Working with DevCorp North is not possible. No one gets a seat at the table in planning the future of our neighborhood based on a decade of lies, backroom deals with real estate developers, and fraud.
Where on DevCorp North's website do they admit to being part owners of one of the most valuable parcels of commercial property in our neighborhood, the same web site that solicits money from me and my neighbors, neighbors who have far fewer resources than DevCorp North?
Where on the signage of Gateway Mall does it say, "Brought to you by DevCorp North?"
Most importantly, where is Gateway Mall in DevCorp North's public financial disclosures, public disclosures used by DevCorp North to secure grants?
DevCorp North is nothing more than the not-for-profit, tax-exempt front for Moore's ward organization.
At times DevCorp North pretends to be a chamber of commerce and at other times pretends to be a community group.
DevCorp North serves Moore by supplying testimony and letters of support. DevCorp North goes downtown and speaks for us. They are not us.
Clean up your act before you stump for new members. Start by re-filing your financial disclosures from 1996 on. No more back-room deals. No more off-the-books partnerships with real estate developers.
Be honest with who and what you are and stop trying to deceive me and my neighbors. We've had enough.
by Hugh
67 comments:
According to very public documents, they are a 5% owner/partner of the LLC that controls the project. Who has ever denied this or hidden anything? I have had every question I have ever asked them answered quite quickly. I wasn't always happy with the answers but I have no evidence that anything was ever hidden from me.
> ... does DevCorp actually own some portion of Gateway?
Yes. DevCorp North owns Gateway Mall. See the Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Combined-Development - Howard, L. L. C. dated December 19, 1996, and signed by Kevin O'Neil, then President of DevCorp North. This document was obtained from the City of Chicago under the Freedom of Information Act.
> ... I have no evidence that anything was ever hidden from me.
Operating a corporation as tax-exempt is a privilege, not a right. A charitable organization enjoys many privileges, only the most obvious of which is that they don't pay taxes like the rest of us. One responsibility of their privileged status is that they are expected to operate in the light of day. We have an expectation of privacy with respect to our tax returns, tax exempt organizations have an expectation of disclosure. Charities don't file 1040's like the rest of us, but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does require most charities to annually submit IRS Form 990, the Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax. The intent of this form is to disclose enough information that the IRS, funding organizations, and the public can evaluate the organization's claim to tax exempt status. Our federal tax code requires that a charity share the past 3 years of their Form 990's and attachments on demand to anyone who asks. See IRS FAQs regarding the Exempt Organization Public Disclosure Requirements. The financial disclosures for a tax-exempt organization are available to the tax-paying public from the organization itself, or, if necessary, from the IRS. Many legitimate tax-exempt organizations honor their legal obligation to share their finances with the public using their own web site.
For an excellent introduction on how to use IRS Form 990 to learn more about nonprofit organizations, see the article How to Read the IRS Form 990 & Find Out What it Means.
The format of IRS Form 990 roughly mirrors that of standard business financial statements. Part IV of Form 990, page 3, is a simple balance sheet. See the Instructions for Form 990. In contrast with the IRS Form 1040 we are all familiar with, IRS Form 990 asks the tax-exempt organization to list assets as well as income, because grant-making organizations use the tax-exempt organization's IRS Form 990 filings as part of their process for evaluating grant proposals.
DevCorp North 2003 IRS Form 990
DevCorp North 2002 IRS Form 990
DevCorp North 2001 IRS Form 990
DevCorp North 2000 IRS Form 990
DevCorp North 1999 IRS Form 990
DevCorp North 1998 IRS Form 990
DevCorp North 1997 IRS Form 990
Find the shopping mall. Find the part ownership of a for-profit real estate development company. Find part ownership of one of the largest, most valuable properties in our nieghborhood.
December 19, 1996: DevCorp North buys 5% of a for-profit shopping mall development company.
June 13, 2001: DevCorp North and their partners close on a $8 million loan from the City of Chicago; City deeds over to DevCorp North and their partners properties worth many millions of dollars that the City has acquired in the Howard Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district.
March 1, 2002: DevCorp North and their partners close on a $75 million construction loan from Dodi Howard, L. L. C., a subsidiary of Combined Development Howard, L. L. C. controlled by James DiMatteo.
These events made no impact on DevCorp North's financial disclosures.
>Who has ever denied this or hidden anything?
DevCorp North's officers who architected DevCorp North's off-the-books partnerships with for-profit companies, a back-room deal to secure a tax-payer subsidized endowment by speculating in real estate development, continue in leadership roles with DevCorp North.
Kevin O'Neil, who in 1996 signed the partnership agreement as then President of DevCorp North, continues as a member of the Board of Directors, as Secretary of the Board of Directors, as chairman of DevCorp North's publicity committee, and as chairman of DevCorp North's standing committee to promote real estate development, the Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee (ZALUAC).
DevCorp North's IRS Forms 990 from 2001 through 2003 were signed by Kimberly Bares, then and now the Executive Director.
Excerpt from IRS Form 990:
"Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete."
Year Signed
2003 Kimberly Bares, Executive Director
2002 Kimberly Bares, Executive Director
2001 Kimberly Bares, Executive Director
2000 Charese L. Jordan, President
1999 Kenneth E. Govas, Executive Director
1998 Kenneth E. Govas, Executive Director
1997 Jennifer D. Long, Executive Director
Before I get too far into these tax documents, is it possible that there were no profits to report or possibly a loss? How would those types of situations effect these forms?
Hugh, I've got to hand it to you, when someone asks you to fill in the blanks, you sure do it.
However, what about Michael K.'s question that there were no profits to report? I have heard this question posed before, but I don't remember hearing a good answer to it.
> ... there were no profits to report ...
The legally required disclosures for tax-exempt organizations mirror standard business financial statements. Included are a section modeled after a profit & loss statement, as well as a section modeled after an assets & liabilities statement. When you and I fill out our tax returns Uncle Sam does not ask us to declare our assets, just our income, but tax exempt organizations are required to declare assets. This is important in order that the public may have confidence in the IRS' determination that an organization is tax-exempt. Most grant making organizations either require a applicant to submit copies of recent 990s, or the grant-making organization gets the forms from the IRS.
Regardless of whether Combined Development-Howard LLC had a loss or a profit, the LLC has significant assets, DevCorp North owns part of the LLC, and DevCorp North is required to declare it.
That makes more sense. One more question though... Is it possible that they were not requred to list it here as it was already listed on the tax documents for Combined Development?
Also, have you asked DevCorp directly to address this oversight? If so what was their response?
>Is it possible that they were not requred to list it here
No. DevCorp North owns part of a company. DevCorp North is required to to disclose their assets on their disclosures.
> ... this oversight
Oversight or incompetence ("Oops, forgot the Mall! Again!") is an unlikely explanation for DevCorp North's failure to disclose their ownership of a for-profit shopping mall. DevCorp North's IRS filings were professionally prepared. Fees paid to accountants are consistently among DevCorp North's biggest expenses after payroll. From 1997 through 2000, DevCorp North's IRS filings were prepared by Friedman Eisenstein Raemer and Schwartz, LLP and FERS Business Systems, Inc of 401 N Michigan. DevCorp North's IRS filings for 2001 and 2002 were prepared by Thomas Bravos, CPA of Bravos and Associates of Bloomington, IL. Apparently, our local neighborhood business development corporation was unable to find a local neighborhood accountant who would do what they wanted done with their IRS filings.
That's good information. When this has been brought to their attention in the past, what was their reponse? Sorry to ask so many questions, I just like to be thorough.
> ... what was their reponse?
The usual. "If it so wrong, why haven't we been arrested yet?"
>I have had every question I have ever asked them answered quite quickly.
Give them a call.
I will. It's not that I don't believe you, Hugh, it's just that I have a hard time believing that anyone could have such an apparently glaring act of fraud on their hands and noone has done anything about it. I imagine they have some justification for conducting business the way they do. You and I might not like the way they do things all the time, but does not mean what they are doing is criminal.
Also, you can fax any suspected fraudulent tax documents to the IL IRS Fraud Detection Center at this number: (816) 823-8543
> ... why is this a good or a bad thing?
DevCorp North's off-the-books ownership of a for-profit real estate development company is so very wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start answering this question. The criminal aspect is just one. Another is the personal level.
Let's say you are sitting around a conference table at a community meeting in a church basement, discussing, with folks you think are your neighbors, how to encourage local businesses to sweep and shovel the sidewalks in front of their businesses, as required by law in Chicago. One unassuming neighbor identifies himself as from a community group and says, I have an idea, why don't we raise property taxes, pay unemployed workers in food stamps, and get them to sweep and shovel? The Alderman thinks it's a grand idea and makes it happen.
Later, you find out the dude is one of the biggest property owners in the business district. How do you feel?
DevCorp North has been deceiving us for a decade.
DevCorp North's concealment of its assets is particularly onerous when viewed in the context of its aggressive grant-seeking activities. A partial list of grants known to be awarded to DevCorp North since 1996 includes:
* $35,000 from the Chicago Community Trust awarded in May, 2003
* SBC Excelerator Grant from the SBC Foundation awarded in 2003
Other DevCorp North grantees known from available public records include the Fifth Third Foundation Office, and the Seabury Foundation.
Unclear is how many of these grants would have been awarded had the grant-making organization been aware that DevCorp North owned 5% of a multi-million dollar shopping mall.
DevCorp North sought and received grant funding under false pretenses.
Does devcorp disclose that they own 5% of the LLC?
If that was answered already, I appologize.
OK. So I just read the tax document (fairly lengthy) and there are two places where information can be gathered regarding the Gateway and both seem to be complete. First, it asks to report any income in regards to partnerships with other organizations and ther may well not have been any. Second, on line 88 it asks the question "At any time during the year, did the organization own a 50% or greater interest in a taxable corporation or partnership, or an entity disregarded as separate from the organization under Regulations Sections 301 7701-2 and 301 7701-3? If "Yes", complete Part IX." Of course the answer to this is "No" as Hugh has pointed out several times. Can someone tell me where the crime is here? There is no mention of the 5% holding on this document because the document doesn't ask them for that information.
Thanks for taking the time to look into this.
I recommend you open the Instructions for Form 990 and refer to it as you intepret the 990s.
The purpose of the line item you mention, line 88 in the "Other" section, is a test to determine if the tax exempt organization has any subsidiaries. If they have any subsidiaries, they need to fill out an Part IX. No one is claiming Combined Development Howard, LLC is a SUBSIDIARY of DevCorp North.
Take a look on the at the Balance Sheet, Part IV on page 3
Line 55 Investments - land, buildings, and equipment
Line 56 Investments - other
Line 57 Land, buildings, and equipment
Line 58 Other assets
Nothing.
SOMEWHERE on their balance sheet, under "Other assets" if no where else, DevCorp North owes it to the public they claim to serve and to grant-making organizations to declare their 5% ownership in a multi-million dollar for-profit real estate development company.
From the Instructions:
Line 58—Other assets
List and show the book value of each category of assets not reportable on lines 45 through 57. Attach a separate schedule if more space is needed.
What I am saying is this: I don't think they need to list those buildings as assets because they do not own a controlling share of them. There is a small amount listed under other assets on the document I read but it could not account for a 5% holding of such an expensive chunk of real estate. I do not hold a degree in finance but when I have filled out taxes in the past I have not had to make mention of property that I did not own a controlling share of. Is anyone out there a CPA?
>I don't think they need to list those buildings as assets because they do not own a controlling share of them.
Controlling share has nothing to do with it.
> ... when I have filled out taxes in the past I have not had to make mention of property that I did not own a controlling share of.
Individuals are not required to disclose assets. Organizations claiming to be tax exempt are.
>I don't think they need to list those buildings as assets because they do not own a controlling share of them.
The IRS recognizes that a tax exempt organization might own assets that they do not completely contol. That's why, while the IRS asks a the tax-exempt organization to categorize their assets by type in lines 45 through 58 of the balance sheet, the IRS then ask the tax-exempt organization to go back and make another pass at categorizing the same assets, this time by degree of control, in lines 67 through 69.
Line 67 Unrestricted
Line 68 Temporarily restricted
Line 69 Permanently restricted
From 1996 to 2003, DevCorp North declared all their assets to be unresticted, and declared no temporarily or permanently restricted assets.
I think I'd rather have my teeth drilled than read any more of this....
;p
no doubt
So they would have to list it as an assett even if they were unable to sell it? I hate to bicker (actually, that's a lie, I love a good argument) but if they were doing something illegal I don't think they would be so brazen or flippant about it. There are lots of loopholes out there and maybe they found one. In any case, what concerns is me is whether or not they are spending the money they do generate on things that benefit the community. For me, the jury is still out. Also, I don't believe where they have failed was necessarily malicious. I would tend to believe they were simply mistakes. There are a lot of forces at work to keep this hood in the crapper and I imagine the folks at DevCorp are more than aware of it. I think our energies would be better focused on fixing the programs that are failing up at DevCorp rather than arguing tax law. Besides, I am much more qualified to do the former than the latter.
>So they would have to list it as an asset even if they were unable to sell it?
Yes. It would be an example of a permanently restricted asset, but it is still an asset, and it still needs to be disclosed. DevCorp North's back-room deal was an attempt to endow themselves at taxpayer expense. Think of donating a painting to a museum.
OK. Hugh. The final question: What do DevCorp North, a group of just a few people, have to gain through all of their "back room deals"? I wonder if maybe you have something to gain from their dissolution or a vendetta against a memeber of the organization. There is no amount of logic that can crack your conspiracy theory.
Your remark about donating a painting to a museum leads me to believe that you believe I am a wealthy investor that is to be held in contempt in your standards. Truth be told, I am a working stiff who wants things to be better not just bitch about everything. If you are so sure that a crime has been committed, why have you not escalated these issues to a higher authority than Craig's blog (no offense Craig)?
Get your act together and drop the defeatist attitiude about everything in this neighborhood. Work with people both inside and outside the system and maybe something will get done.
1. Hasn't DevCorp had other tax issues re reporting?
2. It would be nice to see a tax attorney or accountant specializing in tax issues weigh in on this issue.
Far be it from me to defend DevCorp but this sounds like a minor filing issue, particularly if the lack of disclosure has no bearing on taxes due and/or not-for-profit status, and could easily be remedied by amended filings. Personally, I'm not big on not-for-profits except in the case of out an out charitable organizations because such status allows some businesses to effectively avoid taxes and get other benefits that do not accrue to most businesses (and people) but this really doesn't smell like a smoking gun issue.
It's amazing the amounts collected by nonprofits. What's even more amazing are the nice salaries the directors receive for whatever it is they don't do.
Perhaps Craig can link up his line items in the SSA#19 and 24 for everyone to ponder, the cost of the 'snow removal machine' vs it's storage and insurance costs, etc. The list of blatancies are endless.
Until now.
>Your remark about donating a painting to a museum leads me to believe ...
you may be reading too much into it
i meant nothing personal
I was trying to invoke the analogy of a painting being donated to a museum, where the donor might stipulate it is not to be hung but not sold.
>a minor filing issue
It is not a minor filing issue. It is an issue of being honest with the community you claim to serve. It is an issue of open process and transparency.
It is an issue of trying to serve too masters. DevCorp North has served Combined Development Howard LLC well, and has harmed our community.
Michael, keep insulting me and they'll make you a Board member.
> ... conspiracy theory
There's no theory here. You looked at operating agreement, you looked at the disclosures, they are not theoretical.
>The list of blatancies are endless.
I would urge you to take your time deciding what you think about DevCorp North. Of course the fraud on their disclosures is only one issue.
> ... they have disclosed this ownership in certain places.
> ... DevCorp does disclose it in other places ...
What places?
> ... they're ... not running away from the adverse consequences of the Gateway project.
DevCorp North puts their logo everywhere:
* on lampposts
* on the backs of their will-work-for-food-stamps street sweepers and snow-shovelers
* on their tractors
* on their money laundering operation on Clark Street
* on their office
Why don't they put it on their shopping mall?
Aren't they proud of it?
Where on their web site does it say, Proud Owners of the Gateway Mall?
Stop being ridiculous. Do you have a sign on your house that says brought to you by Hugh? Of course not, because it is irrelevant. Also, the name DevCorp sounds a bit uninviting. Probably not a good marketing scheme. They only own 5% of the property. None of the other partners have their names on the sign. There are a few stores that don't have their names on the sign. Chipotle doesn't have McDonald's emblazoned on their signs and they own every last one of the stores. Everybody knows who owns what. Noone is hiding anything.
Where on their web site does it say, Proud Owners of the Gateway Mall?
They mention the Gateway Center as one of their initiatives here:
http://devcorpnorth.org/economic_development/index.html
>... there are at least two documents, freely available to the general public, in which DevCorp discloses their relationship with the Gateway center.
What two documents?
OK, so DevCorp North's web site MENTIONS Gateway Mall. Where does it say they own 5% of it?
> ... the Gateway LLC Operating Agreement, which lays out DevCorp's involvement ...
Forming a limited liability company (LLC) is not how you express your pride of ownership. An LLC is how you conceal ownership.
> ... available to anyone who wants to get it from the Secretary of State. ... freely available to the general public, in which DevCorp discloses their relationship with the Gateway center.
The documentation on an LLC is not freely available. The SOS charges $75 to even look at them.
How would the Chicago Community Trust or Seabury Foundation or SBC or the Fith Third Foundation or HUD or the Irving Stern Foundation know to request the operating agreement of Combined Development-Howard LLC from the Illinois Secretary of State, when DevCorp North's disclosures make no reference to Combined Development-Howard LLC?
>What do DevCorp North ... have to gain through all of their "back room deals"?
DevCorp North, tired of facilitating the Johnsons and the Mulders and the Terzakis' and the DiMatteo's become millionaires from profiteering in real estate development in our neighborhood, decided to get in the game themselves, and they were clever about it so as not to cut off the grant spicket.
> ... rumors ...
The disclosure forms are not rumors.
No matter how many OTHER documents or mentions you may dig up, it does not absolve DevCorp North from their legal responsibility to present a true, accurate, and complete public disclosure of their assets on their IRS Form 990s.
The companies who gave these grants to DevCorp are big wealthy corporations with lots of big wealthy lawyers who I am sure checked every record they could get there hands on. If anything, your laundry list of contributors serves as an endorsement that DevCorp is not engaged in fraud. Each one of these folks conducted a thorough review of DevCorp's books and apparently decided that they were clean.
The same page on DevCorp North's web site also mentions the Howard Street Special Service Area (SSA), the Clark-Morse-Glenwood Special Service Area (SSA), and the Devon-Sheridan Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District.
Should I infer that DevCorp North also own 5% of the the Howard Street Special Service Area (SSA), the Clark-Morse-Glenwood Special Service Area (SSA), and the Devon-Sheridan Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District?
>Each one of these folks conducted a thorough review of DevCorp's books ...
They did not. At most, they looked at the 990s.
May I ask, what is your source on this?
You're cute as a button sometimes!
Now you're just being contrary. How is it that when I make a supposition it is immediately considered to be false but all of your's are true?
You refuse to accept any theory other than your own so I feel I am wasting my time in this discussion. If you really feel that there is monkey business going on, take your case to the IRS and have them sort it out. If someone gets indicted I'll take you out to dinner. Someplace local of course. I'm serious. They don't even have to be convicted, just go to trial. People have often asked others to out up or shut up on this blog so here's my first attempt at the former.
> ... this discussion has changed ...
No doubt you would prefer to change the subject.
>Unless something else other than invective gets posted here...
The disclosure forms are not invective. Show me the Mall!
> ... at this point, the less said about this DevCorp/Gateway issue, the better ...
I know it may be painful to begin to understand that one of the most prominent "community groups" in our neighborhood is actually a major property owner, and founded on skullduggery, but welcome to Rogers Park!
Why do I feel like I am force-feeding geese here?
And one last thing Hugh, I don't think that 5% ownership of a failing shoppping mall project makes them a major property holder. Geez. Again, I look forward to seeing Kim Bares on Chicago Tonight after she is indicted for fraud. I'll take you to Grande Noodles and Sushi, I hear it's quite nice. Of course, if that happens, I'll be having the crow. Until then, good luck.
>...do you have any additional evidence?
You mean beyond government filings, prepared and signed by Kevin O'Neill and Kim Bares? What would it take to convince you?
>I'm sure we're all aware how complex and counter-intuitive tax law can be.
Line 58—Other assets
List and show the book value of each category of assets not reportable on lines 45 through 57. Attach a separate schedule if more space is needed.
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "other" is.
>Work with people both inside and outside the system...
You have to draw the line somewhere. It's a slippery slope once you decide it's OK to sit down with criminals. The Gangster Disciples are the Powers That Be on Morse and Howard. Will you work with them?
If what the GD's are doing is so wrong, why haven't they been arrested yet?
They get arrested all the time but there are like 50,000 of them and they use some pretty sneaky tactics to keep from getting caught. Some are aided by bad landlords who let them operate in the building. Many use minors to make the actual sales. They have llokouts on the corners to alert them to police presence.
Comparing a street gang to a small group of folks at a non-profit community organization is ludicrous. Some may even call it slander. Watch it Hugh, they may use their god-like influence on the system to have you arrested.
>Comparing a street gang to a small group of folks at a non-profit community organization is ludicrous.
BOTH "use some pretty sneaky tactics to keep from getting caught."
Both think the ends justify the means.
Both are profiteering in our neighborhood.
> ... failing shoppping mall ...
May I ask, what is your source on this?
Is it perhaps another of your suppositions?
> ... I don't think that 5% ownership of a failing shoppping mall project makes them a major property holder.
What is DevCorp North's stake in Gateway Mall worth?
Short of actually selling the property, all answers to this question are necessarily estimates.
One estimate is in the City of Chicago's "Redevelopment Agreement" with DevCorp North and their partners in Gateway Mall.
The City of Chicago agreed to lend $8 million to DevCorp North and their partners as part of the redevelopment agreement for Gateway Mall. This loan was to be paid off by property taxes collected in the Howard Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. In order to ensure that their loan would be paid off, the City included in the agreement a table specifying the projected assessed valuation of the Gateway Mall property, and extracted a written, signed pledge from DevCorp North and their partners that they would not protest their taxes below the agreed levels.
Excerpt from Howard-Paulina Redevelopment Project Area Second Amended and Restated Redevelopment Agreement
June 13, 2001
8.19 (c) Real Estate Taxes
The Developer agrees that ... for the purposes of this Agreement, the total projected minimum assessed value of the real property ... is shown on Exhibit N ...
Neither the Developer or any agent, representative, leesee, tenant, assignee, transfree or successor in interest to the Developer shall, during the Term of this agreement, directly or indirectly, initiate, seek or apply for proceedings in order to lower the assessed value of all or any portion of the real property ...
Exhibit N
Year Minimum Assessed Value
2001 $5,139,234
2002 $8,319,496
2003 $10,714,049
2004 $10,714,049
2005 $10,714,049
2006 $11,078,437
2007 $11,078,437
2008 $11,078,437
2009 $11,598,992
2010 $11,598,992
2011 $11,598,992
2012 $11,598,992
Commercial property is assessed at 38% of its full market value by the Cook County Assessor. In June, 2001, DevCorp North and their partners agreed that the Gateway Mall property has a market value of approximately $28 million currently. DevCorp North's 5% share of Gateway Mall has a market value of at least $1.4 million.
This figure is a conservative, lower bound on the value of DevCorp North's share of their property on Howard Street. The above table lists "minimum assessed value," what DevCorp North and their partners were willing to accept for purposes of paying property taxes. DevCorp North and their partners agreed to the above table before the property was improved by the construction of Gateway Mall. The Cook County Assessor's reckoning of market value is always lower than an actual sale price.
Another estimator of the value of DevCorp North's share of the Gateway Mall property may be found in the actual assessed values. Combined Development-Howard LLC's properties include:
11-30-403-002 7531 N Clark St
11-30-403-004 7521 N Clark St
11-30-403-011 1731 W Howard St
11-30-403-033 1731 W Howard St
11-30-403-034 7515 N Clark St
11-30-403-035 1779 W Howard St
11-30-403-037 1744 W Birchwood Ave
11-30-403-038 7518 N Hermitage Ave
11-30-403-039 1731 W Howard St
11-30-404-018 7535 N Hermitage Ave
11-30-411-001 7459 N Clark St
11-30-411-002 7457 N Clark St
11-30-411-003 7451 N Clark St
11-30-411-004 7441 N Clark St
11-30-411-010 1755 W Birchwood Ave
11-30-411-011 1751 W Birchwood Ave
11-30-411-013 7456 N Hermitage Ave
11-30-411-014 7452 N Hermitage Ave
11-30-411-015 7450 N Hermitage Ave
11-30-411-016 7444 N Hermitage Ave
The market value of Combined Development-Howard LLC's properties has fallen short of the projections from 2001. (As reported recently in the Pioneer Press News-Star, the broader Howard TIF has not realized the projected property tax revenues) The total assessed value of these properties is $3,230,753. The total market value is about $8,568,548.09. At 5% ownership, the book value of DevCorp North's share of Combined Development-Howard LLC's properties may be estimated at $428,427.40. While this is lower than the estimate above, it is still more than double the total assets DevCorp North has ever disclosed.
>I don't think that 5% ownership of a failing shoppping mall project makes them a major property holder.
Did you make any attempt to ballpark what Gateway Mall might be worth before you posted this? This is how rumors get started. Pretty soon many people are under the impression, "Gateway mall is worthless, anyway" when in fact it is worth many millions of dollars. Please be more careful in the future.
You list a lot of numbers that really mean nothing. I will refer you to my offer of dinner for an indictment. I am not trying to say that these people are doing the best job, but your claims of cirminal activity are the kind of journalism I would expect of the Weekly World News. You find a single fact and then latch on to it. You make more extrapolative leaps than you can support. Also,iIt might be a good idea for you to stop tryoing to illustrate how DevCorp is trying to hide things by using public documents.
> ... indictment ...
You should go work for the Ryan or Daley administrations. For years they took the fact that no one indicted them to mean everything they did was hunky dory.
I don't need a federal prosecutor to know right from wrong. Do you?
It is wrong for a tax-exempt organization to misrepresent themselves on their legally required financial disclosures.
It is wrong to solicite funds from me, my neighbors, government agencies, and grant-making organizaitons under false pretenses.
It is wrong to claim a seat at the table planning the future of our neighborhood on the basis of being the Alderman's favorite charity, or claiming to be a "community group" while concealing corporate connections.
Post a Comment