Chicago Tribune's handy guide to debunking Rezko...

[dkf]

Let's clarify Obama deal with Rezko

Eric Zorn | Change of Subject
June 10, 2008

"John McCain didn't borrow money from a guy going to jail to build his house."

—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) discussing Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"

Perhaps Graham was simply confused. After all, there are many fine points to remember in the story of the land deal involving Obama and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, and off-the-cuff summaries can blur the truth.

Obama didn't borrow a dime from Rezko to buy—not build—a house three years ago.

But now that Rezko is, in fact, "going to jail"—he's actually already serving prison time after his conviction last week on federal corruption charges—and Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, it's time for a handy cheat sheet for pols and pundits tempted to incorporate this tale into their campaign narratives.

So for the gentleman from South Carolina and other befuddled parties, here are '08 things you need to know about how and why the Obamas and Rezkos purchased adjoining properties in the Kenwood neighborhood on the same day in 2005.

1. The deal could have gone down without Rezko. While it's true that the couple who sold the house to the Obamas and the adjoining vacant lot to Rezko's wife required the deals to close on the same day, there was at least one other serious bidder on the lot.

2. The Obamas did not get a special discount on the house. Yes, the original asking price was $1.95 million and the sale price was $1.65 million. But the sellers have confirmed that the sale price was the result of routine real estate negotiations and was the best offer they received on the house.

more at link...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn-10-jun10,0,3997821.column

[Hekate]

1. KnR and Bookmarked. Thanks.

:kick:

We need to watch Obama's back or we will not have a Democratic president in the White House in January.

Hekate

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Bookmarked. Thank you. nt

[gateley]

3. K&R -- Thanks!! nt

[aquart]

4. Setting up straw men and knocking them down.

The investigation of Rezko is not the problem. The price of the house is not the problem. The price of the lot is the problem. The other serious bidder isn't relevant because Obama wanted a piece of the lot which is why Rezko had to come in. When the one-sixth of the lot was evaluated prior to Obama buying it (the year after buying the house) the price was oddly low considering how much Rezko paid for the lot. For that lot which had to be sold on the same day (how odd...if that was so necessary, WHY SPLIT THE ORIGINAL ESTATE?), Rezko paid roughly $385,000 above market value. Let's see. Obama paid $300,000 less than asking on the same day Rezko paid $385,000 over value. For a real estate developer, that sure seems like an odd thing to do.

But...and this is the important thing...OBAMA GOT AWAY WITH IT. No matter how filthy and obvious the deal, there is no visible known quid pro quo. The Republicans can point their own dirty fingers all they please, but they can't prove anything.

Which is the same as being clean in politics, right?

[dkf]

7. Your analysis is all messed up.

Did you read the article? If you did, you would know he paid more than the appraisal and exactly the prorated cost to Rezko.

The sale of the strip was subsequent to the original purchase.

Also, Rezko made money when he sold the entire lot so it was a good deal for him.

It amazes me how you can botch up something this simple.

Yikes.

[unc70]

8. Deal still had problems, Rezko sale was a sham transaction to a business associate

The house deal still looks suspect in spite of various attempts to dress it up and make it look better. I have a lot of experience in and around real estate and this still has an odor about it. The sale where Rezko's wife made the profit was actually to a business associate with a claim it was for some development intent. That sale looks much like those among related parties trying to establish a new appraisal point in a new development.

The appraisal of the lot done before Obama bought the piece of it (and making it much harder to build upon -- 60 ft includes setbacks required for corner lot) was only about half what Rezko had paid for it. Obama paying more (proportional to what Rezko's wife had paid) was prudent given that it was already attracting attention and that creditors and prosecutors were close on the heels of Rezko.

If you look at the lot on maps.google and such you can see the reality of the properties and the problems with the sniff test. Look at the transactions while trying to ignore the spin on all sides. Then see what you think of it, how it would seem if it were next door to you or in your own family. Then decide whether you think it still smells. The linked article glosses over several key points.

[mod mom]

5. Obamas didn't get a special discount from the Rezkos when they purchased one-sixth of the vacant lot

5. The Obamas didn't get a special discount from the Rezkos when they later purchased one-sixth of the vacant lot to enlarge their yard. The price the Obamas paid, $104,500, was a neat one-sixth of the price of the lot and more than double the value Obama said his appraiser put on the strip. The remaining portion of the vacant lot reportedly sold earlier this year for $675,000.

THIS WAS POORLY REPORTED PREVIOUSLY TO MAKE THE OBAMAS LOOK BAD. :mad:

[SpiralHawk]

6. Sen. Graham, why would anyone go to jail to build a house?

Your republicon syntax is as twisted as the notion that republicons are "conservative."