Obama

How You Know the Story is Crap

 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.

The Lot History for Obama’s House and the Vacant Lot

Somehow this crap keeps coming up at different sites.

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:

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.

Early Exit Poll Rumors

Don’t take them very seriously.

Copied from Open Left, but they are all over 

Here you go.  I have no idea how reliable these are.

The Obama victories are bolded.  If these are real, Obama has thrashed Clinton today.

Georgia: Obama 75, Clinton 26
Connecticut: Obama 52, Clinton 45
Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 29
Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton – 37
Delaware Obama 56, Clinton 42
Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 47
Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 45
Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41
New York: Clinton 56, Obama 42
New Jersey: Obama 52, Clinton 47
Arkansas: Clinton 71, Obama 26
Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 30
Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45
1st wave:
New Mexico: Obama 52, Clinton 46
Utah: Obama 60, Clinton 40

California: Clinton 50, Obama 46

Don’t take them too seriously.  These are unweighted and raw and ultimately just samples.

Huge Turnout

Via Rich

Turnout Very High

Illinois board of elections officials were more willing to talk today about the weather than the voting, saying it’s too soon to get a strong bead on statewide turnout. But press them, and they say there’s little chance a light rain, mid-30s temps, and a possible freeze toward evening will keep the state from breaking a 15-year turnout record today.In Cook County, which encompasses most close-in Chicago suburbs, early ballots cast by suburban voters were, at 60,000, nearly double the county’s previous record of 32,000 cast in the 2006 gubernatorial election. The numbers featured a spike in young voter ballots and college absentee votes, said County Clerk David Orr. That bodes well for Obama, who polls indicate holds a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in his true-blue home state.

Cook County voter registration broke records as well, Orr said in a statement, with 1.35 million suburban Cook voters having registered before the deadline.

Turnout in Sangamon County, home of the capital city of Springfield, was also far exceeding turnout in previous years, election officials there said.

Illinois voters don’t typically turn out in huge numbers for primaries, Orr said — in the 2004 primary, barely 29% of registered voters cast ballots. But Orr predicted turnout to bust the 40 percent record set in the state in the 1992 primary, when Bill Clinton won.

High turnout helps Obama and it’ll help downballot with races like IL-3 where Mark Pera is running to beat Dan Lipinski.

Planned Parenthood Responds to Illlinois Now’s criticism of Obama

Via Rich

Planned Parenthood’s Blog 

A letter from Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area President and CEO, Steve Trombley:

I’m here to set the record straight about Barack Obama’s record on reproductive choice. Barack Obama has always been committed to a woman’s right to choose. He has a 100% pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.

Barack Obama has NEVER wavered.

You wouldn’t know this from Illinois NOW’s recent statements on Obama’s record. The fact is that it is NOT Obama who has wavered, Illinois NOW is the one who’s changed its mind.

When Obama was an Illinois state senator he worked with Planned Parenthood to develop a strategy combating a series of extreme anti-choice measures designed to paint pro-choice legislators into a corner. Obama and numerous other state senators voted “present” on these bills in order to protest the politicization of the health and safety of Illinois women. Illinois is one of the few states that allows legislators to voice their objections to legislation through a “present” vote. These “present” votes are counted in the official roll call of the bill, and they DO affect the outcome. For all intents and purposes, they are a vote against the bill. As a matter of fact, Senator Obama wanted to vote “no” on these bills. But, he stood with his colleagues in protest against the anti-choice extremists who controlled the Illinois Senate at the time.

During his time as a state senator, no major pro-choice organization questioned Obama’s present votes. Instead, Obama received endorsements from Personal PAC, NARAL of Illinois PAC, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, and, YES, EVEN Illinois NOW.

That’s right! Illinois NOW endorsed Barack Obama in his elections in 1998 and 2002 AFTER he voted “present” on several bills. As Illinois NOW officials have stated, they were aware of the “present” vote strategy, and they still endorsed him. They also endorsed several other prominent Illinois politicians who voted the same way.

It is only after years have past that Illinois NOW has changed its mind. Apparently, these days they don’t agree with the strategy that they originally endorsed. Why didn’t they think that in 1998 or 2002?

I don’t know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack Obama since his record has remained the same and since his time as a state senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice.

I don’t take issue with Illinois NOW having a preference for a woman candidate for President. However, I do take issue with their distortion of Obama’s record.

My organization has not made an endorsement yet because we have two solidly 100% pro-choice candidates running for President. However, we feel it is important to defend Senator Obama (or any candidate) who has stood with us to protect our precious reproductive freedoms.

If we don’t defend people who stand with us, how can we ever expect them to be there when the going gets tough?

Amen.

Super Tuesday MO Democratic Presidential Primary

It’s going to be close, but the advertising certainly helps Obama–Clinton’s ads are rather unnoteworthy and Obama has McCaskill in them as well as Lacy Clay and the Carnahans supporting him and apparently working pretty hard for him.

Survey USA doesn’t show any closing, but the others show it as a virtual tie and that’s what I’ve been hearing for a week from different campaigns–including statewide campaigns not involved.  Again, Survey USA seems to show a lower African-American turnout than I expect by 4-5 points so I think Obama will take a slight win.

Super Tuesday Illinois Democratic Presidential Primary

Obama is going to win, the question is by how much. There were concerns down south of Springfield for a while with Hillary polling well, but that appears to no longer be a problem.  Obama won’t do as well down there as in Chicago, but he apparently has a healthy lead.

Survey USA listed the numbers today at 66 30 and that seems about right to me–the only question was they had African-Americans making up 22% of the voting group, yet in 2004, they were higher than that.  The Survey USA poll that was closest to Obama’s final tally (and the only poll that close) had the percentage at 25%.
In fact, if you look at the Survey USA polls released across the board today, there’s a fairly significant drop in the percentage of African Americans included in the samples in all states with significant African-American populations. Most seem to be 3-5 points of African-Americans as a percentage of the population.

There are a few possible reasons for this. One is that African-Americans are less likely to vote come Tuesday.  Given Obama is on the ballot that is unlikely and counter to everything we’ve seen this cycle.

Or it could mean that samples are having a hard time being polled over the last few days and they are undercounted. If that’s the case, it could be a good day for Obama.

Romney’s a Moron

He’s getting his ass kicked with the moderate GOP or at least what’s left of it and so he lumps McCain in with Obama. The thing is–Obama’s approval ratings with Republicans aren’t all that bad.  The last crosstab I can find had him at 41% approval by Republicans back in 2006 and I don’t think his overall rating has changed very much.

So Romney may do well with conservatives with that tactic, but he already is–he needs to capture the less ideological Republicans who generally find Obama to be a decent guy.

Illinois NOW Tries to Lie It’s Way Out

Here’s Gay Bruhn’s claim about the present votes:

Sorry — That’s not record for the bills we are questioning. Look up SB1094, SB1095, and SB1096 also known as the born alive bills.

This is quite funny given Illinois NOW had this up on their web site.:

Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There On Issues That Mattered to Illinois Women

In celebration of Women’s History Month, March 28, 2007, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee, NOW PAC, announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President (see article below).

Illinois NOW PAC supported the endorsement of Senator Clinton. “She is, after all, our native sister,” said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of Illinois NOW. “We know from her record and in her heart she will be there for us.”

Senator Clinton has a long history of support for women’s empowerment, and her public record is a testimony to her leadership on issues important to women in the U.S. and around the globe. She has eloquently articulated the need for full economic, political and social equality for women in every institution of society, taking action throughout her career — as a lawyer, community leader, First Lady, Senator and candidate for the presidency — to advance the civil and human rights of women and girls.

After looking at his record, Grabenhofer does not feel the same way about Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

During Senator Obamas 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on ‘partial birth abortion,’ two parental notification laws and three ‘born alive’ bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

“When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

For more information on the endorsement go to www.nowpac.org ++

So Bruhn identified three Born Alive Protection Act votes, but didn’t mention the two parental notification bills and 2 late term abortion bills. Perhaps she’d like to explain what the parental notification bills Illinois NOW identified in the press release are different from SB 562 in which Lisa Madigan voted present as well.

Of course, the entire response did not respond to Lisa Madigan who agreed the strategy was used and supported it.

It also ignores that Obama refused to even call the Born Alive Protection Act while he was Committee Chair after 2002 and so effectively killed the bill by himself.

Seriously, you have tried this canard for 4 years. And you still cannot get the story straight.