ArchPundit

While the major issues of the Obama Rezko relationship are dealt with in the first 8 posts, there are a number of allegations out there that are bizarre and need to be addressed simply to provide a simple repository for crap.

One of the more ludicrous claims from a MyDD diary that made several false claims:

It helps to have friends at City Hall. Among other positions, Michelle was appointed twice to sit on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks for two consecutive terms. Michelle maintained this board seat from 1998 to March 2005, although normally a member only serves one 4 year term.

Flush from the success of Barack’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the Obamas decided it was time to find a residence more fitting for their anticipated new status. Barack’s 1995 autobiography Dreams of My Father soared, and they knew Alan Keyes was no threat to their future success in the US Senate elections.

Sitting on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks board, Michelle knew of a permit, waiting for review and approval to sell, for a designated Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar owned by a doctor in Kenwood. The Commission is supported not only by donations and taxes but also by charges for permits.  It’s a pretty extensive process, and they want a complete history of the house and property when a permit is requested. Once the Board approves a permit, the application goes to the city planning or zoning commission if more than a simple sale is involved.

The doctor who owned the Kenwood home wanted more than the Obamas could afford. As Barack has stated in numerous press interviews, buying the home would be a stretch.  Barack contacted his patron Tony Rezko, despite knowing he was under investigation at the time, in order to see what could be done so the Obamas could afford their dream house.  Sub-division was likely the agreed-on solution. In order to divide the lot, which the doctor purchased as one entity, he would have to:

I replied why this was incorrect here:

There are several problems with this including that the properties were listed separately before they ever went on the market.

More than that, if one looks at the Recorder of Deeds records, one finds that the two lots were sold at the same time to the University of Chicago physician, but have two distinct property identifiers.  I’m not listing those here because it makes finding the property a little too easy given the concerns over a Presidential candidate and his family’s safety.  The lot in 2000 appears to have been sold for $414,00 and the house sold for  $1.65 million which is as the reports in the Sun-Times and Trib have reported given that the owners wanted to sell the house for what they paid for it.

It also means that the selling price of $414,000 in 2000 indicates that $625,000 for the vacant lot 5 years later in that neighborhood is pretty reasonable.

The two lots have been sold together going back to at least 1985, though they were separate lots.

The person pushing this story is making it up wholecloth and needs to STFU.

 

The very simple answer is that the home and the lot had been sold separately since the 1980s.

Additional Information:

 More from the story at MyDD

Sitting on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks board, Michelle knew of a permit, waiting for review and approval to sell, for a designated Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar owned by a doctor in Kenwood. The Commission is supported not only by donations and taxes but also by charges for permits.  It’s a pretty extensive process, and they want a complete history of the house and property when a permit is requested. Once the Board approves a permit, the application goes to the city planning or zoning commission if more than a simple sale is involved.

This isn’t true.  Landmarks does not approve sales at all.  They only approve changes to the property and have no control over the zoning or ownership. They would have some influence over what is built on the new lot, but they are not capable of blocking a sale of property that is listed as two separate lots.
From Landmarks FAQ 

Q.Q.   When is a building permit required and for what kind of work?When is a building permit required and for what kind of work?

A.A.   No additional City permits are required for Landmark buildings.  The Commission simply reviews permits as part of the normal building permit process. The Commission annually reviews more than 1,800 permits for Landmark properties, most of which are approved in one day. Routine maintenance work, such as painting and minor repairs, does not require a building permit. Under the City’s Rehabilitation Code, there is also a special historic preservation provision that allows for greater flexibility in applying the Building  Code to designated landmarks in order to preserve significant features of such buildings.  More information on getting a permit is available from the Landmarks Division.
Q.Q.   How does the Commission evaluate proposed changes to How does the Commission evaluate proposed changes to existing buildings or the design of new construction?xisting buildings or the design of new construction?

A.A.  The Commission has established criteria to evaluate permit applications for both renovations and new construction. These criteria and the Commission’s review procedures are published as part of the Rules and Regulations of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks (pages 27 through 33). The basis for the criteria is the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Commission also has adopted policies regarding many aspects of rehabilitation work, and these polices are detailed in Guidelines for Alterations to Historic Buildings and New Construction, available from the Landmarks Division.

Q.Q.   Does the Commission have jurisdiction over zoning?Does the Commission have jurisdiction over zoning?

A.A.   The Commission has no jurisdiction over zoning. The Commission can, however, recommend reductions in the depth of required setbacks in certain instances to ensure that the character of a Landmark District is maintained.

Q.Q.   How does landmark designation affect property values?How does landmark designation affect property values?  Will landmark designation affect property taxes?Will landmark designation affect property taxes?

Both of the above are frequently asked questions. As far as the value of property is concerned, the factors  affecting value are quite varied and depend on the individual property, its location, etc.; in the eyes of some buyers, landmark designation is regarded as an asset, and both real estate advertisements and real estate agents often tout this as a selling point. Studies on the effect of landmark designation on property values have generally shown that it does not have a negative impact on property values. As far as real estate taxes  are concerned, neither the valuation of property by the Cook County Assessor’s Office nor the tax rate is affected directly by landmark designation.

Also from comments:

The Landmarks Commission is not involved in property sales at all, only building permits. And it’s not supported by donations. It’s supported by taxes and permit fees in the sense that the money from taxes and permit fees goes into the city budget, and the Commission’s operating expenses get paid out of the city budget.

Other things that are BS: “Parking on the street in that type of neighborhood is prohibited by zoning and fire safety laws”. Neither zoning nor fire regulations (other than the obvious not parking by a fire hydrant) restrict street parking.

“Obama most likely either edited or personally wrote the legal documents for his sub-division and the fence.” I’ll bet money he didn’t write them, because he would leave it to his real estate lawyer – somebody who knows what he’s doing and does it all the time. A real estate lawyer would just assemble form documents and do it cheaper and quicker than Obama could.

The subdivision of the lot is no big deal. From the pictures it’s obviously a double lot. There would be no zoning or landmarks issue with dividing this.

Commenters also want to make a big deal out of Obama’s and Rezko’s purchases closing on the same day. Anyone who thinks this is significant is a fool or a shill. It would be extraordinary if they *didn’t* close both transactions on the same day, at the same closing. Nobody in their right mind does two closings instead of one. Nobody in their right mind would do a deal where half a property transfers one day and the other half transfers another day. As the seller, you want everything to be done and all the papers signed before anybody leaves the table, you don’t want to have to come back and you don’t want to create the opportunity for half the deal to fall through.