Tuesday, August 28, 2007
* Joe Moore Lies About TIF Project and Funds
Last night Joe Moore made a big deal about no section 8 vouchers were being issued on the 6610 N. Sheridan $2 million dollar TIF hand-out. I recorded his lie on video.
Later in the meeting a neighbor asked the developer if section 8 vouchers would be accepted. He said Yes. So that means, this property will be locked into a 30 year section 8 agreement. This property is basically going to be transformed into another Broadmoor.
What is section 8 vouchers? The section 8 voucher program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families safe and sanitary housing in the private market. So far, from all indications, this property and the current batch of tenants living inside aren't experiencing such safe and sanitary amenities. Much like the Broadmoor.
There were oh so many contradictions given out last night, it's going to take a few posts to sort out all the crap we were fed.
We heard about Plan B if the $2 million dollars in TIF money doesn't come through. That doesn't sound too promising either. (Highly unlikely scenario - this is a done deal.)
Not to mention Joe Moore and Jennifer Clark lied when I asked about the $46 million of dollars in TIF money Loyola was already pillaging from the newly formed TIF. Joe didn't even know how much money was actually available for any Loyola TIF projects.
To be continued....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
are you saying that joe says on this tape that they will not be accepting section 8?
HONEST CRAIG- DID YOU EXPECT THE MEETING TO GO ANY DIFFERENT WITH OUR 49th ALDERMAN INVOLVED-
???????????????????????????????????
Joe Moore lying? Is that supposed to be news after 16+ years? That's like saying, "The sun rose this morning."
Craig, ALL landlords must now accept these vouchers, whether they are getting public money or not. But, you are right, it is easier to screen rigorously if you aren't getting public money. You don't have to go to such lengths to justify turning down or accepting this or that tenant.
The only way to keep any building from becoming a problem is to maintain rigorous screening.
The TIF requires the landlord to keep the units "affordable" whether the tenants are "voucher" tenants or not.
I am opposed to using TIF for this project on principle- these men stated they could rehab the place into a perfectly decent building without the TIF district funds, and that's what they should do.
But it won't make any difference at all in how many or few "voucher" tenants you might end up with. Your own screening is what makes the difference.
I understand why people are confused about this, so I'm not being rough on you, but you need to understand that ALL landlords are prohibited from discriminating against prospective tenants on the basis of the source of income, by HUD rules, which are byzantine.
I like that these guys have the place and are rehabbing it, but I'm opposed to public funds to make it fancier than it needs to be to be nice, just in order to have a few "rent stabilized" units in the place. The fancy new facade will look just as ugly and outdated 15-20 years hence as the brick and fieldstone exterior does now, because it is just plain a piss-ugly building that a relic of the worst era in architectural history- the 50s and 60s.
I mean, I would personally rather raze every building like this, but it's not my call, since I don't own a single brick of these places. Also, it would be very wasteful- no one really has the money to shoot to tear down a perfectly serviceable and comfortable, if not lovely, building. This country can no longer afford the throw-away ethic, so we are stuck with a lot of unlovely architecture.
Why is MOORE presenting the developer's plans?
Who's alderman is he?
Is their English not good?
Has Moore no shame? This is a paid promotional appearance.
"First of all, there are no really section 8 projects under development anymore. It's the VOUCHER program."
So they renamed it. It's the same deal. Moore tries to make out it's not section 8 because it's not called section 8 anymore. What a scumbag. Will he say ANYTHING?
Craig, thanks for bringing this meeting to us. I think that J Moore thinks the community's lack of interest allows him to get away with things, and with your help, more people are seeing this meeting than he even wants to know.
"What this is, however, is a development that where the developer is thinking of rehabilitating this building, and, in return for, consistent with tax increment financing, has a greed to set aside a certain number of units that will be affordable..."
Moore makes it sound like it was HIS IDEA, a NEW IDEA to have affordable rents in this building.
As if, what a deal we the public are getting! Well, we are getting something we already got, long ago.
What Moore is not explaining is that the building is ALREADY home to publicly subsidized renters.
What Moore is not NOT TELLING YOU about are the EXISTING agreements under which the owners of this building were extended property tax breaks to accommodate affordable rents.
6610-28 N Sheridan
PIN 11-32-313-028
Property Class code 3-97
Special rental structure
hugh, they didn't "rename it". they changed it. they no longer buy or build buildings. that is the point that joe is trying to make in this tape.
section 8 is now a program that you "free market" folks ought to like- partial payment of rent, paid to landlords in the private sector. all tenants must pay something. landlords are free to refuse any particular tenant for good cause, just not because they are section 8 tenants.
most landlords like the program, because the checks are regular. the good old free market keeps the housing in shape.
what's not to like? if a building has bad tenants, like north coast says, that is bad screening on the landlords part.
Sounds like a pattern. Block by block, building by building will revert to friends of Joe. Then all of Rogers Park will become what North of Howard already is. A dumping ground for the misfits that continue to vote Joe Moore into office. Remember, he cares about them. He 'saves' their affordable housing so they are forced to vote for him. I have one of his mailers from the last election. He points out to the voucher residents because of him their homes are safe for 27 more years! I wish he cared as much about me. But I expect too much. I just work, pay taxes, keep up my property, and vote. Someday my vote will count NOH.
been there, as a "free market" advocate AND as a moderate-income person, there is no way I can love voucher assistance because it relentlessly pushes housing prices northward.
Voucher assistance artificially supports higher rental prices than might be the case if landlords had to rely on the earned income of the renters.
80 years of socialized housing,including low income housing projects, Section 8, FHA and VA financing assistance, various tax subsidies and breaks for middle income (or richer) buyers, various local subsidies such as CPAN and local loan programs, has not resulted in better conditions for "the poor" overall.
All it has accomplished is to drive housing prices northward, with the result that Americans in every income bracket are spending a much larger portion of their incomes for housing than was the case when socialization was just getting a grip- and, of course, we are paying for it in taxes.
Give them $2,000,000.00 to tear it down and make it a park.
most landlords like the program, because the checks are regular.
Sure, why not.
Not sure I see the "good old free market" in this project though, whatever that is. This is 100% affordable set aside; more like a captive market isn't it? When there are no market rate units in the building doesn't it tend to disincent a landlord even more than usual from doing things like proper tenant screening and building maintenance?
Telling certain landlords they should just do it doesn't seem to be working very well.
Why a park, Charlie?
We don't need more parks. We need to parks to be maintained better. Loyola Park ought to be our crown jewel and it looks like a dump.
And anyway, why would someone pay $11.5 MM for a building, then raze it and build a park in return for $2MM funding from the city? That makes no kid of business sense.
Third, a park at that location would wreck the streetscape and give gangbangers and troublemakers another spot to hang out.
The best thing for that spot, ideally, would be a new, beautiful building set back at the same lot line as the commercial buildings at North Shore. But ideal costs lots of dough we can't afford to spare for private projects.
It would be a dangerous spot for pedestrians to walk past at not. Parks are very difficult to police, which is why they close at night. The great park designer of all time, Frederick Law Olmsted, recognized this when he recommended closing Central Park at 11PM.
What a joke -- could Joe Moore really be foolish enough to participate in a give away of this magnitude? This is such an outrageous waste of taxpayer funds -- since when did the taxpayers of the city become responsible for helping one particular landlord fix up his property?
Obviously this joker thoght he was going to convert this ugly ass POS to condos and make a fortune. Only once he kicked everyone out and started the building he realized "uh, oh -- I'm not going to be able to sell these".
So here he is begging for taxpayer help by appealing to Joe's good liberal instincts of doing something/anything to advance the cause of "affordable housing".
Relax Joe, there is no way that this structure will ever be anything but affordable housing. The market will dictate that -- nobody will pay big bucks to live here and so eventually the landlord will have to take reasonable rents. Oh and for rehab -- let this A-hole loose it in foreclosure and then someone with some sense will step in and complete the work that was started and get the units rentable.
lets not mince words,
this is the endgame for landlords in chicago,
being a landlord aint what it used to be, i however wish them well, cuz i know one of the partners and i know he knows what he is doing, cuz im met him,
i like northcoasts comments,
his most incisive and accurate comment is that we are no longer able to throw away building like we used to,
this aint the good OL USA,
we are a country in decline, cuz hey we were certainly on top for awhile and when you are on top there is only way way,
down....
investment back into our infrastructure and a good safe place to live for people to run it however is never a bad idea,
its all in the
execution,
my money is
on
inverbrass.
check out their website
please check it out and then
add additional comments after
due diligence
jeffo, my bud, northcoast is a she.
Come on over to my blog sometime.
America might not be decline had we not been the most wasteful pigs the world ever saw since WW2.
The "throw away" mentality trashed our cities and built thousands of square miles of the ugliest ticky tacky semi-prefab crap ever conceived allover the country, and the sickest part is that some of it calls itself a "mansion".
We had everything- beautiful spacious country with incredible natural resources and productive land and a relatively low population. But that was 1945.
Now we are borderline overpopulated and we've squandered our resources and let our productive capacity wither.
the most important aspect of this story that has not received enough attention is:
Moore using his "Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee" as a TIF subsidy approval board.
Let's say just for the sake of argument that the dozen or so campaign contributors, real estate developers, aldermanic staffers onthe ZALUAC, whoever they are, Moore won't post who they are, let's say they are THE absolute most appropriate people in the community to advise Moore on lucrative zoning changes for Moore's developer pals.
So WHAT exactly qualifies them to decide on earmarking the property taxes of the future?
Once again Moore gives the illusion of community process with no community process.
Good point Hugh. But hasn't the escape hatch always been that these committees are voluntary on the part of the council members? So their existence alone can be positioned as more "community process" than nothing at all regardless of how they are composed or how the meetings are conducted?
Classic having your cake and eating it too.
Post a Comment