the land/mansion deal we’ve previously discussed where many have dismissed the story as not indicative of any wrongdoing .
Well it turns out that the lot Rezko paid full price for, $650,000 was rendered useless when he sold a 10 foot strip of the property to Obama for $104,500 . The end result is that since no one can build on the property, the value of Obama’s property next door is further increased.
Now why would a developer with a shady reputation take a $545,500 loss which benefits a politician whose done work for him and for whom he has made campaign contributions?
Michael Sreenan said he intended to build a six-unit condo on the site but didn’t have the time due to other business ventures so he’s selling the lot for $1.5mil. Seems like a lot of cash for a site that can’t be built on. If nothing else, even if it CAN’T be built on, you’d think it could be rezoned for construction rather than letting all that potential property tax revenue go to waste. Google cached link.
The link in the OP is to an editorial. I think someone just got their facts wrong.
Nothing in that article implicates Obama though. In fact, the third page of it is all about how neither Auchi or Obama ever recall meeting although maybe they met for a minute at a hotel when Obama cruised past a dinner being held there.
Maybe Auchi did give Rezko the cash that Rezko later used for the lot purchase. But that’s nothing to pin on Senator Obama.
So Obama bought a property for a fair (albeit marked down) value and Rezko bought the adjacent lot for the full asking price. Obama then purchased a sixth of the lot at roughly equal value, from Rezko. I don’t understand, is it wrong to purchase something at fair value? Are you condemning someone for making a business deal with a shady character? I hate to tell you, but when you go to 7-11 every day to buy your smokes, you’re being rung up by a guy who does a little coke and looks at child porn. You should be fired for having business dealings with such a shady character. Hope you don’t aspire to run for office!
I do, however, like the assumption that because Obama made a fair deal, but this shady character “didn’t,” (although Rezko, as was mentioned later in the post, did sell the remaining lot for fair value, and an overall profit, I might add) somehow there must have been political favors exchanged. We’re all cynics now. We can’t handle that there’s a chance that there might be a single politician who isn’t dirty, so we dig and dig. Buying things at fair prices from someone who isn’t a good person and dressing in Muslim garb while on a diplomatic visit. What’s next? He used to smoke?
Well, showed, anyway. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this is a common occurance with him and, as far as misjudgements go, it doesn’t register as anything to seriously concern me. That’s just me though, everyone else can be as concerned as they’d like.
I’ve been watching the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times try waving this smoke around for two years now trying desperately to find fire. So far they’ve failed and it’s old hat in my mind by now until someone actually finds something damning.
Wouldn’t the argument be that he obtained the value of the whole property next door for the cost of 1/6th of it? In rendering the remainder of his lot unbuildable, Rezko effectively “gave” at least some beneficial use of it to Obama.
I agree with the Chicago Trib columnist Eric Zorn that this is a bit of an issue for Obama, simply because Rezko appears to be a pretty big slimeball who is going to remain in the news, and it is never an advantage for Obama to allow his opponents to keep associating his name with Rezko’s. Zorn recommends that Obama sit down with the press for as long as it takes to answer every question about Rezko, after which he can fairly say that he has been as open about it as he can possibly be, and there is nothing to it. Probably unnecessary theater, but as it is, opponents are able to suggest that he has been something short of fully forthcoming.
In order to draw either of these conclusions, one must first demonstrate that Obama knew in advance that the property transferred from the neighboring lot would have rendered that lot unacceptable for building under Chicago codes. Given the hodge-podge of codes employed throughout Chicago (and the vagaries of enforcement) along with the fact that in over two years of hand-waving, not one bit of evidence suggests that that is true, this is simply a smear tactic embraced by those with a desperate need to find dirt.
I have yet to see a credible cite for the “unbuildable” and, if you take what Rezko paid for his lot ($625,000) and what he sold it for ($575,000 for the lot plus the $104,500 for the strip), and it means Rezko made about $54,500. That’s a profit (and not a bad one).
That is true. But it didn’t seem to harm Bush, for whom Rezko co chaired a million dollar fundraiser. But, you and Eric are right, even though there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, it can be twisted to make it appear as though it is. And the truth dies another small death.
Nothing is going to stop it. Zorn is wrong. The actual truth is of no relevance. Even if Obama sat down and explained it (again, because he’s been doing it for years now) a thousand more times, it won’t change a thing.
Didn’t Obama appologize for dealing with Rezko? Appologize for what? Didn’t he say that that he himself was boneheaded ? What does that say about his vaunted judgement ?
That if his worst misjudgment is making an apparently perfectly legal one-time deal with someone who is a bit dirty (and who, despite your OP, did indeed make a modest profit on the deal instead of taking a half-mil loss), then his “vaunted judgment” is pretty good.