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.
Wait. What? People are making up bs about a presidential front-runner?
When did that start happening?!
Why doesn’t Barack answer questions about this and clear up the confusion?
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.
Dan,
The simple answer is that he has. If you watched Chase and Novak on WTTW or read Zorn’s column, the questions remaining aren’t about the house sale. Everything checked out with his version pretty well. The questions are the amount and times of fundraisers where Rezko was a bundler.
Given there was no disclosure requirements at the time for bundling, Obama may not have the full records of those, but he still needs to sit down to take his lumps.
I don’t need no stinking badges…
Thanks for the comments–I’ll add them to another post.
I don’t believe Barack has fully come clean on the nature of the conversations he had with Rezko prior to the purchase of his property. He has spoken very vaguely about it. To me, that’s the thorny part of this. I also know that reporters are very skeptical that Barack has been forthcoming about this precise issue.
No, they aren’t. Watch the WTTW interview. Chase and Novak have said the story checks out. What they are upset about it trying to get information on the degree of bundling Rezko did for Obama.
Didn’t see the wttw interview but know, from several long conversations with key individuals in the Chicago print media, that they are skeptical of the story he told initially regarding the conversations between the two prior to the sale.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the purchase of Obama’s additional side yard, but it happens all the time in Chicagoland subdivisions. In the home I know own, my parents once sold 15 feet of the sideyard lot here so the neighbor next door could build a garage. Across the street the same thing happened twice and there is even a house on a “buildable lot” made up of two half-lot sideyards.
What I DO know in this Obama discussion is that one side of the argument sites names (Chase and Novak), events (WTTW broadcast and published articles), data (Building Codes and official Landmark Commission regulations). ArchPundit DOES do his homework.
The other side defends a position by alluding to some alleged “long conversations with key individuals in the Chicago print media.” – pretty hard to confirm OR deny. If there is dirt on Obama, let it come from named sources and viewable records. Otherwise STFU.
[…] Despite efforts by left wing blogs to characterize Barack Obama’s Tony Rezko problems as settled, that is far from the case. At the rabid Firedoglake blog, the lefties tried to pull an expressio uno (if you didn’t mention it, it must not be significant) legal argument on me. How pathetic is this? So much so that when Chicago-area Republican blogger Dan Curry was using the Rezko proffer in December as a club with which to beat up every local Democrat he could think of (most especially the proffer’s actual main target, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich), he didn’t even bother with bashing Obama, even though Rezko’s Obama connections had hit the news months earlier. However, Curry did later spread around the Rezko guilt by association with a mention of Hillary Clinton’s ties to John Burgess of IPA, whose lawyer is named in the Rezko indictment. […]
Obviously we are hearing different things, but the criticism I hear is about fully detailing the bundling that Rezko did—as your link is relevant to. We know there were a lot of contacts between Obama and Rezko for bundling, but we don’t know how much.
The problem with saying there’s more to the Obama house story is that what would more do? The sale would occur no matter what and Obama was the high bidder with someone only $25,000 below on the vacant lot. So what is the deal? The strip of land? Access that Obama refused to use to the land?
One possible scenario is that Barack and Rezko made an agreement that Rezko would buy the adjacent property with the understanding that he wouldn’t develop it and would sell it to the Obamas at a later time—effectively preventing development of it. Perfectably understandable from the Obama perspective but perhaps edging into the arena of a gift.
That would explain Barack’s vagueness when describing how it came about.
Again, didn’t see the WTTW interview. Surely, however, the reporters were not going to be 100 percent forthcoming in their personal opinions because they are supposed to remain publicly objective and more importantly because they are sitting next to their competitor and aren’t about to lay out their reporting direction to them.
One possible scenario is that dancurry will keep making up imaginary scenarios. Another possible scenario is that dancurry will read the minds of TV reporters, even while admitting to have never seen the interview in question.
A more likely scenario to those of us who read this news over a year ago is that there was absolutely no indication of “Barack”s vagueness…” In fact, Obama and his spokespersons have previously given detailed answers to the Sun-Times and others.
Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?
A: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.
Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?
A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.
Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?
A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.
Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?
A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller’s agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.
We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.
Q: Why did you put the property in a trust?
A: I was advised that a trust holding would afford me some privacy, which was important to me as I would be commuting from Washington to Chicago and my family would spend some part of most weeks without me.
Q: A Nov. 21, 1999, Chicago Tribune story indicates the house you bought “sits on a quarter-acre lot and will share a driveway and entrance gate with a home next door that has not yet been built.” Is this shared driveway still in the mix? Will this require further negotiations with the Rezkos?
A: The driveway is not shared with the adjacent owner. But the resident in the carriage house in the back does have an easement over it.
Q: Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?
A: I’ve always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the ten years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances.
With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.
But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.
Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well.
Didn’t Rezko’s wife sell that property recently (at a profit to them)? (Keeping in mind that Rezko’s wife, not Rezko himself, buy the open lot.)
Wouldn’t such a sale negate Dan Curry’s “possible scenario” (which clearly came out of his [bleep] along with some cherry-scented rainbows and prancing unicorns).
I have it on high authority from unnamed sources in Chicagoland gutter politics that Dan Curry is a partisan yahoo who knows not of what he speaks, but likes to make things up as he goes along.
PS: Rezko was a bundler for Pres. Bush also… Let’s not forget that, shall we? I wonder if Dan Curry’s anonymous sources are concerned about Bush’s relationship to Rezko… (and why do those people even need to remain anonymous? there are no repercussions to naming them…)
Let’s back off Dan a bit. I cannot say everyone I’ve talked to nor can he–he’s a decent guy if always wrong 😉
Barack remembers everything else quite well, except below. That’s my point.
I have not criticized Barack about this much. Just noting what appears to me to be the most logical reason for the Rezko purchase — and Barack’s fuzziness.
I know that nobody is allowed to ask Barack a tough question even though he is on the verge of becoming president and just a few years ago made a joint purchase of property with a man accused in the biggest corruption scandal in Illinois history.
Don’t mean to interrupt the MSM’s coronation.
Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
Dan,
Saying “nobody is allowed to ask Barack a tough question” is so much partisan tripe.
Liberals run the same complaint about Bush getting it easy from the press (ie, “White House stenographers’ pool”).
It’s a hollow complaint because, as you’ve noted, you’re cherry-picking which media stories and which reporters you in you anti-Obama fervor choose to focus on.
You’ve made up a rationale (what you claim “to be the most logical reason”) yet when facts and reality point in a different direction you refuse to admit it.
PS: I note that many staunchly conservative partisans are whining the same rant about the media “coronation” of McCain… So much complaining, so few pixels and bytes with which to publicize it.
To dancurry,
Let’s see, Dan. Earlier I posted a series of published “tough questions” to which Senator Obama gave clear, detailed, understandable answers. Repeatedly. Answers which were repeated to the national media by his staff when they refused to read the Chicago coverage. Previous ownership, real estate agent names, etc. All questions and answers which long ago debunked the continued push of anti-Obama rumors.
So much for your “I know that nobody is allowed to ask Barack a tough question…” whine, Dan. “Asked and answered,” said the Sun-Times long ago.
All of your anti-Obama arguments have been blown out of the water with published facts.
Yet you continue with “…just a few years ago made a joint purchase of property…” Sorry, Dan. Very poor reading of the English language, Dan. TWO separate properties, PREVIOUSLY subdivided. Two SEPARATE purchases. “Joint” has a clear and legal definition. But alas, “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'” (sorry, LC)
Now you seem to vaguely imply something hugely sinister and “vague” because Senator Obama seems to remember that he was first to notice the seller was willing to sell his properties separately since they had not sold while bundled. What, pray tell, is sinister there?
Well, since you are so fond of spinning “possible scenarios,” here are two:
A family man and another dealer go into a liquidation sale at the local camper-conversion dealer who is down to his last two demos. One is a top-of–the-line conversion van, ready-to-roll; and the other is a stripped-down box. “I need to sell them both right now because I’m leaving town but nobody wants them both,” moans the seller, (and now the story splits)
Scenario 1:
“Gee,” says potential Buyer 1, “I really want the ready-to-go one but not the other one.”
“OK,” says the Dealer-buyer, “Since I develop these for a profit I’ll buy the stripped-down one.”
Scenario 2:
“Gee,” says the Dealer-buyer. “I want to buy the stripped-down one because I develop these. But I don’t have any use for the one which is already built-out – no profit.”
“Great,” says potential Buyer 1. “The top line one is perfect for me, but I’m not in the van conversion business and have no use for the other one.”
In either case, the Dealer-buyer then says to Buyer 1, “By the way, I’m going to throw away the canvas top. Do you want to buy it?”
“Only for its retail value,” replies Buyer 1, “I don’t want any special deals.”
It seems as if the anti-Obama forces will not be happy until they know what everyone had for breakfast and what color underwear they were wearing that day. SHEESH. A deal in which a seller and two individual buyers all were happy with what they got. It just can’t happen in Chicago. Obviously something sinister MUST be going on.
Sorry, bird-watcher who can only insult anonymously—he hasn’t come clean. This isn’t just me, a conservative, it’s Eric Zorn, a liberal, and others. Barack has been vague on some parts of this and it matters because it involves one of the seminal events of his life—the purchase of his family’s house—with the help of a notorious alleged swindler. If you think George W. Bush would have gotten away this easily with the exact same set of facts prior to being elected in 2000, then you have an argument. It’s Barack who’s telling the world he has great judgment.
Eric is very specific about what he wants Obama to address-the extent of the fundraising and the friendship over time. That is distinct from the house sale that Eric doesn’t believe there is any evidence of wrong doing.
No, Bush just bankrupted an oil company… in Texas… funded with Saudi investments…
Oh, and he traded away Sammy Sosa and built a new ball stadium with public money.
Again, all legitimate activities, even if questionable on paper. I don’t seem to recall too many news outlets running inquiries into them in 2000 though.
Stop the spinsanity Dan.
OK, dancurry… Insult? What part of the Q & A I’ve quoted from the Sun-Times (which you so carefully keep ignoring) do you find insulting? Are they too “vague?”
You have yet to define what you perceive as “vague” on “some parts” of this. As ArchPundit has pointed out for at least the third time, Zorn sees no evidence of wrongdoing in the Obama home purchase which you perceive as “one of the seminal events” of Obama’s life. Thank you, ArchPundit, for condensing it into two sentences.
Is it my shock at your misuse of the simple word “joint” that you find insulting? Or did it insult you that someone else could create “possible scenarios?”
I am very sorry if you seem to find it insulting that independently published and verified facts keep getting in the way of your vague, innuendo-filled possible scenarios.
As to my anonymity, I’m well-known to the blog owner and have followed his ground rules for years, always posting under the same blog handle as he has requested. Sorry again.
Since I don’t want you to feel insulted by my words:
“Stop the spinsanity Dan.”
I agree with Dan that there’s probably more to this conversation that Barack has not revealed: “I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.”
Of course, let’s assume the worst (cue Wayne’s World fade-out)
BP: Hey Tony, Michelle and I are trying to buy the house on Greenwood across from KAM Isaiah Israel. The side lot is separate and on the market for a developer. Why doesn’t Rezmar buy it? You know that long-term Kenwood is only going up.
TR: Yeah, I know that lot — market stinks for vacant lots right now, but being next to the new Senator can’t hurt the property value, right?
BO: As long as you don’t market it that way, OK? Michelle would have my head. Look, whatever happens to the market, if you can’t develop it, when my next book comes out I can buy it back from you at market rates. I’d rather have a basketball court there anyway.
So there it is. Boneheaded? Yep. A reportable gift? Potentially, but only if the transaction is consummated in the way above — an unexercised, illiquid option is pretty hard to value. More embarrassing if the details came out? Sure — so he sticks to “boneheaded”.
That said, Dan writes “If you think George W. Bush would have gotten away this easily with the exact same set of facts prior to being elected in 2000, then you have an argument.”
I do, and I do have an argument that consists of three words: Alabama National Guard.
This transactions below have to be some of the cleanest real estate deals in Chicagoland, if not the most analyzed.
Ms. Rezko buys a buildable lot for 62.50/sq ft., the then-current market value.
Six months later she sells a strip of the lot for a realistic gain of 69.67/sq ft – at current market,an 11% profit, not at tax appraised value (always unrealistically low for residential property in Cook County).
Seller is required by law to build a fence. Buyer is concerned about fence design to retain landmark status of existing home. Seller pays for fence. Buyer pays for architectural design.
One year later, Seller sells the remaining buildable lot for $76.67/sq ft. – a 22.7% profit for 18 months.
A reportable gift? Not even close. Boneheaded? Perhaps.
ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD does do it in three words.
WHITEWATER does it in one.
IBW, the reportable gift would be if there was an implicit agreement NOT to develop the land.
And your one word answer is better than mine, because Whitewater was a money losing deal. I should have mentioned that my three words were FAR worse than this deal, since someone didn’t make it to the guard and went to ‘nam.
[…] 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. […]