Something’s Wrong with Illinois Review’s Comments
Maybe someone can provide some technical help over there….
Call It A Comeback
Maybe someone can provide some technical help over there….
I’ve done a fair amount of work on assessments and such both professionally and on the side with Rezko related silliness. Rich points out the Assessor’s response here:
1) The tax bill IS listed where the Emanuel home is located. They are on two lots.
2) By “for tax purposes,” I mean that this is the location associated with the PIN. But it’s the same property.
3) Yes, it was inaccurate to say that. Because it is the same house. It was listed in our records — and the Treasurer’s records — under a different address. Had you contacted either office to check this out, we could have told you that.
4) It would be highly misleading and irresponsible for you to say that, because we don’t assess property by address – we do it by PIN. And we do it because addresses change and get combined all the time, when owners divide and combine lots. Apparently, with this property, a previous owner had taken three lots and turned them into two.
Let me make one further point: Before posting this “story,” neither you nor anybody from the Illinois Review made an effort to contact the Assessor’s office to verify it. As a former newspaper reporter, I find this shocking.
Even after learning, when I emailed you at 10:46 this morning, that there were factual problems with the story, you kept it on your web site. Moreover, you deleted my effort to correct the story from the “comments” section. I’d be keenly interested in hearing your justification for this conduct.
I’ve been known to jump way too soon to conclusions–one of the bigger recent examples was jumping on Personal PAC. But you know what? I apologize and admit I screwed up.
That said, with property records this is especially true for the exact reasons the assessor cites. Because properties change all of the time you have to check out the surrounding plots and everything else before going off half cocked. That’s actually what Matt Blunt did in Missouri when he tried to claim massive voter fraud. The Post Dispatch tracked it down correctly and found at most 14 bad votes in 2000.
It’s a lot easier to just say, I screwed up instead of writing a nearly incomprehensible update that never just says
My bad.
I’ve made some doozy mistakes a few times and it sucks to issue a big correction, but at least you still have your self respect. Apparently some folks don’t care about that.
Rich and Progress Illinois have more.
Illinois Review claims that Rahm doesn’t pay property taxes. Not true. Illinois Review has a history of this crap and they seldom issue corrections. People make mistakes–I certainly have, but it’s the ability to correct mistakes that matters.
I’m still trying to get some sleep after having about 4 hours of it in 60 hours surrounding election day and you know, spending time with my family. I don’t generally feel the need to jump when people think I should be posting. In particular when it’s someone who has never been held accountable for making crap up.
The basic problem with many of the conservative blogosphere in Illinois is that they traffic in conspiracies and idiocies. I don’t think Gordy at IlliniPundit has ever gotten a Daily Dolt and there’s a simple reason for that–Gordy is honest and corrects himself when he gets facts wrong and he actually knows something about elections and campaigns. He also understands the scope of elections and how to effectively deal with messages and motivating the base online. Inevitably he’s often called a RINO for it while Gordy is quite conseravtive (same goes for Oneman too.
Getting predictions wrong is kind of a joke every cycle because inevitably no one can figure out every race. However, there’s a difference between fun calls and getting basic facts wrong and repeating them over and over again when people with actual sources do their work.
So let’s start with why Frank Burns is such a dolt:
1) attacking a guy for being a full time candidate when Kirk was also a full time candidate when he first ran
2) Saying the DCCC wasn’t supporting Dan Seals. It wasn’t true and I knew that because I actually have good sources. In fact, they invested heavily in 10.
3) harassing a guy teaching a class and interfering with a part-time job
4) claiming Seals was going to a fundraiser in New York that he had never been scheduled to go to
5) Claiming Dan not being at the DNC was a big deal when it was Durbin who told him to use the time in district
6) deliberately misrepresented the difference between GE’s industrial and home finance divions
Those are all things that I figured out within 10 minutes of asking around or just wouldn’t do. I don’t interfere with any candidate’s employment for obvious reasons. Pointing out if someone is in a crappy business is legit, interfering with employment is not. It’s the sign of a juvenile dumbass who doesn’t understand where politics end and personal lives begin.
What’s funny about all of this, is that none of it had any serious impact–the problem for Dan was his campaign misfired badly and appears to have a very poor field organization amongst many other problems and probably most importantly, Kirk is freakishly good at politics. My biggest mistake was not seeing that.
Having the crapper in the RV emptied:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ycv1-QvxN0[/youtube]
Jack coatar