Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.
Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement.
"There is water at the bottom of the ocean..."
I'm surprised you're quoting this no-news article. A search of historical mortgage rates finds a range of 5.57% to 5.95 in the period Nov 04 thru March 05. Obama got 5.625%. Further, he was just starting to pull in relatively large dollars with his books, so he should have been capable of getting a good rate. What a scandal!
From the story:
You're saying that the Washington Post is lying about someone for whom they've been openly campaigning for almost a year?
That's just quality reporting there. A family with high income got a great deal on a mortgage because of said high income. Averages exist for a reason. Someone has to be above it, someone has to be below it. Gordy, shame on you for parroting this as some kind of scandal.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
I think it's clear that since his rate was comparable with the rates that rich white people got in Chicago at the time, he must be the benefit of something.
"Gordy, shame on you for parroting this as some kind of scandal."
Oh, goodness. So you too think the WashPost is lying? "The freshman Democratic senator received a discount," is an unequivocable, declarative statement. You're saying that they wrote it without evidence?
And, on the broader theme, I've been saying Obama is Just Another Politician™ since he announced his candidacy. Shame on the Washington Post for finally waking up and parrotting me.
IP, I think curious is saying it's a no news item because everybody should expect a Chicago politician to be a lying crook on the take.
"I think it's clear that since his rate was comparable with the rates that rich white people got in Chicago at the time, he must be the benefit of something."
Heh.
How dare you criticize Barack Obama! You're obviously racist!
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"How dare you criticize Barack Obama! You're obviously racist!"
Nobody has called me racist. They've said the WashPost is lying, which I think is remarkable. And that I should know that they are lying.
dola.
Here's more from American Thinker.
That's two outlets reporting his rate was better than average, with some indications of credit problems, at a time just after he was elected to the US Senate. If he hadn't spent the past year portraying himself as somehow different and better than other politicians, this isn't even a story.
IP, no one is saying the Washington Post is lying. Yes, he got a discount--don't lenders have some discretion on the rates they offer, especially on that big a loan? Should Obama have turned it down? I certainly took the best rate my mortgage lender offered me.
Wow. What a waste of time. Bankers routinely waive points for clients, especially newly wealthy clients with whom they are hoping to do future business. It is not illegal and is not particularly unethical. Obama got a decent rate on a new home. He was the newly elected Senator of the State of Illinois with a book deal cooling in the wings. The guys at Northern Trust must have been giddy to have his business. So what?
When I opened my account at Busey they gave us a blender. Should I take that blender back if I ever decide to run for office?
Pa-thetic.
"IP, no one is saying the Washington Post is lying."
Yes they are. Are you reading the same responses that I am?
"Should I take that blender back if I ever decide to run for office?"
If you're claiming to run for office because you're different/better than everyone else, then yes.
I didn't say the WaPo was lying. I was saying that they're trying to turn a non-story into a story and you're helping. With everything going on in the world, is it really relevant (at all) that Obama got an average rate on a home loan? Criticize his health plan, his out of Iraq plan, his economic plan, his foreign policy plans, etc. But even if your quote from the American Thinker is accurate, it looks like he may have gotten 0.2 to 0.3 % better than average on his loan. Is this really news? Especially given his clear wealth and earnings potential at the time?
Yeah, I guess I'm just curious what he was supposed to do, or WWGD (What would Gordy do?) Obviously if he said, "Give me a good loan and I'll hook you up!" he should go to jail. If he merely walked in and got a good rate, what is he supposed to do about that?
If he merely walked in and got a good rate, what is he supposed to do about that?
As a Senator, he should make sure that his transactions don't even give the appearance of impropriety.
No, no. You still aren't understanding my question...I'm asking what is he supposed to do about it.
Remember, we aren't talking about an obscenely low rate. We are talking about a below average rate. It would be pretty hard to walk in as a financially secure, income secure person and not get a below average rate.
The perks and priviledges of Congress are legendary and unending. From outright gifts (bribes), lifetime pensions, extraordinary salaries despite the lightest work schedule ever created (I'm calling work actually being in Washington crafting legislation), to the unlimited health insurance, Congress, both houses, have voted themselves lavish payment packages. That real estate agents and bankers would suck up to a politician surely comes as no surprise. I'm sure John McCain has similar lucrative deals in his background as well.
"I'm asking what is he supposed to do about it."
Well, it's too late to ask him to avoid real estate deals with corrupt developers and discounted mortgages.
Almost makes one question his judgement, doesn't it?
So, I know I haven't asked this before, but this entertaining conversation leads me to want to ask:
What he was supposed to do, or WWGD (What would Gordy do?)
I know it might come out of left field since you've probably never heard the question before, so if it takes you a minute to respond or you want to post a whole bunch of non-answers before getting around to it, that's cool. But could you eventually try to answer it for me? I appreciate it.
I read the WaPo article, and you know one thing that's missing from it? Any indication of any wrongdoing. There isn't even an unfounded accusation of wrongdoing. What I did see a lot in the article was that he got a "better than average" deal. Is that so surprising? I notice you didn't quote this graf:
So you've got a two-income family with a seven-figure income, a six-figure income, stable employment and the likelihood of salary increases in the future. Is it any wonder they were considered a better-than-average credit risk? I'm a better-than-average credit risk, and I make a tiny fraction of what they do. I would expect to walk into a bank and get a better than average rate on a loan. (Not that I'm in the same house-buying bracket as they were.)
My sister, recently out of med school, says that banks all but throw money at you if you're going to be a doctor. They consider you a good risk with significant income potential. This seems likely to me to be the same sort of thing.
Oh, and I see nothing to suggest they got a "discount" on their loan, as the article states. They got a good rate. It was 0.3% lower than the average. That hardly seems like statistical significance to me. Is the only thing you'd accept as evidence of non-corruption would be a Senator walking into a bank and saying "Hello, I'd like a bad deal on a loan, please"?
I don't get it. If you think you might ever run for president, you have to make sure you pay more than anyone else for everything? And, by the way, Gordie, your slam about making deals with corrupt developers is totally out of line. He didn't make any deals with corrupt developers. The physicians who sold Obama his house have said it was negotiated entirely separately from the sale of the vacant lot to Rezko. Rezko may have had ulterior motives in buying next door to an up and coming Senator, but you can hardly blame Obama for that. You Republicans are just trying to innoculate your man against the inevitable story resurrecting the Keating Five. You want to talk about unsavory real estate deals, let's talk about them. Remember? (You can read about it on Wikkipedia if you've forgotten.) McCain got over $100,000 in campaign contributions from Keating. His wife and father in law were investors in Keating real estate deals. The McCains made at least nine trips on Keating's airplane, for which they did not reimburse him until the scandal broke. McCain was one of several Senators who put pressure on regulators to back off on Keating, although apparently his pressures were not as intense as some of the others. The collapse of Keating's savings and loan cost taxpayers over $3 billion. (That's billion!) So, let's talk about McCain's and Obama's real estate deals.
Is the only thing you'd accept as evidence of non-corruption would be a Senator walking into a bank and saying "Hello, I'd like a bad deal on a loan, please"?
How could you even ask this question? After all, it's been asked three or four times in the thread already and it's been so effectively answered each time :P?
This doesn't seem to be very damning... even going by the WaPo article itself. It sounds like they were being competitive for their business due to their new wealth as opposed to special treatment for political favors or because of his political position, etc. And even the discount they're talking about is compared to averages the article notes may not even be comparable as it was compared to loans that were large (to an average joe anyways) but generally much smaller than the loan the Obama's got and with little mention of the potential investment of other wealth other borrowers may have been possibly bringing to the table.
Dodd's situation seems worse imo. As far as judgment, Obama's association with Rezko even after the indictments seems worse. And as far as relevant judgment, Obama's admission that he couldn't say how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization is extremely relevant and extremely damning. Trying to sell yourself as the candidate of great judgment and leaving your opponents such great ad soundbites as, "What would I have done? I don't know." on such a critical issue is pure political gold. This barely qualifies as a free-supersize coupon worth 1/100th of a cent in redeemable value. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Oh, and I see nothing to suggest they got a "discount" on their loan, as the article states"
So when the WashPost and American Thinker both state that his loan was "discounted," you think they're lying? Why?
"So, let's talk about McCain's and Obama's real estate deals. "
OK. Are you under the impression that I've been portraying John McCain as above criticism?
"After all, it's been asked three or four times in the thread already and it's been so effectively answered each time :P?"
I've answered it once. I'll repeat it. I'd prefer that a candidate whose primary claimed qualification is excellent judgement:
And yes, I know you think this is a silly, stupid thing to be talking about. But that's what he gets for his "change our politics" BS when he's swimming in the cesspool.
Same. As. It. Ever. Was.
Ok.
1. So you really would demand that someone running for office demand a bad rate on a loan. After all, "discounted" in this case just means, "slightly better than average". So they aren't "lying", they are just crappy reporters who don't understand math. And if you look up the contact info for the reporter, I'll send then a mail saying as much.
2. Irrelevant. That's like saying "Don't treat people for diabetes when you don't have diabetes."
3. Yes, don't portray yourself in a good light. That's why your were so up front about Judy Myers ample shortcomings during her campaign. From your limited perspective, he's no good, so he should get on the stage and say, "Gordy thinks I suck and so I must open all speeches with that!"
4. I agree entirely. But I fail to see what it has to do with him getting a completely normal loan for someone in his income bracket.
Obama is not above reproach. I criticized him in the other thread. It's when every third article has to be about some non-story about him: "Black candidate goes to black church!" "Rich candidate gets rich dude loan!" "Chicagoan candidate is a democrat!" "I Mark Shelden like Ice Cream and Obama is a bad bad man!" It's boys who cried wolf only extend the story from a short story to 5,000 internet pages.
The interest rate is not the problem. The real problem is that Michelle Obama was on the Landmark Commission when the doctor who worked at the same hospital as Michelle, wanted to sell. Once you have a landmark designation, the Landmark Commission has you by the under control for building permits, improvements, etc. This was no problem for Michelle, and she wanted this house. Michelle had sat on this commission for 6 years, so to play the Obamas as novices in need of Rezco is media spin. Rezco was in trouble with the feds and needed an infusion of cash from his Middle East (London based) partner. Michelle wanted the house at a discount. All this at a time when everyone presumed Hillary would win. So Michelle went to her benfactor, the same one that got her a salary increase from 120,000 to 300,000 in salary and asked for his help. How can Rezco get cash and Michelle get a discount?
If you look at the house they wanted, it is surrounded by a brick fence with iron posts around it and a gate. It has a landscaped side yard. The two lots have been together for a long time. The first problem they faced is that they needed to freeze out any other buyers. They suggested that the doctor list the house and the side yard seperately. But the side yard was unbuildable. One would have had to force an easement over Obama's property and build another gate just to access.
Thle doctor was not stupid either, he knew that if he listed the house and the lot seperately and someone purchased the lot, he would still have an unsold house. So the doctor make the first move and stipulated that the house and lot would close at the same time. Rezco made the second move. When a property goes into MLS, it gets removed from the MLS if there is a full price offer. So in order to freeze the doctor out, Rezco had a straw man make a full price offer for the lot ($650,000). But now the doctor was in a real pickle, because now he had to wait until someone would come forward and purchase the house. I am sure the doctor was pissed to beat the band. Rezco comes forward and says that he has talked with the buyer and has an option to purchase the home and that if it is sold to Obama, they can get close to their asking price. The doctor is at the same hospital where Michelle works in public relations, so he goes along and moves to Iowa.
In order to hide the transaction, both Rezco and Obama put the lots into a land trust. Now how you subdivide a historical landmarked property is a question that the drive by media will never ask. A land trust converts it into personal property, which would destroy any landmark designation. But who would know. The land trust records are not open to public scrutiny. Would have been a done deal, but....
The doctors realtor is pissed to beat the band. She leaks that Obama has purchased the property and that Rezco has purchased the lot next door. Rezco had planned to launder the whole $650,000 (of a $3m transfer), but the media found out. Rezco needs to find a pretext to get some money back, so he suggests that a portion of the lot will be sold back to Obama. Now another problem. Obama goes out and asks an appraiser to appraise this purchase. Not being in on the take, the appraiser says that it is worth only $33,000. Obama agrees to kick back $100,000, if Rezco buys the fence. Rezco buys the fence (does not pay for it) and puts it on the property line. He did this because no one can see the 10 foot transfer, but if they ever do the math, someone will figure that the zoning of the Rezco lot will not even qualify for R2.
So basically what you have is money laundering for which Rezco got his bond revoked. A discount for Obama after extorting the house from the doctor through her connections at the hosptial and on the landmark commission (or so it seems). The fence down the property was because a landmark house has to be surrounded by a fence. Boneheaded is an understatement, this is a downright crooked transaction. The problem is that no one is asking the right questions.
Mr. Maloney, you're full of it. Go here, and read all the posts in connection with the linked one (there are nine).
If they got a regular or slightly worse than average loan, Gordy would claim that it was proof that Obama is not fiscally smart and the economy would collapse with him in charge. Gordy, this is a sad, lame attempt to smear him. Quit being so freakin partisan about everything.
With everything going on in the world, is it really relevant (at all) that Obama got an average rate on a home loan? Criticize his health plan, his out of Iraq plan, his economic plan, his foreign policy plans, etc. But even if your quote from the American Thinker is accurate, it looks like he may have gotten 0.2 to 0.3 % better than average on his loan. Is this really news?
Of course it isn't news, but what is a poor Republican to do? You can't debate the economy because everyone knows the last 25 years of conservative economics (ie: tax cuts and deregulation) are the main culprits for our current malaise. You can't debate Iraq because you've been consistently wrong about the war from the start. You can't debate health care because you have no solutions, just more of the same. You can't even discuss the environment because half the GOP base still doesn't believe global warming is real. What's left? Education? Four letters: NCLB. You lose that one too.
So there aint much left besides hoping that Obama will self destruct. And with that in mind, a 0.3% mortgage discount resulting in a net savings of $3600 a year is suddenly a relevant scandal. Oh, and he's black.
You want real proof that Obama is just another politician? Take a look at the FISA flip-flop, the call for a larger military, and the faith-based initiatives move. That is some quick movement to the right for Mr. Integrity. Of course, on the other hand, maybe that is what makes him unique? Maybe he is a Christian Democrat who believes in a strong military. That would not be normal, under any circumstances.
"Oh, and he's black."
Well, you knew someone was going to inject it, as happens every time someone fails to worship at Obama's altar.
It's going to be a fun year.
I've read some bizarre things on IP over the years, but John Maloney's rant is one of the most bizarre. Maloney is a lawyer and he knows good and well that transferring property that has a landmark designation into a land trust doesn't destroy the landmark designation. If that were so, Howard Wakeland's problems with the City of Urbana would be presto solved. Just transfer the property into a land trust with yourself as the beneficiary. Sheesh!
what should Obama have done? How about get a listing from the bank, at the time of the loan, showing 3 or 4 other similar people getting the same deal? No names needed. It is ok to get "a good deal" as long as he wasn't the only one getting it from the bank.
Banks are already familiar with this thought process - regulations demand they produce similar documentation for examiners when loaning money to related parties.
On July 2nd, 2008 at 04:59 PM, IlliniPundit said: "If you're claiming to run for office because you're different/better than everyone else, then yes." That is exactly who I want to run for higher office. This ain't Alderman, it's President. I WANT different, better people in the White House, not some shlub I might run into at Wal-Mart. The glorious ideal of the citizen politician going to Washington is Hollywood hooey. "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is nearly socialist in its mien, watch it carefully next time as a political piece, not a feel-good piece. Look at every single President we have had. All different/better than the average Joe, and left or right, effective or weak, we are better for it. Average is just average.
"That is exactly who I want to run for higher office. This ain't Alderman, it's President. I WANT different, better people in the White House, not some shlub I might run into at Wal-Mart. The glorious ideal of the citizen politician going to Washington is Hollywood hooey. "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is nearly socialist in its mien, watch it carefully next time as a political piece, not a feel-good piece. Look at every single President we have had. All different/better than the average Joe, and left or right, effective or weak, we are better for it. Average is just average."
That's my point - at least in terms of his political ethics, Obama is just another schlub, despite is self-portrayals as the savior of our political system.
Wow, a couple with a good credit rating and a half million in income, with a multi-million book deal on top of that, get a mortgage with a few basis points knocked off it. Quel horreur! What next, people with bad credit ratings having to pay slightly higher interest rates? Oh wait, yes, that happens all of the time. In fact, that's precisely how the market works - good credit risks get a discount, bad credit risks pay a premium. This is news? If he had gotten a home loan at, say, 1% interest, now *that* would be news.
They've said the WashPost is lying, which I think is remarkable.
Really? Posters on this blog often accuse the Post of lying, or the NYT, or Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, or Air America, etc. etc. (But not so much the News-Gazette - they rarely report anything meaty enough that anyone would actually care if it is truthful or not.) This is remarkable? It only seems remarkable that you find this remarkable.
The bottom line is that this story needs to get legs and make a political impact, and since there are postings above by known boosters of both McCain and Obama saying that they don't give two straws, I don't think that this is the thing that's going to dent Obama's support. Best go back to that crazy pastor.
That's my point - at least in terms of his political ethics, Obama is just another schlub, despite is self-portrayals as the savior of our political system.
In the technical definition, yes, he received a discount. The same type of discount that someone of his potential income bracket should expect to get. Being a recent home-buyer yourself, you should know this. In terms of political ethics, this small "discount" does not prove your point. Now, if he was getting a full percentage point knocked off, you might have something here, but you don't. With all of the other things out there that supposedly paint him as being "just another political schlub", this is not a validation of that.
Again, you've got nothing here and you're really reaching. I'm really disappointed in you, you're usually better than this. With such high-quality issue-reporting like this, it's no wonder Judy couldn't win.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
I guess my question is are the regular Obama supporters having such a fit because IP brought this up or because they know IP is right and you know that Obama is loosing his Knight and shining armor image. Is it they know Obama can't rely on experience or a platform of great ideas? So if Obama is found to be just another Chicago Politician flipping on FISA and Campaign Finance and involved with shady bank deals and Rezko then what happens to his chance at being President?
Is it because we understand how getting a loan works? Is it because we actually are decent human beings? Is it because we can speel Englisn languages words and grammer properlishly? Is there some Rumsfeld's disease that causes people to ask non-rhetorical questions as is they were rhetorical?
So if Obama is found to be just another Chicago Politician flipping on FISA and Campaign Finance and involved with shady bank deals and Rezko then what happens to his chance at being President?
Um, I don't know. Let's check the polls.
I know you don't know or are just afraid to answer like always when things aren't going you're way.
Morning Joe had McCain amd Obama within 2 this morning and were talking about how Obama doesn't finish well, when do you think he will flip on Nuclear Power plants?
Huh?
McCain is too old to be President. Obama is young. More young voters make it into the system every day. Old voters leave their votes behind every day (except in Chicago where Obama gets those votes anyway).
I want a President who can stay up past 9:00 pm. I do not want a President who's fiscal policy will be the "early bird special".
I want a President who won't drive 200 miles with his turn signal blinking.
I want a President who has not ditched his wife so he could start up an affair with a trophy wife who owns a beer distributorship.
I want Ivy League educated Presidents, not a President who was near the bottom of the class and snuck into the naval academy because of daddy and grand-daddy Admirals.
I want a change, any change, from the failed policies of recession, 2-front wars, domestic mismanagement, and international scorn and derision. I want America to be respected and admired, or maybe even feared, not an America which is laughed at and ignored.
I'll take new, which may not be any better, over old, which I know will not be any better.
Get used to it. Obama will be the next President.
Morning Joe was showning the Gallup Daily Tracking poll. That also had Obama up by only 2 on the same day the other polls showed him up by 15, 12 and 6. So he has not lost his lead.
I have seemed to touch a nerve. What part of what I posted is not truse? Did Michelle Obama work at the same hospital as the doctor that sold the house? Did Michelle Obama recieve a raise from the low 100,000 to over 300,000.? Does the historic landmark designated house have a brick fence surrounding it? Is the lot of Rezco only accessible by forcing an easement across the landmarked designed remaining portion of Obama? Did Rezco order the fence, although he had no duty to enclose his new lot? Is the new fence on the property line or 10 feet over? Was a land trust device used? Is a land trust transfer a matter of the public record? (no) Was Michelle Obama on the Chicago Landmark Commission when this deal went down? Will conveyance of 10 feet off the 60 foot wide lot, leave enough land to qualify the new owner for even an R2 classification? Did Rezco luse a straw man to make a full priced offer of $650,000 taking the lot to the "sale pending" status and freezing out the doctor? Did Rezco get his bond revoked for attempting to move money to him through his "London friend"? Did Obama end up paying $1.65 million for a $2.3 million dollar house? I could go on and on- Don't tell me I am full of it, tell me what facts I have wrong. Michelle Obama picked out this house while serving on the Landmark Commission of the City of Chicago. She knew exactly what she was doing and had plenty of knowledege of real estate. It was not a "boneheaded" tranaction, but rather one that demonstrates character. They had plenty of opportunity to know what Rezco was like.
This story is pretty well known. In fact, while Topinka was running against Blago, this became public knowledge. The adoring press, however, did not want to report it. You are known by the company you keep-spin this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I forgot-just for fun Rezco transferred the lot (through the land trust device he says) to his lawyer (attorney client privilege)., just to make it harder to unravel all of this. The fed's are all over this one anyway and you will probably find out about this soon enough
By the way Ezra, I assume you are not a lawyer. What does Wakeland have to do with this? Lots 5 and 6 were all part of the Historic Landmark Designation. Landtrusts are secret. When the doctor conveyed the property to himself in the land trust, nothing happened. He still has a landmark designation on Lots 5 and 6 as one parcel consisting of two lots. When he conveys out part of the property (Lot 5) which is a matter of public record, he is subdividing the historically landmarked property. You cannot do that. The Chicago Landmarked Commission apparently allowed this to happen because of Michelle's connection. When the doctor's property did not sell, because of this designation, his realtor went to the commission to attempt to shed the designation. Once you are locked into it, however, a normal person cannot shed it. This is the reason that many people do not take advantage of the tax advantages of getting the historical designation. When I owned the Knolton Bennett Building in Urbana, I did not get this designation for this reason. The Obama's did something that no one else was able to do. It is that plain and simple. Would anyone have ever known about this unless the realtor got mad and spilled the beans-probably not. Character is what you do when no one is looking. Now go have a nice day.
Michael, I want to respond to your post too. I went to the blog you mentioned. It suggested that the landmark designation went on around 1980 and that there were two lots. One had tranfer taxes of $414,000 worth and the other was the house. The system of assessment is based on parcel numbers. Parcel numbers are designated by the lot description. This simply allows a taxpayer to appeal one portion of this property taxes rather than another. The assessed valuation on property (it cam out a couple months ago) divides down the assessment between land and building per lot. You can appeal one not the other. The blog you quoted has nothing to do with anything. My parents owned a large home in Normal at 1007 Broadway. It consisted of two lots. In fact there was no 1009 Broadway. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not both lot 5 and 6 together had a historical landmarked designation and a landmark designated fence (as was required) surrounding lots 5 and 6. Hope this explains why the adoring media should not practice law.
Hope this explains why the adoring media should not practice law.
It does help raise questions into your ability to practice law, though, if this is how you interpret things. Surely you could find something more concrete to complain about than speculation that nobody really cares about to cover much, yes?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Well, even assuming the the opening post of this thread is ture, this should be the most corrupt act a polictian ever perpetrates
Reminds me of the current President's DUI as a college student, or Bill Clinton's foresight not to inhale.
Arvid, it is not speculation. You are a practical man. Look at the house. You are buying your dream house. If you want the side yard, you buy the home with the fence around it. But you insult my intelligence when he says he never talked to his wife about it. Michelle Obama sat on the historical landmark commission for 6 years. Rezco wanted a way that he could sneak $650,000 into the country under the fed's nose. The $650,000 was part of the $3,000,000 he was trying to use to pay his lawyers. He told the feds that he had no money in any other source and this money was an investment. The feds didn't buy this and revoked his bond. Obama may not be out of the woods on this one yet.
This is speculation on my part, but I think that Obama was going to pay 2.1 M rather than 2.3 from the beginning. Using the land trust device, you would not know how much money was going back and forth because there would be no revenue stamps. When the feds figured it out that Rezco was raising money for his lawyers from his overseas partner, Rezco and Obama had to play another tune. Rezco probably used his connection at the Health Facilities Planning Board to make it up to Obama by getting Michelle a $200,000 raise in pay. When we practice to deceive, what a tangled web we weave. You may be right that no one cares about this speculation, but you have to be concerned with the favorite to be President has associated for as long as he has with Rezco. You can forgive him for Wright, but a scumbag like Rezco? Please no moral equivalancy with Keating-It is not even close. Last I heard, money laundrying was a crime-funny how this lot ended up in the hands of Rezco's lawyer after all. Maybe the secret service will buy it back from him.
DUI is MUCH worse, IMHO, but that's just me. That's three acrynomns in one sentence! Oh wait, it's only two, the other one is just me being obnoxious.
===It suggested that the landmark designation went on around 1980 and that there were two lots.
No, it didn't. Please read the post. It discusses the lot sale history, not the historic designation.
Furthermore, Landmarks doesn't deal with sales, it deals with changes to the property. Both lots have been sold together, but as two lots since at least 1985 and could always have been sold separately. Furthermore, both the real estate agents in the deal and the owners in the deal as well as the actual listings of the properties at the time prior to the sale point out that the properties were for sale separately.
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about in regards to Landmarks, in regard to the land designation, nor about the timing of any of this. It's a giant conspiracy theory you have created up wholecloth.