Obama Bought His Home With No Rezko `Discount,' Seller Affirms

[Bread and Circus]

Source: Bloomberg

Obama Bought His Home With No Rezko `Discount,' Seller Affirms

By Timothy J. Burger

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid ``was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e- mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller.

The Illinois senator has said he made a ``boneheaded'' move in involving contributor Antoin ``Tony'' Rezko, a Chicago businessman, in the purchase of the property on June 15, 2005.

Rezko's wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price, the same day that Obama bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price. Antoin Rezko was under federal investigation at the time.

Rezko was indicted on unrelated fraud charges 16 months later, in October 2006. Obama has since returned about $85,000 in campaign contributions made or raised by Rezko.

The sellers hadn't previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign. They approached Obama's Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us

---

I hate to drag this dead horse back out of the grave, but this seems like new news, who knew?

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd and bookmarked for all those who will try to make something out of

nothing. Thanks!

[Bread and Circus]

3. I think the Obama campaign wanted to counter all the spam in GDP

;-)

[babylonsister]

4. You're right! They need only come here and they will have their

tasks for the day. :D

[indimuse]

12. "SPAM" reversed is really "MAPS"..TO THE TRUTH!

... unless of course..:)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4355200

Captain_Nemo (917 posts) Sat Feb-02-08 06:53 PM
Original message
Obama, cheney's energy bill, Rezmar (Rezko), Iraq nuclear power plant. Lend me your ear and brain.
Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill - a giveaway to oil companies. Hillary voted no.

Rezko has a company called Rezmar. They are partnered with a British firm to build an Nuclear power plant in Iraq. Just asking...how come the MSM hasn't asked him about this. further, how come the obama supporters haven't?

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=10211...

MENAFN - 31/07/2005

(MENAFN) Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq.

The contract, signed with Iraq's ministry of electricity, calls for joint venture to supply power to Iraq for 10 years, according to a spokesman for Chicago-based Rezmar.

The 250-megawatt power plant is slated to be one of three power plants under construction at the same time. A Brazilian firm and an Iraqi company are building the other two.

The Rezmar joint venture will be based in Jordan. Construction is slated to begin this fall.



<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>


This individual? Interesting that now Rezko is facing a federal trial on February 25th, Mr. Obama cannot speak his name. It's also interesting that Obama got smacked with Rezko only after he slapped Clinton with WalMart, even though he's got his own problems on that regard. As recently as April 2007, Obama chose to back an anti-union candidate in a run-off election against a labor-backed candidate for the Third Ward. And never mind that Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Barack Obama are deeply linked throughout his political career and have been friends since 1990.


Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated.

Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4355200

[mopinko]

37. i will answer ONE point-

because i know the answer. although i find it hard to believe that you know enough about chicago politics to understand about the aldermanic race you question. obama chose to back incumbent alderman dorothy tillman. she was a great alderman, who served under harold washington, chicago's first black mayor (20 years ago). she is black. she has always been outspoken. she is pillar of the black political community. for barack to not support her would have been a scandal.
i will add that "union backed" in this case mostly means seiu, a pretty untested political force that earned some props in a couple of wards. no one had any basis to know that they would succeed. just sayin'

and re the house, people who don't live in chicago thought the $300K was something. people who live here, know the area, know the market, knew all along that there was no there there.

[George II]

57. Not to mention that SEIU recently endorsed Obama!!!!

More "much ado about nothing"

[aquart]

105. Honey, why would a man who participated in such a deal tell the truth about it?

He got his money. He got MORE than his money. What does he get if he says there was a deal? He gets grief. Please. Take this story and peddle it to a Koolaid-drinking five-year-old.

[mopinko]

116. you aren't?

really, i live here. i own property in the north side equivalent of hyde park. if you think this is some kind of payoff, you are incapable of complex thought.

[George II]

124. If he did nothing wrong, WHY SHOULD HE LIE ABOUT IT???

Ah, then resorting to the ol' Rovian "kool aid" line to boot!

Nice job, HONEY!!

[aquart]

151. You answered yourself, didn't you?

"If he did nothing wrong, why should he lie about it?"

[George II]

154. I guess I did - he didn't lie, SWEETIE

[pnwmom]

156. And what evidence do you have that he lied about this sale?

[aquart]

164. Let's call it the lack of evidence.

Who was the other bidder for the lot?

WHEN did Rezko and Obama tour the property? Was it before or AFTER the owner decided to sell the estate in two parcels?

Lotta glosses and incompletes in this story. And a metric ton of missing interesting dates.

And I only learned today, from the OP, that Mrs. Rezko sold the lot for profit TO HER HUSBAND'S LAWYER.

Which, I'm sure, happens every day.

[pnwmom]

165. The previous owner PURCHASED the property in two parcels.

And, from the beginning when it went on the market, the owner had it listed in the same two parcels. This isn't uncommon. The sellers of my parent's building lot did the same thing -- they sold them an empty lot that until then was just the garden of their house, but it had legally been a separate parcel. And the sellers made more money by selling to separate buyers.

By insisting on knowing who the other bidder was for the lot, you're saying that Obama lied. That seems pretty nasty to me. I'm willing to take him at his word.

(And you must remember how many times I've defended Hillary from what I felt were unfair attacks. I don't like to see us unfairly attacking any of our candidates.)

[George II]

179. Aha!! So THAT'S how it works...."lack of evidence"....

I suppose everyone should sign an affidavit saying they didn't do anything improper every time someone purchases a piece of property?

Maybe he should go on network television and announce, a la Richard Nixon, "I am not a crook"!

What if someone called you a crook and then dared you to prove that you aren't. Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

[pnwmom]

183. Yeah, I hope someone like that's never on a jury for me. n/t

[George II]

189. I guess the 5th amendment doesn't apply here

[pnwmom]

193. I guess I forgot that King George recently got rid of that pesky little thing. n/t

[George II]

198. Right, ergo my sarcastic screen name "George II" !!!

[superconnected]

123. Thanks for posting this.

[Window]

23. What babylonsister said.

Peace:thumbsup:

[MNDemNY]

28. Because the sellers who profited are denying wrongdoing?

That sure puts it to rest, for me.

[pnwmom]

38. The article left out one more point in the sellers' and Obama's favor,

a point that I read in a Chicago newspaper months ago.

The reason that Rezko had to pay what he did for the lot was because there was another bidder who was offering the full price -- so Rezko had to actually top that offer.

So, in both cases, there were other bidders. But in the case of Obama's house, Obama was the higher bidder even though he got it for less than asking price. For the lot, Rezko had to pay a little more than asking price. But Obama wasn't dependent on the sale to Rezko because the other bidder was ready to buy the lot, too.

[MNDemNY]

41. The question then is, Why would Rezko buy the lot?

It remains vacant, by all appearances is part of Obama's lawn, with the portion Rezko "sold " to Obama, it may even be UNBUILDABLE. Why would Rezko buy it?

[pnwmom]

45. He's a real estate developer. He buys lots of properties, and I heard

he flipped it.

[MNDemNY]

47. I heard he still owns it, less 1/6th he sold to Obama.

The lot may not even be build-able.

[dysfunctional press]

130. actually, no- try reading the article linked in the o.p...

"Rezko's wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price...

...In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land to Michael Sreenan, who said by e-mail yesterday that he bought it in late December 2006 for $575,000."

and yes, the 5/6 size lot IS buildable.

case closed.

[aquart]

145. Rezko sold the lot TO HIS LAWYER??????

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????

<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146142781.html>

May 23--A real estate partnership founded by businessman and political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko has filed for bankruptcy in Chicago, as it tries to free itself from an agreement to sell a River North property that was supposed to be the site of a condominium project.

Rezko attorney Michael Sreenan said Monday that the aim of the lawsuit is to get the developer out from under an agreement to sell the property to an affiliate of Chicago-based developer Centrum Properties Inc. for $9 million. Then, Sreenan explained, it could be sold to Champaign-based Royal Apartments USA for $12.3 million, which could be used to repay the bank debt ...

[pnwmom]

173. And the lawyer has that property back on the market now for $1.5 million.

You know -- the same lot you think is worth only $243 K?

Apparently he thinks he got a good deal paying $575K.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/595915,CST-NWS-obama10.article


For $1.5 million, you can buy the vacant lot next door to Sen. Barack Obama's mansion in Chicago's historic Kenwood neighborhood.

SNIP

The "For Sale'' signs went up last week after the current owner, attorney Michael Sreenan, said he notified the U.S. Secret Service, whose guards are posted outside Obama's mansion. Sreenan, who still does legal work for Rezko, said he also discussed the sale with Obama's real estate attorney.

Sreenan bought the land 10 months ago when he paid his boss' wife $575,000 for the 750,000-square-foot lot, where he planned to build town houses. He has scrapped those plans, hoping to sell the land for $1.5 million.

[George II]

190. So? Where's the issue and what does it have to do with Obama?

[George II]

213. Based on the timing of the deals and the prices involved, there is NO impropriety whatsoever!

[pnwmom]

131. Rezko's wife sold it, making a profit of more than $50 K.

Since Obama paid her $104,000 for 1/6 of the lot and someone else paid $575 K for the remaining 5/6.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js

[aquart]

149. ...sold it to her husband's lawyer...

Which is simply fascinating.

[pnwmom]

184. Who thinks he got a bargain because he's got it on the market for $1.5 million.

[George II]

212. Really? What makes it "fascinating"?

[George II]

180. Whoaaaa!!!! Send in Kenneth Starr, sounds like a shady land deal to me!!

Amazing what people with too much free time on their hands will come up with....

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

73. ...and COINCIDENTALLY has a relationship with Obama . . . .

who happened to also be interested in buying the house --- !!!

We deserve better than this, folks --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

75. Okay . . . . . so now that you rushed to get everything tied up with a bow . . .

signed, sealed and delivered candidates, you begin to realize that they BOTH have many flaws
and that you probably should have been looking around more at other possiiblities ---
rather than getting sucked into what corporate-media wanted --- !!!

[pnwmom]

82. Any candidate can get smeared, and no one is flawless. n/t

[defendandprotect]

101. Truth about Clinton votes or Obama deals with Rezko aren't "smears."

and to suggest so is an effort to disinform ---

[pnwmom]

80. Rezko was a developer, so it isn't so surprising that he would buy a lot.

Both he and Obama had to bid against separate competing offers, so that explains the prices they paid. Obama paid more than his competitor, and Rezko paid more than HIS competitor. The separate properties had been on the market for several months, and each only attracted two bidders at the end.

[defendandprotect]

103. Wow . . . talk about a willingness to delude yourself . . .

There was a political AND a personal relationship here which is obvious ---
it was a deal they were both involved in and not coincidentally ---

Rezko isn't someone that Obama is now proud of being involved with ---
he had to return campaign funds --- belatedly --
and calls this attempted transaction "boneheaded" ---

[aquart]

113. And it could have been avoided by buying a cheaper house.

That's the really alarming thing. None of this ever had to happen or be an issue. He could have bought a house he could afford. But neither he nor his corporate lawyer wife saw anything wrong in doing this.

[defendandprotect]

118. True . . . however, it might still have been a house where Rezko had some interest . . .

of some kind --- financial or real estate ---

As long as they had a political and personal relationship, I question it ---

[George II]

191. Rezko didn't have an interest in the house that Obama bought!

[George II]

126. So, since you know so much about him and his finances....

just how much could he afford?

[aquart]

147. I'm going by Obama's comment that it was a "stretch" to buy that house.

Do you think he was lying about that, too?

[George II]

150. No.......

I don't think he was lying about anything, actually.

Most people in the '40 "stretch" to buy a house they'd be comfortable in years down the road. Within a few years it's no longer a stretch, just a VERY wise investment!

I presume you've never bought a house?

[pnwmom]

185. Wouldn't any normal person say it was a stretch to buy a $1.6 million house?

Even if you had the funds to pay for it, with or without a mortgage, wouldn't it feel like a mind-boggling thing to do?

These aren't zillionaires, just a well-established two-professional couple.

[George II]

194. There are two reasons to not think it a stretch..

First, assuming that they didn't think it a stretch. None of us were sitting in the living room as they discussed actually buying the house.

Now, the reasons:

One - They are not just two "professional" people, but well established attorneys in Chicago. Barack himself graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude in 1991 (~ 15 years before the purchase), and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. I may be going out on a limb here ( :sarcasm: ) but I suspect he got himself a very good job out of Law School. Let's say (coservatively, if I can use that word) they have been makin in excess of $150K per year for at least a decade, probably much more.

Two - As two well established professionals in their '40s, and during a down real estate market, one of the best investments is property, especially a home that they could live in. At today's current rates (which is about 1.5% higher than in 2005) and a 20% down payment, for a 30-year mortgage their payments would be roughly $6000 per month.

Sure, they're not zillionaires but, combining these two factors shows that certainly a $1.5M home is not a "stretch"!

[pnwmom]

200. The problem here is

that I was replying to someone who quoted Obama (correctly) as having said the sale was a stretch, and accused Obama of lying when he said so.

I don't think Obama was lying -- just being modest.

[George II]

202. Missed that....sorry

But it being a stretch probably was (as you say) modesty on his part. We bought our first house around the same time for 1/6th that amount (ooops, there's that dreaded fraction again!!!) We didn't do it as an investment and neither of us make even $100K (indeed, in our late 50s we just reached a combined income over $100K last year). We didn't consider it a stretch. Based on our income and mortgage rates, we're paying about 10% of our annual income on the mortgage. I would suspect that the ration of Obama's income and payments are very similar, if not even lower.

[pnwmom]

203. Well, congratulations

on the house! I'm glad you're not among the legions who are facing overwhelming mortgage obligations. (We're okay, too.) There's enough to worry about with a house (our furnace broke today), without having to worry about escalating ARMs too.

[pnwmom]

134. The house was offered for sale SEPARATELY from the lot, as two different parcels.

Rezko buying the lot didn't make it "affordable" for Obama. I have no idea what you're talking about.

After the properties had been on the market for several months, Obama competed against -- and outbid -- another bidder for the house. This means that Obama paid market value for the house, by definition (he didn't get the property at any kind of a "discount".)

Meanwhile, Rezko's wife also competed against -- and outbid -- another bidder for the extra lot. She had to pay slightly more than full asking price, however, because her competing bidder offered full price.

She made her own profit when she sold part of the second lot back to Obama and the rest to someone else.

[aquart]

141. Oh, get your story straight.

It's Rezko who is supposed to have had a competitive bid. Obama got the low price supposedly because of no other offers. Gosh golly, Molly.

[pnwmom]

155. My story is straight. Yours isn't, unless you're saying Obama himself is lying.

The sellers had competing offers on both parcels, on both the house and the lot, according to an interview with Obama in the Sun Times published in November 2006.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

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.

[aquart]

167. Ah, yes. The phantom "offers." Yes. I see the other one.

Curious...how come the brokers themselves aren't clearing this up? And if Rezko had an "immediate interest," why did he hide behind his wife in the sale itself? Does she do all his real estate purchases? I also thought that it was cool that he firmed up his story in the five days between the Trib article and the Sun Times one. But I'm still awfully curious as to the date that Obama and Rezko took their little walk around the property.

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2716725.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true>

Obama said his family's real estate broker brought the house to his wife's attention. He said he discussed the house with Rezko but isn't sure how Rezko began pursuing the adjacent lot. But Obama raised the possibility that he was the first to bring the lot to Rezko's attention.

<http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article>

In the Sun-Times interview, Obama acknowledged approaching Rezko about the two properties being up for sale and that Rezko developed an immediate interest. Obama did not explain why he reached out to Rezko given the developer's growing problems.

[pnwmom]

169. Why don't you take Obama at his word on this? Are you saying he's lying?

As far as the date when they walked around the property, I don't understand why that would be important. The sellers had themselves purchased the house and the lot next door as two separate parcels. When they decided to sell, it was as the same two parcels.

What difference does it make exactly when Rezko saw the property?

And what difference does it make -- with regard to Obama -- whether it was Rezko or his wife who purchased the property? Maybe she had more liquid funds available, or better credit . . . why is this important?

[George II]

205. Ah, yes, ocmpetitive offers...the bane of the real estate sales world

It's not the duty OR the right of real estate brokers to disclose the identity of a competitive buyer. If that were to happen, they could open themselves up to a lawsuit.

Hmmm, a husband and wife involved in a real estate purchase? How odd! I suppose you'd like my wife's name stricken from the deed to our house?

You are Reaaaalllly stretching reality and common sense here.

[George II]

125. What is the total of campaign funds returned by Clinton?

[pnwmom]

132. I certainly agree that it was a stupid thing to do because it LOOKS

bad, if nothing else. Obama shouldn't have let himself get tangled up with this guy.

[aquart]

112. For more than twice its value?

That's the logical sticking point for me. What real estate developer buys land for more than it's worth?

[pnwmom]

133. What are you talking about? Rezko's wife bid against another bidder on

the lot, who offered full price. To get the property, she had to bid slightly more.

After she sold the 1/6 to Obama, she flipped the rest of the property, too, making a total profit of more than $50,000. Which IS the kind of thing real estate developers do.

[aquart]

144. Slightly more? I thought Mrs. Rezko paid "full price."

NOW she's paying "slightly more"? Really? For land worth $243,000 barely a year later? Must be another article out there I haven't seen. Link?

It's good to get these little things cleared up.

[pnwmom]

159. Why are you saying the land was worth 243,000 a year later?

And does that include the 1/6 strip that Obama paid 104,000 for?

Rezko's wife sold the 5/6 portion for 575K, not 243K.

[George II]

206. I believe it was rhetorical, she paid "full price" (plus a small percentage) ....

Your implication was that she bought the property at a discount.

Was it really worth $243K a year later or was it ASSESSED at $243K a year later? You seem hung up on assessed values vs. market values. I think you should take a crash course on real estate economics, 'kay?

[George II]

207. You need to clear up ASSESSED VALUE and MARKET VALUE in your head!!!

[aquart]

110. He found another sucker to buy it for twice its value?

I'm impressed. He'll need that money for legal fees.

[defendandprotect]

We might wonder who that was . . . The Cunningham "deals" made it clear

there are lots of ways to reward political allies ---

and HOUSING seems to have been a popular way to do it .....!!!

[aquart]

146. Funny you should say that.

I gave the details of the house deal to my San Diego brother-in-law without mentioning names or geography to double check if I was reading too much into it. His response? "Sounds like the Dukester."

[defendandprotect]

174. rightoooo....

[George II]

214. Shuuure!!

[George II]

211. You're right!

And Obama buying a house at market price from someone unrelated to Rezko is a sure fire way for Rezko to reward him! :rofl:

[pnwmom]

135. When Rezko's wife bought the lot, she competed against another bidder

who offered to pay full price.

So why do you keep saying Rezko paid twice what the lot was worth? Obviously, it was worth what she paid for it, because a competing 3rd party was also willing to pay full price.

[aquart]

152. That would be Rezko's lawyer, Michael Sreenan, you mean?

<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146142781.html>

A truly impartial third party.

[pnwmom]

158. In 2000, the sellers paid $414,000 for the lot. Why is it so hard for you

to believe that five years later, the lot could have been worth over $600,000? That would be less than 10% appreciation per year. (And empty lots and houses don't appreciate at the same rate, by the way, it all depends on the neighborhood. Our own extra lot is appreciating much faster than our house.)

[George II]

208. I'll tell you what, whenver you decide to sell your house...

, give me a call, I'll pay you 50% over it's "value", as long as we're talking about "assessed value". Then, the next day I'll flip it for another 50% (it's true market value) and you can call in Kenneth Starr to start an investigation into me, okay?

[George II]

59. ummm, who cares?

[aquart]

107. Tasty Koolaid. Have some more.

[George II]

111. Huh? What does that have to do with the sheer irrelevance.....

....of Rezko buying a relatively small plot of land? No substance, no facts, so you resort to rightwing cliches.

[aquart]

106. I know. This is hysterically funny.

And they were protecting his privacy, too. Weren't they sweet?

[Bitwit1234]

48. HA HA HA And I can get you the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount....

[davidinalameda]

65. I can up that with the Golden Gate and the SF Bay Bridge

:hi:

[Cha]

222. Bookmarked too..

When I think of all the canned outrage of the hilarys over this..

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. thank you. of course you know this won't satisfy the anti-obama

contingency here. but it works for me. GOOOOOBAMA!

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. As I've been saying for months --

Rezko is Obama's Whitewater - it kinda sorta LOOKS like a scandal, but in the end there's no there, there.

His 'boneheaded move' was not in BUYING the place, but in not avoiding the APPEARANCE that it was fishy, because he is astute enough to know that it would be used in exactly the way it has been used.

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. I'm amazed at your low standards. Your own candidate admitted his

mistake long ago - no qualifications. There's enough there there to make any community activist cringe.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. uhhh...still waiting on hil's financial records. sure would like to know

what's in there, and exactly where that $5 mil loan came from? and why Big Dawg took $131 mil from the oil man?

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. What mistake?

What mistake did he make, and what do you think he admitted to?

Did you read the OP?

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. The "bone headed" one ... and yes, read the OP. n/t

[defendandprotect]

76. Obama described it as "bone headed --- I AGREE, wholeheartedly!!!

What it makes clear is that he has a relationship with Rezko ---
a personal relationship ---

[chimpymustgo]

7. It's not any discount that's the problem. It's the SLEAZY DEAL with his INDICTED friend.

The house and adjoining property HAD to be sold together. The Obamas didn't have enough money, so BFF Rezko's wife bought the adjoining property, and them sold part of it to the Obama's.

Pulleez.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Nonsense.

If there was some zoning restriction or some such that required the house and adjoining property to be sold together THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD TOGETHER - TO THE SAME BUYER. Selling to two different buyers automitically gives the lie to that. Splitting the property between two buyers is NOT 'sold together', by ANY interpretation of real estate law. As the seller clearly said in the OP.

Pulleez.

[chimpymustgo]

20. It was the seller's stipulation that the 2 be sold together.

Thus the ensuing shenanigans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Again, nonsense.

They were not sold together. They were sold to two different people. Each new owner could do with their own property as they choose, subject only to local zoning laws. There is no 'together' with two different buyers. It is a logical impossibility.

Perhaps the seller WANTED to sell the two lots as a single unit, but in the final result he DIDN'T.

[saracat]

77. Thais untrue. The seller stipulated that both properties had to "Close' on the same day or they

would not sell.Obama would not have been able to purchse the property if his buddy who was under federal investigation at the time did not intervene and purchse the land.

[aquart]

162. LOL!

So that other buyer was sitting there ready to close that deal on that day, was he?

[pnwmom]

170. Not true, according to Obama. There was another bidder on the lot

who offered full price. The seller could have sold to that bidder instead of Rezko.

[LSK]

36. that is sleazy how?????

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

46. There was ANOTHER bidder on the lot, who was also offering full price.

So the sale would most likely have gone through, with or without Obama.

[aquart]

108. Two people willing to pay twice the value of that land? TWO?

C'mon. You got an affidavit from the OTHER offer?

[pnwmom]

136. Why do you keep saying ANYONE was paying more than twice the value

of that land?

Rezko's wife has already sold the remaining 5/6 for $575,000, which is a matter of public record. That, together with the $104 K that Obama paid for his 1/6, means she got a total of $679 K for the property that she paid $625 K for.

So this means three other people besides Rezko thought the lot was worth more than $600,000 -- the sellers, who set the original asking price, the first bidder against Rezko, and the person Rezko flipped the property to.

[aquart]

157. Uh huh. I'm going by the valuation Barack Obama got.

Which valued 1/6 of the lot at $40,500. Being ignorant of fancy real estate math, I multiplied that by six. $243,000 value barely a year after purchase at $625,000. Did real estate values fall by over 50% in a year? Do developers commonly buy overpriced lots? Was something about that particular 1/6 so fetid that it's value was SO MUCH less than the rest of the lot?

Just wondering.

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2716725.story?page=3>

""I told them if you can spare another 5 or 10 feet, I'd be happy to purchase it from you," Obama said. "They came back and said they could sell us up to 10 feet."

Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006."

[pnwmom]

160. That's not how those valuations work. You're right, in a way -- you

don't understand "fancy real estate math."

Standard formulas DISCOUNT the value of a sliver of a piece of property, because a 1/6 sliver by itself would usually not be buildable (and certainly isn't in this case).

To give another example, when several owners share ownership of a parcel of land, their separate appraisals do not add up to 100% -- not in "real estate math." They add up to significantly less than 100%, because there are always going to be fewer people willing to buy a 1/4 of a shared property.

Anyway, Obama decided to pay on a square footage basis to put any questions like this to rest, but obviously it didn't work.

[George II]

209. Well, now you're either calling the appraiser inept or..

Rezko's wife inept. What Obama did was pay roughly 1/6 of what Rezko paid for the entire lot. Period. I would say he had a bigger stake in owning that 10' wide plot of land than any other person. No one could have bought that section and used it for anything whatsoever, and Obama's purchase was made to put a wider buffer between him and any development on the lot next to him.

Why are you so concerned and dense about the ways of the real estate market?

[George II]

137. OK, "Honey", just what WAS the value of the land?

[krkaufman]

71. Do you have any link to a story reporting these statements?

I'm interested in whether you're just speculating or relating the facts from some news story you've read. At a minimum, it would seem odd that the Obamas would have purchased anything directly from the Rezkos. If the two deals were negotiated with the original sellers, as a pair, the story would be more believable.

edit: p.s. Found this snippet in the article...

Rezko's wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price, the same day that Obama bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price.
...
In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land.

The coincidence of the Rezkos buying the adjacent lot is disturbing, but it looks like the partial lot was at least sold at the same value as it was purchased (i.e. 1/6th of the lot for 1/6th of the original purchase price) -- though one would think the Rezkos could have gotten a bit more, given no one else had the parcel of land needed by the Obamas.

[aquart]

109. Awww, that's cute.

Did you miss the part where the land was valued at $40,500? Which, if you multiply it by six (seeing as it was one-sixth of the adjoining lot) you get $243,000? The Rezkos paid HOW MUCH? $625,000? You know many contractors you know who pay more than twice the value for land they want?

[George II]

138. This is "cute" too (you like talking down to people, don't you (i.e., "honey", "cute", etc.))

Obama paid twice the APPRAISED value of the land. Appraised values of property are always way lower than market prices. About 3 years ago I bought my house for $255,000, the market price (listed at $269,000) It was appraised at $128,000, just about half! Now almost three years later it's still appraised at that value and the market price (from Zillow.com) is about $270,000.

So, just the fact that someone pays twice the APPRAISED value of a property doesn't mean he was involved in any sweetheart deal, fraud, graft, etc. etc. etc. You'll have to try MUCH harder to make this into a scandal!

[krkaufman]

220. Silence is your reward.

Looks like the pups opted to chase after another car.

[George II]

221. Yep, maybe the next one that goes by will belong to McCain, not a Democrat,

[krkaufman]

223. Alas. Now we'll get 24+ hours of "the speech snub"

Yet another fabricated offense and victimization rallying point.

[George II]

224. As Steve Martin said in "The Jerk", "Roll the ugliness"!!

[krkaufman]

226. chuckle.

That clip needs to lead the weekly-roundup video montage of political smears and pundit bloviating.

p.s. Thanks for giving me a rationalization to "have" to watch The Jerk, again. :)

[pnwmom]

161. The 1/6 sliver, which was unbuildable by itself, was valued at $40,500.

This appraised value for the sliver has NOTHING to do with what the value of a buildable lot five times as large would be worth. If appraisals were that simple to do, we wouldn't need appraisers.

By the way, the Rezkos paid $625K (which would amount to less than 10% appreciation a year for the sellers, who had paid $414K in 2000) but after selling 1/6 to Obama, that left a remaining buildable parcel worth $521K.

[George II]

181. It wasn't "valued" at $40K, it was "assessed" at $40K

Big difference, the assessed value of a property is generally much lower than the going market "value". More often than not the assessed value is less than half of the market value, which is true in this case.

[pnwmom]

182. Thanks, but I believe the person I was responding to

had told me somewhere that she had taken an appraisal value that Obama had gotten for that sliver of the lot, and then multiplied it by six.

But whether it was an appraisal value of an unbuildable sliver, or the tax assessed value of 1/6 of the whole, neither one has any bearing on what the actual worth of a buildable lot would be there.

By the way, one year later it's back on the market for $1.5 million -- and expected to be developed into condos. Guess the lawyer who paid $575K for it thinks he got a bargain.

[George II]

187. I suppose the lawyer did get a bargain...

That's the nature of property speculation. Now let's go to your previous statement, that the assessed value (conventional wisdom has accepted that at roughly $40K) is 1/6 of the whole. Obama paid about $104,000 for his 1/6 portion, and the remaining 5/6 sold for $575K. That would mean that Obama pretty much paid the same for his small sliver as the ultimate buyer paid for the 5/6 remaining lot. $104K per sixth vs. $115K for each of the other 5/6ths. No great disparity, and Obama's purchase was earlier than the purchase of the other 5/6. So, everyone, what's the issue other than him buying it from someone who had questionable legal problems?

Putting it in simpler terms, last week I was at K-Mart and recognized the cashier as being a recovering alcoholic and convicted felon for several petty crimes. Should my purchase from K-Mart be scrutinized simply because I bought something from a convicted alcoholic felon?

[pnwmom]

192. Hey, George II,

you're preaching to the choir here! I'm not an Obama person or a HRC person -- just a Democrat who's sick of people unfairly slamming either one of them.

You're right that Obama paid a fair amount for the land. Obama deliberately paid 1/6 of the appraised value of the total parcel, rather than the much smaller value that a different appraisal had set for the 1/6 sliver -- in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. But Obama's screwed for not realizing when he first got involved with Rezko that the guy would, in the future, be getting into trouble.

[George II]

197. I realize that, and I feel the same way as you

In this and another recent discussion I've been "sticking up for" Obama, simply because in these two discussions people are stretching to find scandal and faults with a candidate that they don't support. In the past I've stuck up for Clinton in anti-Clinton discussions (I just haven't come across any recently)

The way I feel is that if someone has a preferred candidate, that person should talk ABOUT THAT CANDIDATE and extol the virtues of that candidate. All discussions like this do is damage the candidate-victim of the discussion.

I wish there was some way we can get people here to realize that we are ALL Democrats, hoping to elect a DEMOCRATIC president. The stuff we see here (like "if XXX is the nominee I can't vote for him/her") is counterproductive and damaging. OK, so someone has that opinion, what does it accomplish to go public with it? NOTHING! Might as well be posting on Free Republic.

[pnwmom]

201. Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.

My answer to anyone who says they don't like either of the remaining candidates enough to vote for them in the general.

The ultra-conservative judges are mostly in their 50's. One more, and we could be looking at a Scalia Court for the next twenty years.

[krkaufman]

219. Well, I'd say it was easy to miss, since it's not anywhere in the article.

You have a link for the info you're throwing out?

[defendandprotect]

78. EXACTLY . . . look at the relationship --- why would THIS be going on --- ???

[pnwmom]

186. Obama acknowledged that it was clear to him now that Rezko was

trying to get in a position of influence with him -- and that it was Obama's boneheaded mistake not to be aware of that.

[Rene]

8. Someone explain the purchase of the side yard with resko dealings

[mopinko]

44. it's like this- the appraised value

was far lower than what obama paid, but he insisted that he pay 1/6th of what rezko paid (he bought 1/6th of the property. i am sure the secret service is grateful that his house no longer sits on the property line, and has a substantial fence.) for the property to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
this all happened 16 month before the man was indicted. do people think obama should have been clairvoyant? or do they just think that he should have stuck his nose into a federal investigation?

[onehandle]

11. Republicans promise not to spend millions investigating this like they did Whitewater.

They PROMISE.

[pnwmom]

171. If Republicans don't have a majority in either House, they won't be able

to investigate anything.

Those of us who pray, should pray.

[madrchsod]

13. i guess they got the "message"

we all know "how things are done" in chicago.....

[LiberalFighter]

15. What happened to the plot next to the house?

The e-mail between Wondisford and the campaign adviser also says that the sellers had ``stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same.''

Properties sold to two different people requiring both to have the same closing date?

[pnwmom]

40. That's not so unusual. That's how my parents bought their house.

The seller wanted to make sure they got full value for the combination (house and adjacent lot), and they thought they would ensure that by making both properties close at once.

In a Chicago newspaper several months ago, I read that there were two bidders on the lot -- Rezko and a bidder who offered full price. So the price was justified, and Obama wasn't dependent on Rezko purchasing the lot in order for Obama to get the house. Also, Rezko had to offer a little more than full price to get the lot, because of the other bidder.

[Coexist]

16. bookmarking for the GE -

thanks!

[Apollo11]

17. But Obama already admitted that he DID make a mistake

And the Washington Post has confirmed that Rezko's wife bought the adjacent lot from the same seller on the same day that the Obama's bought their house. The two deals were closed "on the same day". So that's where people are getting the idea that maybe there was a connection between those two deals.

Fortunately for Obama, nobody can prove there definitely was a connection between him getting the house for a good price, and Rezko's wife buying the adjacent lot for more than the market price.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

[pnwmom]

42. Do you understand that there was another bidder on the Rezko lot

who offered the full asking price? And that that was the reason Rezko offered a little bit more?

And so, with the other bidder, Obama could have closed with or without Rezko?

[Unsane]

18. Game, set, match. Issue OVER.

next

[Mizmoon]

27. Tell that to the pukes

these are the same people who manage to make Kerry's purple hearts an issue. This will come up in the general election if Obama is the nominee and the pukes will make major points with it. If nothing else they will use the price of the house to attack Obama's populist appeal. They will use the appearance of impropriety to attack his image.

These pukes only look stupid, my friend.

[floridablue]

19. How did he afford a 1.6M house

A poor public servants salary ?? Do we have his financial records for those years? Did the money come from the rich step father in Indonesia?

[Bread and Circus]

21. If you are really so concerned about the candidates' finances, please check their tax returns...

Obama has released his.

Clinton, well... she's still hiding hers...

maybe you can use some of your super-sleuth techniques and find out why.

[monktonman]

22. Is there something wrong with his family giving him money? n/t

[defendandprotect]

119. misplaced

[LSK]

35. a NY Times #1 best seller book???

:shrug:

[mopinko]

39. he had 2 best selling books.

and his wife makes big money.

[pnwmom]

51. He made $1.2 million on a book that year, and he sold his condo.

And I'm sure, if they needed one, the two of them could have qualified for a substantial mortgage. He was about to have the salary of a U.S. Senator, and his wife was a practicing attorney.

[defendandprotect]

79. ...doing pro bono work --- !!!!

to be fair . . . this is yesterday's $700,000 house ---
and they have two adults working at high salaries.

It's the relationship with Rezko --- which is obviously PERSONAL as well as political --
which bothers me.

[JerseygirlCT]

89. Or perhaps from Michele, who is also quite

successful?

[George II]

128. What a ridiculous question

Ever think of doing a "google" of his background? Sheesh, no, that would be difficult - just make sarcastic incorrect statements to bash someone.

He graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude (know what that means?) in 1991 and has been married to an attorney since 1992 (16+ years) Do you have any what the annual income of two attorneys, at least one from Harvard, might be? I'm sure you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have asked such naive questions.

[From The Left]

24. Hillary's Harpies Will Slit Their Wrists Over This

About all they haven't tried to tar Obama with is a bimbo eruption. But hey, it's only February.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. more likely, HIllary will try a "Ford" ad, you know, "Call me!"

[Catherine Vincent]

31. Your post is vile. nt

[pnwmom]

55. I agree. n/t

[From The Left]

58. The Truth Hurts, Pumpkin

Bump

[backscatter712]

61. but true... nt

[IndianaGreen]

62. The Clintons are vile and corrupt

They are no better than Juan and Evita Peron.

[pnwmom]

66. Calling Hillary's supporters "harpies" IS vile.

Why don't people stick to the issues instead of calling names and throwing around sexist slurs?

[Catherine Vincent]

67. And what does your idiotic post have to do with what the OP said?

You people are nuts.

[defendandprotect]

81. That's the point . .. we deserve better than either Hillary or Obama . . .!!!

[pnwmom]

54. Nasty sexist slur. Once again. n/t

[aquart]

121. "Harpies"?

Yes, I'm sure women's rights will be protected under Obama. I can see how dedicated his supporters are to respecting women.

[George II]

139. You, who call others here "cute" and "honey".....

Are offended by referring to others (perhaps rightfully so) as harpies?

Check the definition of harpy, no doubt it fits those referred to by that term.

[aquart]

143. I don't have to check the definition.

I know it's an insult at all times. Beautiful blonde heads on bird bodies with talons that would cut you to pieces. From Medea's neighborhood. Degraded demigods.

And I say "honey" here because I say it everywhere else. And because I can't say what I really think of you for referring to women in those terms.

What a brave new world your candidate will bring us, with such uniters not dividers as follow him.

[George II]

153. I don't refer to women as ANYTHING other than women, and...

I don't refer to females over 18 years old as "girls", either.

Now, you've explained your reference to people here as "honey, care to elaborate your on "sweet" and "cute"? Sounds pretty derrogatory to me.

[blogslut]

163. What have you got against Colchis?

If Medea had stayed there, she would have been much happier.

[pnwmom]

172. But you might want to. The insult is even worse

than you recall . . . (nothing about beautiful or blonde)

At least, in the American Heritage Dictionary:

Greek Mythology One of several loathsome, voracious monsters with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail, wings, and talons of a bird.

[pnwmom]

166. You're the one who should check the dictionary -- or check your

misogyny at the door. Calling Hillary's supporters "harpies" is nasty.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Greek Mythology One of several loathsome, voracious monsters with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail, wings, and talons of a bird.
harpy A predatory person.
harpy A shrewish woman.

[Finite]

26. Sorry

I missed the part where this affects Obama's economic, foreign, environmental, health or education policy?

I'll never understand why there's such an emphasis on character in the build up to US elections, the UK isn't perfect but there's more of a focus on policy, rather than all this personal stuff.

[Bread and Circus]

33. The real reason is because there's about ZERO practical difference regarding policy proposals...

between the two candidates. Well, maybe not ZERO but damn near close. Anyone who's paying attention and well read knows this.

That's why character has become such an issue.

I'm an Obama supporter by the way.

[Finite]

56. True

there's nothing to debate about, so they focus on whether the candidates are trustworthy. A poor excuse, really.. just a reason to throw muck.

[Seabiscuit]

29. The article clears absolutely nothing up.

And if the entire deal (Rezko's involvement by having his wife purchase the adjoining lot at the same time) is taint-free, why did Obama later say he made a "boneheaded" move in involving Rezko in the purchase of the property?

Apparently, the house was only for sale as part of a package deal - the implication being that the sellers weren't about to sell it at all if they couldn't sell both the house and the adjacent lot at the same time. Thus the Rezko involvement. And perhaps the only offers the sellers got from anyone were from the Obamas and the Rezkos on the package deal. Thus, to say they sold for the "highest" bid, may simply mean there were no other bidders, and that the Obamas had made two previous lower bids before making the one that was accepted. Plus, the article doesn't address the earlier point raised that the house was sold to the Obamas for $300K less than the original asking price, which apparently was about $1.95 million.

I bought a house in 2001 (now worth $1.3 million) and it would have been unthinkable to buy it for $100K less than the original asking price, much less $300K. That just doesn't happen in straight-up transactions.

[pnwmom]

69. The sellers got competing, separate, offers on both the lot and the house.

Obama made the higher offer on the house (which had been on the market for several months), and Rezko had to top another full price offer on the lot.

For more details, see post 53, below.

[LSK]

34. ummm I am confused, I didnt know you can buy a house in 1 day

Do they mean they had the same closing date????

When I bought my house there was several days of haggling through the realtors and then closing day was several weeks after that.

So what do they mean when they say he bought a house on the same day as she bought the land?????

[pnwmom]

74. The closing date was the same. Which is not a big deal. n/t

[LSK]

83. well that would make sense as convenient for the sellers

[krkaufman]

43. The deal is still stinky ...

Sure wish it had never happened. (At a minimum, the impression that Obama's sale price was lowered owing to Rezko's separate deal paying full asking price is tough to shake. It's tough to imagine such a ridiculous thing being done, but we've seen more brazen examples in recent history, even in Illinois.)

[pnwmom]

49. Rezko paid full asking price because there was ANOTHER bidder on the lot

who was offering full asking price.

Obama paid less than asking price for the house because HIS competing bidder (a different person) offered even less than Obama -- and the property had been on the market for several months, and the seller must have thought he couldn't get more.

So there are non-stinky reasons that explain why Obama got a "deal" and Rezko didn't -- the two alternate bidders. The fact is, nobody knows what a real value is going to be on a house or a lot until the property is offered in the market place. Apparently, the house was overpriced at first, but the lot wasn't.


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.

[krkaufman]

85. So then only the coincidence of the Rezkos buying next to the Obamas remains.

Thanks for the info. (Do you have a link to the article containing the Q&A you've presented?)

[pnwmom]

90. The link is in post 53, below. Sorry I forgot to put it in here.

Perhaps Rezko, a land developer, thought it was a good piece of land -- or perhaps he saw an even more self-serving purpose to getting the property. It WAS a "bone-headed" thing for Obama to ever get Rezko mixed up in this.

[krkaufman]

91. thx. n/t

[krkaufman]

93. ha!! Maybe the Clintons continue to pound on Obama over this ...

... because Hillary really just doesn't understand the meaning of the word "mistake."

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction.

I wonder if there's anything that Hillary might offer as having been a mistake on her part.

[George II]

210. Perhaps Rezko is a smart speculator

After all, he knew Obama was going to buy the house next to that property. Obama was recognized as early as 2004 (a year before any negotiations or planned purchases) as an up-and-comer and was already mentioned as a future Presidential contender, and he was one of 100 United States Senators already. These factors alone, regardless of the future real estate market (property in a neighborhood like that don't drop in price during a downturn as much as run of the mill homes) would make this a very wise investment. The fact that now less than 2 years after the Rezkos bought it, it is on the market for well over $1M (and 1/6 the size!) proves that out!

I wish I was in on that deal!

[Jackpine Radical]

50. I feel better now.

If Barack gets the nom, you had to know this was gonna come out in the General. It still will, since Republicans are impervious to things like accuracy and decency, but at least now there is some ammo to spike it with.

[BearSquirrel2]

52. Mail me when they got a $300,000 favor ..

Please feel free to mail me if someone finds out that someone paid $300,0000 over the selling price on another property. That would imply an illegal payoff.

The Clintons would do well not to bring up land deals and commodity trades. Such a discussion would not favor them. That PorkBelly trade never looked good even if it was done without the Clinton's knowledge.

[pnwmom]

53. This really is old news, but here are more pertinent details from the Sun-Times.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

(This is part of a much longer article)

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.

[fascisthunter]

60. Oh My....

[TankLV]

63. Opsie - "saint" obama has a BIG skeleton in his closet! What a surprise - NOT!

some "saint"...

more to come, I'm sure...

[Bread and Circus]

64. You might want to take note this exonorates Obama, not impugns him

[defendandprotect]

84. ...maybe by your standards, but not by mine. The relationship STINKS --- !!!

[TankLV]

114. EXACTLY! At least the obamababies can't claim this didn't HAPPEN anymore!!!

if it looks like a duck...

[tripitaka]

95. so why did it take 15 months for this to come out?

I'm just not understanding why there was such a keen need on the part of the seller to keep secret the fact that they accepted the best offer for the house they wanted to sell. Is that illegal? Is that embarrassing?

Buying a house at $300,000 below asking in 2005 is nothing, the upper markets well well aware by that time that the real estate market was about to tank. That's not the part Obama needs to explain. What he need to explain is why it's taking him 2 years now, and still counting, to provide details of what happened.

That's a taint he will never get rid of.

[pnwmom]

188. Obama gave a full interview to the Sun-Times way back in November 2006

that included all the information that has just "come out" -- and more.

There goes the "taint" for never addressing this that you say "he will never get rid of."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3186834&mesg_id=3187080

[George II]

216. It didn't - it came out almost 2 years ago. Only recently did the Clinton campaign learn about it.

[Lex Talionis]

68. Well, well, well,

So if Obama is "Guilty", because he bought this house from Rezko, at a discount or not. Does this mean that the, "invest 1,000.00 and "make" it into 100,000.00 in a very short time", deal Hillary was involved in, also makes her guilty? Or how about that "deal", ol Bill just made with the Oil baron? Or all those "pardons" they sold, oops, gave at the end of their presidential term. Wait, its the Clinton's doing business like that, so it must be OK. But, hey I just heard on the news that Team Machiavelli is saying Obama is now plagiarizing a friend of his speeches. So What to do, what to do. Well, Obama is my "crook" so I'll just stick with him I guess.

[pnwmom]

87. Obama didn't buy the house at a discount. The house had been on

the market for several months without attracting any offers -- which proves that the initial "asking" price was too high. Then Obama outbid ANOTHER bidder to purchase the house. "Market price" is the price a property sells for to an outside bidder after the property has been offered to the market for a reasonable period of time. By definition, Obama paid market price, not a discount.

And Hillary also did nothing wrong in her investment deals, or you can bet Ken Starr, in his $50 million investigation, would have unearthed something.

[Lex Talionis]

98. Thank you for setting me. straight.

I haven't been following that very well, since I consider it a non issue. Your also correct about Starr, too. I believe that 99.999% of pols make deals under the table. Its the American way. But, to see some of the same tactics used by the Republicans, being used by the Democrats against one of their own, just blows my mind. And, this is not "politics as usual", this is something totally different. Again, thanks for educating me.

[defendandprotect]

120. What it means is ...we deserve better candidates --- and the rush to tie this up with a bow . . .

was a mistake ---

We don't need to be committed to a candidate or even two candidates a year before the election!!!

[Lex Talionis]

127. Can't argue with that.

If I had my way, you could only campaign for 6 months and banishment for life for any corrupt pols. off course we'd have no leaders. Can't see that as a bad thing at this point in my life,though. But, its the only game in town and if you don't play, well, you see what happens when less than 50% of the people vote.

[defendandprotect]

175. Is it still under 50% --- I've been very happy to hear about the big turn outs ---

but wasn't sure how much it was overall increasing the vote --- ?

Naturally, there will also be a lot of people who don't vote in primaries --- like me ---
but who will come out to vote.

[Lex Talionis]

178. Not sure about now. I was talking about voting in the past.

Most people I know are fed up with the two party system and see no difference between the parties.

[defendandprotect]

204. Your speaking what I imagine would be hersey at DU . . . is it not ????

DU seems to call for NO Plan B . . . !!!

[acmavm]

70. RIIIIIGGGHHHHHT!

[Blue State Bandit]

72. A harbinger of things to come perhaps?

Ya can't keep a good man down, especially with half-assed attacks on his integrity.

[defendandprotect]

86. Actually, this is something which should have been aired a long time ago . . .

and, obviously, wasn't ---

I would suggest that Obama put his integrity in jeopardy when he began this relationship
with Rezko ---

We deserve better than either of these two candidates . . . !!!

[pnwmom]

88. This was fully aired by November , 2006. None of this is new.

And there's a link to a Sun Times article with more details (from 2006) in post 53, above.

[defendandprotect]

97. I wasn't aware of it --- and I've been here . . . .

Granted I don't watch corporate-media ---

however, this seems like a "left over" that is going to be rather important --

It's the attempted deal and the reality of the relationship with Retzko --

[pnwmom]

129. I don't watch news on TV, so I read it on the Internet -- and

It's been discussed in many threads by DUers over the last year and a half because it's the major question mark against Obama.

I certainly wish he'd never heard of Rezko, much less gotten involved with him.

[defendandprotect]

176. Well . . . I somehow missed it --- or didn't realize it's importance until now ---

But, at any rate, I've been a Kucinich/Edwards backer and will probably find it impossible
to vote for either Clinton or Obama --- ????

[pnwmom]

196. I think both Kucinich and Edwards would ask you

to reconsider, in light of the fact that we have an 87 year old liberal S.C. justice about to retire, and another younger one in ill health. The ultra-conservative justices are almost all in their fifties. If we lose even one more Justice, then we could be facing 20 years or more of a Scalia Court. Isn't that prospect enough to make you think about voting?

[George II]

225. Well, since it's really a concocted, artificial "issue", no surprise that many...

here and elsewhere never heard of it. There are a lot more important things going on in the world and this country.

[QUALAR]

92. WHAT MATTERS

It's not up to us to determine whether Obama has done something illegal. Patrick Fitzgerald probably has the sellers' sworn statements and will decide on any further indictments that may stem from Rezko's on-going trial. What is troubling is that Obama entered into the real estate deal and accepted campaign contributions from Rezko after Obama knew he was being investigated. I agree with Obama that this was truly boneheaded on both counts.

[pnwmom]

96. Welcome to DU, Qualar!

And I agree that this was a very unfortunate error.

[defendandprotect]

99. EXACTLY how I feel about this . . .

No one is saying Obama was "boneheaded" enough to do something "illegal" . . .
he's a lawyer, after all --- !!!

HOWEVER . . .

What is troubling is that Obama entered into the real estate deal and accepted campaign contributions from Rezko after Obama knew he was being investigated. I agree with Obama that this was truly boneheaded on both counts.

[George II]

140. False

"Obama entered into the real estate deal and............from Rezko after Obama knew he was being investigated"

Not true.

[tripitaka]

94. the issue is how obama handled it. he's got a problem imho

Folks will assume Obama did something shady, because he's dragging this out over not just months, but freakin YEARS. That's the bottom line.

If he did nothing wrong, why is it he won't even say "Rezko"? He says "this individual." Sort of like "that woman."

Why is it he kept Rezko money well after Rezko go indicted? He said he simply didn't recall that he had Rezko money. Give me a freakin break. This guy is your main patron from the very start of your career, he's been giving money to you your entire political career, and you "didn't know" or "forgot" that he gave money for your prez campaign?

Both these issues arose MONTHS ago.

And NOW we get the seller making this statement? All this time I've never heard Obama say his was the best offer, only that he did nothing wrong. There's speak of privacy issues, but what, the seller approached Obama 15 months ago and said they don't want to publicly reveal that they sold their house to the highest bidder?

That's what folks are supposed to believe, that buyer and seller in a normal and perfectly legal property deal didn't want the public to know that the buyer made the best offer, and the seller decided to accept that one? Folks might wonder why seller and buyer were embarrassed about this. Folks might wonder what was said in that meeting 15 months ago.

The story here isn't the deal, it's how Obama dealt with it and what that suggests. That's an accusation that can never be refuted. No one is trying to send Obama to jail. The goal is just to make him seem like a run of he mill pol. And there's enough in how Obama has handled this to get there.

[defendandprotect]

100. ditto --- Obama has a problem . . . a big one ---

[jasmine621]

102. Oh, you mean he didn't "get it right the first time?" nt

[Bread and Circus]

104. I'm sure you are fairly outraged about with, with your prolific 8 posts and all....

outraged I say....outraged!!!

[pnwmom]

195. Obama gave an interview containing all this "news," and more, back in Nov. 2006.

To the Chicago Sun-Times. From there, it got reported all over the country. He hasn't been hiding anything -- at least, none of this supposed "news." It's all old, except for the fact that the sellers coming forth to support him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3186834&mesg_id=3187080

[kingsbridge777]

115. Why did Obama say this was a "boneheaded" move by him?

I'd love to know.

[FourScore]

117. k&r

[superconnected]

122. Definitely worth noting.

Let's not turn our brains off the way the republicans do.

Obama has some serious backing or he wouldn't have the money to run.

It's imporatant to know who his backers are since they will be his biggest influence on how he runs the United States.

This is just the surfacing of one. I would like to know more.

[Jim Sagle]

142. Sorry, this impresses me as a whole lot of nuthin'. And I'm no fan of Obama.

It does indeed smack of Whitewater. And as we all should know by now, there was NOTHING to Whitewater.

[chknltl]

148. But what kind of light bulbs does he use????

Someone somewhere is surely in need of such details in order to make an informed decision between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton! There must be at least one DUer who can ferret out this critical data!

[George II]

217. I went through his garbage the other day......

He doesn't separate paper from plastic!!!! There goes Gore's endorsement!

[chknltl]

218. Thanks, I needed that

:rofl:

[oasis]

168. Well at least we know for sure where some of the campaign money was spent.

;-)

[George II]

215. Where?

[donheld]

177. K & R

[BobbyVan]

199. Cattle futures, anyone?