Developers fuel the campaign fire. Alderman Moore's major campaign contributor Robert Coe presented plans to build a five-story building with ground floor commercial space at 1523-35 West Howard Street to the 49th ward zoning and land use committee. (ZALUC)
Coe requested a zoning variance for unobstructed open space, since the proposed site is on a through lot, which passes from one street to another. The variance will enable him to building lot line to lot line.
Mr. Coe claims he will set aside two units for affordable housing. But where have we heard that before. He loves to offer this up, then after the dust settles, he yanks them away.
For a guy who hasn't done a thing with his Coe hole on Morse Avenue in over a year, why would anyone in their right mind approve another project before the first one is finished? Campaign contributions I guess?
The Alderman seems to run with some very unsavory developers. Here's the top ten records Mr. Coe is building up in the 49th ward.
1. The near gas explosion.
2. The wall that fell over.
3. Adding to neighborhood blight.
4. Poor Public Zoning Notice
5. Neglecting Public complaints.
6. Neglecting Committeeman/ZALUC/DevCorp North Board Member complaints.
7. North of Howard Watchers has concerns.
8. What Hugh thinks.
9. Investigate this.
10. Coe Backs Out of CPAN.
RELATED:
Say No to Coe.
DevCorp North's Secret Backroom Deal.
Howard/Ashland Site Set For Eminent Domain.
Alderman Moore and Coe Are At "It" Again.
Alderman Unleashes Eminent Domain on Developer Pal.
News Star Covers Coe's Woes.
Alderman Calls Vanity Building A Hoax.
Suburban Developer Stimulates Alderman Moore's Economy.
More on Mr. Coe here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
10 comments:
Are there developers who got zoning changes without campaign contributions?
How cash, clout transform Chicago neighborhoods.
If the zoning change requested would help make a better building, the builder should not have to "trade" in order to get it.
In a sense, offering CPAN units in return for granting a requested zoning change is just as much 'pay to play' as offering the alderman a contribution.
An inappropriate building should not be built no matter how many contributions in the form of cash or CPAN units or whatever 'in kind' payment the builders offers.
If the zoning change is for a good reason, then it should be granted.
I was at that meeting, and could see clearly that the wedge-shaped site demanded a variance in order to have a good building.
As for CPAN, the entire program should be discontinued. Why help a few CPAN lottery winners into units they otherwise could not afford, just so they can be confronted with substantially higher assessments and taxes that they also cannot afford, when they can just do what reality demands and buy an older, smaller place in their price range?
In any case, offering a $325K unit for @270 to CPAN buyers is NOT creating affordable housing. You have to be well into the middle class to buy a unit for $270K- in a reality-based lending market, based on 10% down and a loan no more than 2.5X your income, you need an income of appx. $90K a year to buy such a place.
CPAN is unfair in that only a handful of buyers stand to benefit, and they are usually nowhere near being truly needy. Why are the taxpayers and developers being asked to subsidize buyers who are already relatively well off and could find acceptable housing in their price range?
But I guess it's pointless to discuss fairness and honesty when the government has been subsidizing middle income buyers since WW2 and is using all of our tax money to bail out a system collapsed by the fantasy of universal affordability and loose lending.
I know of a time when someone wanted to build a 6 flat in single family land and were turned down.
They bought a lot on the 1900 block of Morse then tore the house down then applied for a zoning change.
Then wrote letter to all the neighbors calling us evil because we did not want them to build a 6 flat where a single family once stood.
Basically it is a vancant field with a for sale sign.
Yep I am glad that it is not a six flat.
Steve Golovan Loves Rogers Park!
Joe admitted to Carol Marin that he was obligated to recues himself from any zoning decision "in which he has a financial interest."
When pressed as to whether a campaign donation is a financial interest of sorts, Joe replied:
"You could make that argument and...uh...uh..and certainly that is a ...uh...perhaps something that we should consider as a body."
So, according to Joe, accepting campaign contributions from developers who receive zoning variances is "arguably" against the law.
RogersParking - I agree - that was a pretty comical response. The political system is so very corrupt - term limits (which I don't see how they could ever be voted in by the very people they effect) may be the only solution to really make a difference. No office in our country should be no more than two terms at a time
Politicians have such a massive stake in the status quo that we can't imagine they're going to do what's really needed, which is a complete overhaul of campaign finance.
We need to think just how we could make it possible to finance campaigns differently.
For one thing, all campaigns should be limited to an amount prescribed as appropriate for the particular office.
Secondly, all donors should remain unknown to the recipient of the funds. What good is a secret ballot in the voting booth when you are on record as having donated to a particular politician? You might as well have to declare who you're voting for at the polling place. This would mean that all donations would have to be in cash, donors would not be recorded, and no politician would be able to know who s/he "owes".
A better solution might be to have a national campaign finance fund out of which every candidate gets an equal campaign fund deemed appropriate for the particular office.
Another thing that would help is to limit TV appearances, or stop TV campaigning altogether. It is not only very expensive, but scotches any chance that the race is going to be anything other than a popularity contest based on public persona, rather than record and knowledge.
We got a few good developments and a number of bad ones in the last five years, and Moore, who by the way I despise for reasons quite other than this, is no more or less guilty of abetting bad development than any other municipal leader in the country. They ALL fell for the "growth" mantra, and it was a race to see who could get the most development in his city or ward.
But Joe is for certain a slummifier, and he seems not to care whether a particular project is good for the area or not, but only whether the developer is on his crony contributor list.
I'd be willing to bet that if campaign contributions were made anonymously and limited in dollar amount, that Moore would have a much smaller war chest.
The gift that keeps giving.
Morse & Greenview
c/o Robert Coe
555 Skokie Blvd
Ste 500
Northbrook, IL 60062
$500.00 on 12/16/2008
Individual Contribution/Citizens for Joe Moore
Morse & Greenview c/o Robert Coe
555 Skokie Blvd
Ste 500
Northbrook, IL 60062
$1,200.00 on 11/6/2006
Individual Contribution /Citizens for Joe Moore
Morse & Greenview c/o Robert Coe
555 Skokie Blvd
Ste 500
Northbrook, IL 60062
$1,200.00 on 11/6/2006
Individual Contribution/Citizens for Joe Moore
Morse & Greenview c/o Robert Coe
555 Skokie Blvd
Ste 500
Northbrook, IL 60062
$1,000.00 on 12/19/2007
Individual Contribution/Citizens for Joe Moore
Post a Comment