Obama's legislation on subsidizing private developers to build and manage low-income housing

[Queasy]

Link - Kudos to the Boston Globe. This is perhaps the first real in depth look at Sen. Obama's legislative efforts and how they have turned out that I've seen. This is a 9 page article that takes a serious look at legislative proposal that Obama championed and is currently part of his campaign platform.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

...

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Once a project has been built, it must be maintained.

Who is responsible for that?

Is it that the projects are built with poor quality or the quality of tennants and upkeep that ruin them after the fact?

The article indicates that the fault lies in who is in charge after the units are built.

Some developers may not want to take over running the units - to much of a headache.

With the Chicago area, many of Obamas connections seem to be involved in running the units. Is it connections that allow peoplethat may be unqualified to get a gravy position.

That sounds like typical politics - we saw that in the current administration.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Once a project has been built, it must be maintained.

Who is responsible for that?

Is it that the projects are built with poor quality or the quality of tennants and upkeep that ruin them after the fact?

The article indicates that the fault lies in who is in charge after the units are built.

Some developers may not want to take over running the units - to much of a headache.

With the Chicago area, many of Obamas connections seem to be involved in running the units. Is it connections that allow peoplethat may be unqualified to get a gravy position.

That sounds like typical politics - we saw that in the current administration.

He is bringing change though, can't you see it? Aren't we ready for a different kind of politics? You know, exactly the same kind you see here...

 

[Genx87]

Oh come on this falls under the new catch phrase from the Obamabots "Investing in Infrastructure".

At least we are spending it at home they will say. Apparently right into the hands of contributors. Business as usual.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
That sounds like typical politics - we saw that in the current administration.

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh come on this falls under the new catch phrase from the Obamabots "Investing in Infrastructure".

At least we are spending it at home they will say. Apparently right into the hands of contributors. Business as usual.

You're right. Better to reward even worse corruption that gives it all to the Saudis and other foreign interests. Don't you know that domestic projects like building highways and bridges and providing our war veterans with college educations is socialism?? :Q

:roll:

Is this really the best arguments you guys got? Vote for your corrupt POS because the other guy isn't absolutely perfect?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
With the Chicago area, many of Obamas connections seem to be involved in running the units. Is it connections that allow peoplethat may be unqualified to get a gravy position.

Apparently so.

One of the largest recipients of the subsidies was Rezmar Corp., founded in 1989 by Tony Rezko, who ran a company that sold snacks at city beaches, and Daniel Mahru, who ran a company that sold ice to Rezko. Neither man had development experience.

 

[sandorski]

"Projects" are a bad idea, Low Cost Housing as part of Market Housing is a good idea. It works basically like this: Developer wants to make Market Housing(Condo/Apts), they have to provide X Amount or X percent of Low Cost Units depending on the amount of Market Units being built.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Apples and oranges. You are using the same evaluation criteria on situations on entirely different scales.

This article exposes an Obama whose political record is one of politics as usual and not of change. Elevate Obama's plan to the national level, with the same effect, and the price tag also scales accordingly.

You're right. Better to reward even worse corruption that gives it all to the Saudis and other foreign interests. Don't you know that domestic projects like building highways and bridges and providing our war veterans with college educations is socialism??

This is where you are wrong, and why many domestic social programs ultimately fail...there is nothing wrong with building affordable housing for inner city neighborhoods...actually, the societal good far outweighs the cost, assuming that an investment is also made in sustaining the new developments.

You can't throw money at a problem and walk away...you have to place competent people in charge to sustain the process until there is a return on the investment.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Apples and oranges. You are using the same evaluation criteria on situations on entirely different scales.

This article exposes an Obama whose political record is one of politics as usual and not of change. Elevate Obama's plan to the national level, with the same effect, and the price tag also scales accordingly.

In which case, you're arguing (from a purely hypothetical standpoint) that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
Sorry, I can't agree, because that is in effect directly rewarding corruption. But meh... that's what partisan politics is all about.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh come on this falls under the new catch phrase from the Obamabots "Investing in Infrastructure".

At least we are spending it at home they will say. Apparently right into the hands of contributors. Business as usual.

You're right. Better to reward even worse corruption that gives it all to the Saudis and other foreign interests. Don't you know that domestic projects like building highways and bridges and providing our war veterans with college educations is socialism?? :Q

:roll:

Is this really the best arguments you guys got? Vote for your corrupt POS because the other guy isn't absolutely perfect?

It's a shame we are talking about him funding slum lords, that supported and donated to his campaign, with tax dollars and not a bridge or highway else your charge would make sense.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Apples and oranges. You are using the same evaluation criteria on situations on entirely different scales.

This article exposes an Obama whose political record is one of politics as usual and not of change. Elevate Obama's plan to the national level, with the same effect, and the price tag also scales accordingly.

In which case, you're arguing (from a purely hypothetical standpoint) that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
Sorry, I can't agree, because that is in effect directly rewarding corruption. But meh... that's what partisan politics is all about.

So... are you comparing Obama to Bush or McCain, because I'm pretty sure Bush's term is up here soon and he can't run again. Not sure if you got the memo.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Projects" are a bad idea, Low Cost Housing as part of Market Housing is a good idea. It works basically like this: Developer wants to make Market Housing(Condo/Apts), they have to provide X Amount or X percent of Low Cost Units depending on the amount of Market Units being built.

Yep. The failure of the old 'projects' is that renters have no pride of ownership, and the govt makes a crappy landlord even in the best of circumstances. Hence, these high maintenance costs, etc. etc.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Apples and oranges. You are using the same evaluation criteria on situations on entirely different scales.

This article exposes an Obama whose political record is one of politics as usual and not of change. Elevate Obama's plan to the national level, with the same effect, and the price tag also scales accordingly.

In which case, you're arguing (from a purely hypothetical standpoint) that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
Sorry, I can't agree, because that is in effect directly rewarding corruption. But meh... that's what partisan politics is all about.

So... are you comparing Obama to Bush or McCain, because I'm pretty sure Bush's term is up here soon and he can't run again. Not sure if you got the memo.

And McCain is running on Bush's platform. Not sure if you got the memo. :roll:

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
That sounds like typical politics - we saw that in the current administration.

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

So Bush's corruption makes Obama's okay?

Nvertheless, it's just a start Vic. Wait until the beaurocratic nightmare of his Universal Healthcare is put in place or the bill he sponsoredl that apportions a percentage of our GDP to "poorer" countries is signed by him, that is if he's elected Pres.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Apples and oranges. You are using the same evaluation criteria on situations on entirely different scales.

Sounds like apples, and slightly(well okay, significantly) larger apples..

 

[nageov3t]

nothing to see here, move along... Hope, etc.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Apples and oranges. You are using the same evaluation criteria on situations on entirely different scales.

This article exposes an Obama whose political record is one of politics as usual and not of change. Elevate Obama's plan to the national level, with the same effect, and the price tag also scales accordingly.

In which case, you're arguing (from a purely hypothetical standpoint) that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
Sorry, I can't agree, because that is in effect directly rewarding corruption. But meh... that's what partisan politics is all about.

So... are you comparing Obama to Bush or McCain, because I'm pretty sure Bush's term is up here soon and he can't run again. Not sure if you got the memo.

And McCain is running on Bush's platform. Not sure if you got the memo. :roll:

McCain is running a much different campaign than Bush ever ran, McCain's policies on energy independence are much different and extremely forward thinking, McCain and Bush agree on only a couple issues and that's the war. He is also for keeping the Bush tax cuts permanent, other than that they are not the same... minus similarities that just come by being of the R mindset.


So go ahead and compare Obama to Bush's "corruption", I don't see how that helps you out here... So it's okay for Obama to be corrupt because you feel Bush is? Maybe you should compare Obama to McCain? It might, just might make your point a little more valid.

 

[ElFenix]

one of the local democrats (Hubert Vo, CPA probably knows the name, i'm in his district right now) is also a slum lord.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
That sounds like typical politics - we saw that in the current administration.

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

Obama didn't have the opportunity as a state senator. As president, he'll be no different than Bush.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh come on this falls under the new catch phrase from the Obamabots "Investing in Infrastructure".

At least we are spending it at home they will say. Apparently right into the hands of contributors. Business as usual.

You're right. Better to reward even worse corruption that gives it all to the Saudis and other foreign interests. Don't you know that domestic projects like building highways and bridges and providing our war veterans with college educations is socialism?? :Q

I have started to enjoy your painting of me into the corner as someone who always falls back on the fears of socialism. Election time does funny things to people. Especially considering nothing in my post talked about socialism. Quite the opposite actually. Funneling tax payers dollars into private companies sounds like Fascism to me. Something you remind the world every chance you get when it comes to McCain.

I'll have to sign up for the Obama newsletter and read about his building plans for our highway, bridge, railroad, and sea port systems.

Until then cling to your hope that Obama's Fascism is any different from McCain's or Bush or any politician in the past who funnels public money into campaign fundraisers and contributors coffers under the guise of doing it for the poor\homeowner\avg man. Like I said, business as usual.

:disgust:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


McCain is running a much different campaign than Bush ever ran

,

Really? Seems like he's running on the fear card and......that's about it, pretty much the Rovian model that got Bush elected twice but also got R's slaughtered in the last congressional races.

McCain's policies on energy independence are much different and extremely forward thinking,

Drilling offshore is forward thinking?

McCain and Bush agree on only a couple issues and that's the war.

ONLY is the key word here, you act likes it's no big deal. He also agrees with Bush about Iran and a general policy of not talking to anyone we deem "evil". Now these are the major foreign policies issues of the day, you are diminishing that with your ONLY comment.

He is also for keeping the Bush tax cuts permanent, other than that they are not the same... minus similarities that just come by being of the R mindset.

Bush has an R mindset? He doesn't want to make the tax cuts permanent, he wants to double down on them and provide even more tax cuts to the wealthy.

The truth is that they are identical on virtually everything, McCain sided with Bush on 100% of his votes this year and 95% last year.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Obama didn't have the opportunity as a state senator. As president, he'll be no different than Bush.

That's nuts. Bush was very different than Clinton and all the other presidents.

Anyway, you give nice housing to a bum they're going to treat it as bums treat things, aren't they?

 

[Genx87]

ONLY is the key word here, you act likes it's no big deal. He also agrees with Bush about Iran and a general policy of not talking to anyone we deem "evil". Now these are the major foreign policies issues of the day, you are diminishing that with your ONLY comment.

I suggest you make a new thread about this topic. McCain wont attack Iran anymore than a man who tells the Jewish lobby he will do everything in his power to keep nukes out of the hands of Iran.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
That sounds like typical politics - we saw that in the current administration.

Except Bush's corruption debacles have cost America trillions, not thousands.

So Bush's corruption makes Obama's okay?

Nvertheless, it's just a start Vic. Wait until the beaurocratic nightmare of his Universal Healthcare is put in place or the bill he sponsoredl that apportions a percentage of our GDP to "poorer" countries is signed by him, that is if he's elected Pres.

FUD.
The next President will not propose or control the passage of a UHC. Congress already has that in hand to do regardless of who is elected POTUS. I predict it will happen even by some miracle the Pubs got the majority in Congress. It will not look like UHC though, you just won't be getting your health insurance from your employer anymore, but will buy it like you do your car insurance.
The bill Obama sponsored does not in any way change the amount of foreign aid, it just requires greater oversight of that aid to ensure that the aid doesn't fall into the hands of dictators, etc. Which is why the bill has broad bipartisan support.

And while I appreciate the knee-jerk comments, you'd have a bit more credibility if you weren't spreading FUD. I suppose you're desperate though, as America is voting your corrupt party out. At the very least, that will serve as a nagging lesson for the new party. If not, then they'll get voted out in time too.