Despite reporting to contrary, CNN reported Obama got property "at a very discounted price"
SUMMARY: CNN's Susan Roesgen repeated the assertion that Sen. Barack Obama purchased "a piece of property" "at a very discounted price." In fact, the people from whom Obama bought his house reportedly said that his was "the best offer."
During the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Susan Roesgen repeated the assertion -- reportedly refuted by the sellers -- that Sen. Barack Obama purchased "a piece of property" "at a very discounted price." In fact, according to a February 18 Bloomberg News article, the people from whom Obama bought his house said that his was "the best offer." The sellers also said, in the words of Bloomberg reporter Timothy J. Burger, "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 Obamas subsequently bought a part of the adjacent property, which had been purchased on the same day as the Obamas' house by the wife of Obama contributor Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The Washington Post reported on December 17, 2006, that an Obama spokesman said the strip of land Obama purchased from Rezko's wife had been appraised at $40,500, "but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot."
The Chicago Tribune first reported on the purchase of the adjacent properties by the Obamas and Rezko's wife on November 1, 2006. The Tribune reported that the owner of the house and the adjacent lot listed them as separate properties and that Obama paid $1.65 million for the house -- $300,000 less than the asking price -- while Rezko's wife paid the asking price of $625,000 for the lot. On November 5, 2006, the Chicago Sun-Times published a Q&A in which the paper asked Obama: "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?" In a written response, Obama stated:
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.
From the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: On our political ticker this Thursday, the trial of a businessman and political fundraiser under way in Chicago. Tony Rezko -- he's on trial for allegedly using his clout to get millions from companies wanting to do business with two state boards. But it's his fundraising connection to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama that's turning the spotlight on this trial.
Let's go to Susan Roesgen; she's watching it all unfold in Chicago. I take it sen -- the senator's name came up today. What happened?
ROESGEN: Well, what happened was the prosecution, the federal prosecution did not mention Senator Obama's name because he is not in any way implicated in this case against Tony Rezko. But the defense, Wolf, did bring up Obama's name in a positive light, as a successful politician that Tony Rezko supports. Now, Senator Obama's name was mentioned only in passing, but it is likely to come up again in this trial because Obama did receive $150,000 in a campaign contribution from Tony Rezko -- a contribution that his campaign later gave away to charity.
Obama did do some legal work for Tony Rezko on a low-income housing project. And Obama as well did buy a piece of property that Rezko helped him get at a very discounted price. Now, again, none of those things is in any way illegal on Senator Obama's part, and yet, just the mention of his name at this trial, just like that picture of Senator Obama embracing Tony Rezko, is likely to make the Obama campaign wince every time it comes up -- Wolf.















Hey, Wolf, how about picking at some of George Bush's scabs? Or Dick Cheney's?
Or, how about examining the poll results in Texas? Aren't there some counties where no Republican votes were recorded? Nothing illegal, as far as I know, but it certainly puts a different face on Hillary's alleged victory there. ( I say "alleged" because early caucus returns indicate that Obama may eventually win Texas)
I'm trying to get that info to you, Nerzog! MMFA hasn't vetted my comments yet and too noob to have the honor of no-wait posting! :)
Yup...there are counties in Texas that recorded no Rep votes and thousands of Dem votes. If this message pops up soon, I'll repost the info. If not, it'll be on the Jay Newton-Small thread from 3/6.
I sent the info on to MMFA & some of the fine journalists at the Chicago Tribune....cuz it just HAS to be an error! No way can those counties have posted everything! Occam's Razor demands it! :)
Hey, Wolf, how about picking at some of George Bush's scabs? Or Dick Cheney's?
Excellent suggestion !
Nerzog, I did a little road time this week, and tuned into quite a bit of am radio. The righty talkers not only have Obama and anybody involved in real estate with him convicted and locked up, they're also using it to bust out their Whitewater tinfoil hats.
They don't seem too sure about which way to smear Obama since Clinton's imminence as the candidate has been challenged.They must realize that saying "Hussein" isn't going to work on the brighter ones, and they're really latching on to this deal, never mind they're dealing almost 100% in speculation and innuendo.
And you're right, not too much about McCain's lobbyist ties in the media.
There is no "Liberal Media" bias that I can find.
Oh good freakin' God.
Is there any proof that Obama did anything other than 'shop victoriously'?
And btw, someone bought Rezko's parcel and and claimed he was going to "develop" it ... despite the fact that 1/6 of it was sold off and it has no street access ! It's been described as a "garden parcel". The only reason it could be sold as a separate parcel is because, for some reason, it was surveyed separately.
And guess who the developer was ? Rezko's pal Michael Sreenan.
If it doesn't have street access, how the heck can they develop it ?
Atheist,
Interesting to me that you extensively quote from a Tribune article but then you make a statement that is flatly contradicted by the same article that you quote at length, an oddly disengenous act.
From the same Feb 19, 2008 Chicago Tribune article by Jackson and Sector, you otherwise selectively cite:
"On Monday, Obama's campaign gave Bloomberg news service e-mails from the sellers, who reportedly said Obama's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer" and that they didn't cut their asking price because Rezko bought the adjacent yard.
The campaign said Obama and his wife started at $1.3 million and upped their offer twice over 10 days. According to the campaign, the sellers confirmed they "did not offer or give the Obamas a 'discount' on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot."
People should take your "facts" with a large handful of salt, since you appear to mix your unsubstantiated personal opinions with facts from a Tribune article, blurring the two as if they are the same.
I see the comments here, and I guess people know the details, but maybe they don't.
Mr. Obama himself has said that what transpired was a "boneheaded mistake" on his part, and it doesn't necessarily involve anything illegal or unethical, but merely appearances, and how strange (but always important) the appearances are.
Never mind the prices of the real estate transactions... assume them all to be fair market value (at least in the minds of those who transact).
Mr. Obama purchases a piece of property, and on the same day that he closes, a campaign contributer of his, also closes on purchasing a property that day... a property adjacent to the one Mr. Obama purchased.
That's the "boneheaded mistake" Mr. Obama referred to (if I'm understanding it right). By purchasing (closing) on two different properties, but adjacent properties, on the same day, by two different parties that know one another, can and does certainly give the appearence of somehow working in tandem...
Or would you bend over backwards, and say it were mere coincidence, that two parties that know one another, purchase adjacent properties on the same day?
Mr. Obama claims no such coincidence, and calls the appearence a "boneheaded mistake".
And when, some time after the simultaneous (same day) real esates purchases of adjacent properties, by the two parties who have a relationship, one party slices off part of their property, and sells it to the other party (who has now expanded their holding)...
Yeah, the appearance is that of a business relationship... it's the type of move seen typically in real estate trusts... and it does beg the question of whether Mr. Obama has a business relationship, or is in an unofficial real estate trust, with the other party.
It's an uncommon, even strange looking thing... it's got nothing to do with the prices and the transactions, but the transactions themselves, which imply at least the appearance, if not the actual existence, of a business relationship of sorts.
Mr. Obama called it a "boneheaded mistake" for a reason, and it's a perfectly sensible thing to inquire about, and have explained, by a presidential candidate.
Dem, Obama admitted that he told Rezko about the properties. It wasn't by any means a coincidence that they bought them together.
To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama
Weeks after saying he'd answered all questions about his controversial dealings with the now-indicted Rezko, Obama released new details about their purchase of adjacent lots from the same seller on the same day. But the disclosures by Obama's presidential campaign left unanswered questions and raised new ones. took his friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama's campaign revealed Monday.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-rezko-home-feb19,0,6690484.story
Hmmm, something got screwed up in my post. Here it is again:
Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took his friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama's campaign revealed Monday.
Weeks after saying he'd answered all questions about his controversial dealings with the now-indicted Rezko, Obama released new details about their purchase of adjacent lots from the same seller on the same day. But the disclosures by Obama's presidential campaign left unanswered questions and raised new ones.
If I'm reading it right, then that explains why Mr. Obama and Rezko purchased adjacent lots on the same day: That Rezko was with him when he looked at the property that he would eventually buy, and Rezko saw then the adjacent property, and had an interest in it, and therefore the same day purchases of adjacent properties by two people who know one another, is explained.
Fine.
And the subsequent real estate transaction between adjacent property holders is likewise fine, as being nothing too out of the ordinary, and requiring explanation.
In a different vein, I'd point out here how these things, even as they simply appear to us, are perfectly acceptable to be inquired about, and explained by a presidential candidate.
I'd say I'm under the impression that there's nothing illegal or unethical, in the real esate transaction between Mr. Obama and Rezko.
But I'd point out, that Republican randall "duke" cunningham is in a Federal Prison (unless they let him out already) for being unable to explain his mansion purchase, or his yacht purchase or the purchase of a Rolls Royce or his many expensive antiques and rugs and other furnishings of his mansion...
It all began at first as appearances, and certainly does require inquiry (perhaps even by the IRS) and explanation.
Upon inquiry, it was found that Republican randall "duke" cunningham was in fact taking bribes from defense lobbyists and contractors... he had no plausible explanation for the appearances, and is a convicted criminal because of it.
These things require only a sensible explanation, to be put away and for us to move on.
I'm satisfied in Mr. Obama's case, that there's no wrong-doing or anything unethical... but the inquiries are acceptable, and the explanations required, in the case of a presidential candidate.
I want to be clear here that I am not accusing Obama of any wrongdoing. As someone in the Chicago Tribune pointed out, other Illinois politicians knew that Rezko was a slime, but Obama was naive and didn't spot the trait, and so he hooked up with him, accepted his contributions, doled out a few minor (and legal) political favors ... and now has this connection to Rezko that won't land him in any legal hot water but is bad for his candidacy nonetheless.
What I find most odd is how little by little more facts come to be known. This story broke back in 2006, as I recall. When questioned about the relationship, Obama initially made it sound like he didn't really know Rezko. So why just this year in Feb 2008 does he admit that they toured the properties together ? This is what bothers me. It's kind of like a "what next ?" situation. He should have just come completely clean at the very beginning, and I have to wonder why he didn't.
Atheist,
Why do you omit these two relevant paragraphs from your recitations of the Tribune article? I can only assume that you are a Clinton or McCain partisan, who promotes the facts that are consistent with your beliefs but ignores the facts that disprove your claims. Dishonest, but the familiar spin of old. So, for the sake of avoiding more or your and Susan Roesgen's approach to reportage, here are the two paragraphs you ignore:
"On Monday, Obama's campaign gave Bloomberg news service e-mails from the sellers, who reportedly said Obama's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer" and that they didn't cut their asking price because Rezko bought the adjacent yard.
The campaign said Obama and his wife started at $1.3 million and upped their offer twice over 10 days. According to the campaign, the sellers confirmed they "did not offer or give the Obamas a 'discount' on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot."
Exactly, Atheist.
What benefit have Rezko and his wife received from the purchase? Have they built on the property left after the sale of the small strip to Obama? Is the remaining lot build-able? Was this some kind of favor?
Obama says it was a mistake. If everything was legal, what was the mistake? If he knew Rezko was corrupt at the time and still went ahead with the purchase, well, he should have to admit that, not just deflect it with 'It was a mistake'. The press is so lame.
Exactly, Atheist.
What benefit have Rezko and his wife received from the purchase? Have they built on the property left after the sale of the small strip to Obama? Is the remaining lot build-able? Was this some kind of favor?
Obama says it was a mistake. If everything was legal, what was the mistake? If he knew Rezko was corrupt at the time and still went ahead with the purchase, well, he should have to admit that, not just deflect it with 'It was a mistake'. The press is so lame.
Well, you have to make an accurate analogy ...
If you submit a low offer on a home and your lawbreaking fundraiser friend makes a full price offer on an adjacent property that doesn't even have street access offered by the same seller ...
And if the seller would not have accepted your low offer if your friend had not made a full price offer on the adjoining property ....
Then you not only got a discount, you were subsidized.
Here's something I could find quickly, underlining is mine:
On Monday, Obama's campaign gave Bloomberg news service e-mails from the sellers, who reportedly said Obama's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer" and that they didn't cut their asking price because Rezko bought the adjacent yard.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-rezko-home-feb19,0,6690484.story
Yah, but did the other potential buyers have a friend who was willing to pay more than full price for the adjacent property, to the total amount for both properties satisfied the seller ? Why did Rezko pay full price ? 1/6 of the lot was appraised for 1/12 of what he paid for it. Possible that the 1/6 slice was devalued because it was so small.
I believe Obama's purchase was subsidized by Tony Rezko. I don't think Obama could have purchased the house on his own. He admitted he couldn't afford the other property, and notice that the closings occurred on the same day. That indicates to me that the seller wanted to be guaranteed that Rezko wouldn't back out.
Snoopy,
Sometimes I worry about you. What on earth does a report by CNN have to do with Republicans making offers on houses?
Heck, everyone knows it is sweatheart deal. So what? Obama isn't the only politician who makes out because of some mutual back scratching. Nobody except media types are interested in this story.
It bores me but then I've lived in the same home for 18 years.
"Nobody except media types are interested in this story. "
Yep, nobody else.
No bloggers,
no Freepers,
certainly not Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't dream of ever using it.
The right wing slime machine? I guess we'll see how interested they are if Obama gets the nomination.
Atheist, I don't know about the neighborhood in question, looks like a pretty good market. I live in Southern California, where, since I graduated from high school, the median home price has incresed 5 or 6 fold.
Aside from the fact that street access is sometimes modified with as little as a permit and a driveway/approach addition, you're ignoring something pretty glaring; Real estate, especially in upscale neighborhoods, is not the worst investment one can make. Even if you can't drive your car onto it right now. I don't know where you live, but you might not believe some of the pieces of dirt that people I know went in on as partners, and made a killing.
The Chicago real estate market is not like any in the major metro areas of California. And while Kenwood has some fine homes and is very close to the University of Chicago, it does suffer crime no doubt resulting from the blight of adjacent neighborhoods. (I'm talking about neighborhoods in which there might only be 2 or 3 houses still standing on a block, the rest have been burned down.) The south side of Chicago, in which Kenwood lies, has never been and never will be as tony as the north side.
Somebody wants to buy the vacant lot next to Sen. Barack Obama's South Side home and build a house there.
That would be the lot that previously was owned by the wife of Obama's former campaign fund-raiser, indicted businessman Tony Rezko, in a deal that's attracted a lot of scrutiny.
The lot's owned by attorney Michael Sreenan, who worked for Rezko's companies. "I have a contingent contract,'' says Sreenan. "I've gotten three or four offers."
Whoever buys the land will need the city's OK to build there because it's in the historic Kenwood district.
One prospective buyer, who wants to build a single-family home, has met with Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), who says she wants to make sure that whatever's built is compatible with the neighborhood's mansions. Preckwinkle -- an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention -- says she rejected a developer's plans to put up condos there. Too "ugly," she decided.
Sreenan was asking $1.5 million. But he's cut the price to $995,000. Which is still far more than Rezko's wife paid. Rita Rezko bought the property for $625,000 on the same day in June 2005 that Obama bought the house next door for $1.65 million. Obama then paid Rezko's wife $104,500 to buy a one-sixth slice of her lot -- a deal he's since called "boneheaded," coming as it did while Rezko was known to be under investigation.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/817500,CST-NWS-watchcorner28.article
Question: Isn't it, at the very least, unethical to publish a high profile candidates home address? Because that's what they did in the upper left hand corner.
I don't know, maybe it's a matter of public record.
1. Who cares if Obama got a favor. I don't, and I bet most Americans don't either.
2. An unnamed Obama staffer is not a legitimate source with which to base your argument against the idea that Obama got a sweet deal from a friend.
1. Who cares if Obama got a favor. I don't, and I bet most Americans don't either.
Depends on where that favor comes from. For example, if it's his father-in-law, it's no biggie, who among us hasn't been helped by family.
But a questionable guy like Tony Rezko? I dunno. I'd like to know what favor might be expected in return...
Separate issue though, right?
It's never been a separate issue for Clinton, so why should Obama get a pass ?
We don't like politicians who make intimate business deals with lawbreakers.
Dex,
Why would a "sketchball" do anyone a favor unless they expected one in return?
As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.
The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.
The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
I suspect that much of your indifference is due to the fact that you like Obama. You may even be an Obama supporter and have voted, or will vote for him, in your state's primary.
If you are not on the Obama bandwagon, the details of his relationship and dealings with Tony Rezko are actually quite interesting, and the property situation is very strange.
Well, I won't lie to ya. I finally decided to go for Obama during the Texas debates. I thought Hillary was being too petty.
But if this is the worst they have against Obama, I'm inclined to give a pass because a) there is still too much speculation involved and b) McBush is getting a huge pass on his lobbyist ties which up to now I would have guessed was far worse in nature.
I totally agree with you there. I think it's appropriate for the media to investigate the Obama-Rezko connection, but where is the scrutiny of McCain? And as a prior poster (Nerzog ?) noted, where is the scrutiny of our current so-called leaders ? It's very disturbing.
I didn't think so, because they wanted Edwards out of the race as soon as possible, and can't wait until Obama is nominated.
Hey this is a big issue, I THINK,
So If and I'm stressing If, Obama get elected politician can divulge vast amounts of resources t words this pressing problem. Instead of getting some meaningful legislation passed.
I don't know the credibility of this site I am linking to so perhaps someone can say if it might be true or not. I read this a while ago.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/04/how-to-buy-a-mansion-you-cant-afford/
Sorry I am not sure how to get the link above written so you can click on it.