« Chris Belz Chicago's 39th Ward Candidate Video | Main | Mob "Mechanic" Robert Cooley Video Interview »

Mayor Daley's 11th Ward Corruption Exposed Again

11th Ward Construction.jpg
Mayor Daley's Ward, the 11th Ward of Chicago has a funny way of doing business. On this website we informed people of the shakedowns contractors experience every day. Also, I hate to tell you but this effects the Inspections that are performed by Chicago City Inspectors. Some Inspectors are informed to give preferential treatment to certain contractors that know how the game is played. It is nothing new for many contractors that payoff local Alderman so their project goes off will little or no friction. In this picture I took a while ago, you will see new multi-million dollar homes right next to railroads that separate Negroes in the Wentworth low income housing. If you look close you will see a Chicago Police officer behind the bridge keeping the Negros on the right side of the tracks. Welcome to Bridgeport, Mansions near low income housing, ghettos, pig and poultry slaughterhouses, and an Oder the stinks to high heaven. No accounting for taste in Bridgeport! Please read this article by Fran Spielman of the Chicago Sun-Times, click here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/217461,CST-NWS-degnan19.article Are you surprised the 11th Ward wanted the "Right" kind of people to buy those new houses? Photo by Patrick McDonough.

Comments

You do not permits or variations in any ward unless the Alderman approves the change, but the 11th Ward is run by John Daley. Are the feds going to do their jobs and stop letting Daley shakedown contractors. Great Job Patrick McDonough.

lies all lies

we are honest crooks in the 11th ward

Maybe Joey DiPiazza and Patrick Daley can play off top and bottom together.
Those tough guy, Chinatown Italian and Irish gay sandwiches

WHERE ARE THE FEDS????

THIS IS LOW HANGING FRUIT????

MAYBE DALEY DOESN'T WANT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IN THE DEBATES

Hey (Cosmo) Biatta,

You approved the land to be sold by the City to Snitzer!
How much did you get out of it?
Only Honest Crooks in the 11th Ward, right?

Read on:
Controversy over Bridgeport land deal
Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 10, 2000 by CHARLES NICODEMUS

A veteran developer bought a prime piece of city land in Bridgeport for $87,000 an acre last June, barely seven months after he paid $421,000 an acre to a private owner for a piece of property right next door.

Chicago taxpayers would have received $2 million more if the city had charged the developer the same price per acre that the developer paid for the adjacent land.

City officials said that when the two appraisers it hired went looking for "comparable sales" to help them estimate a price, both firms somehow "just missed" the sale of the next door property to builder Thomas Snitzer of Arlington Heights . . . even though the sale was officially entered in county recorder files before the appraisals were started.

The city ordered two appraisal firms to evaluate the land as "vacant industrial" property, despite the fact that both the city and the builders were on record-in writing-that the land was to be used for residential construction. The developer had filed plans for the residential project two years before the sale and the city had long publicly proclaimed its intent to bring residential development to the land.

To have the property appraised according to its current "vacant industrial" zoning was "routine," according to the city.

"That's how we usually sell city property-`as-is,' " said General Services Commissioner Timothy Mitchell. But that decision doesn't sit well with some local business people.

"Regardless of zoning, that price for that land in this community in this market is ridiculous," said Marion Baginski, a Bridgeport homebuilder and real estate salesman whose office is two blocks from the north end of Snitzer's proposed project.

Although the city property housed a chemical plant until the late 1950s-and its foundations are one of several subsurface obstructions- the city said neither party raised the issue of soil contamination during talks on the sale of the city land.

And city records show the low price paid the city was just one of several benefits the development team's leader, Snitzer and two associates have enjoyed while trying to launch a 15-acre residential development along the east side of the south branch of the Chicago River. However, not all the city's decisions went in the developer's favor. Some of the city property was technically "landlocked" without street access. Although that could significantly lower the property value, the appraisers were ordered to ignore it because the developer got street access through the land he bought from the private owner.

Real estate experts say the colorful and historic Near Southwest Side neighborhood, once a blue-collar bungalow bastion and home to several mayors including Daley, is considered a hot area for residential development, particularly for young professionals.

Snitzer's group paid $580,000 for the key 6.6 acres, an irregularly shaped parcel running roughly from Racine and Benson to the river, and from 34th Street (extended) to 32nd Place.

The group saved $2 million compared with the price per acre that Snitzer had to pay the Norfolk Southern railroad on Oct. 27, 1999, for 6.5 acres of adjoining land, also vacant and carrying the same zoning.

Technical details of the city real estate purchase were handled for the developers by Keith Harrington, a lawyer for Snitzer associate John Kinsella. But city records show the Daley & George law firm has represented Snitzer since he first became interested a Bridgeport project in 1997.

Records of the General Services department show Snitzer and John George, who 20 years ago was Richard M. Daley's partner at Daley & George, were involved in discussion with the city about the sale and the steps it required.

Neither George nor Snitzer would agree to interviews about their contacts with city officials, and city officials would not permit interviews with the city Planning and General Services staffers who dealt with George and Snitzer.

At the law firm, Snitzer's relations with the city are handled by George and by partner Dennis Aukstik, records show. Aukstik is related by marriage to the Daley family. Michael Daley, one of the mayor's three brothers, is a partner in the firm.

Handling the sale for the city's General Services Department was Cosmo Briatta, the city's veteran asset manager, records show. Briatta is related by marriage to Cook County Commissioner John Daley, another Daley brother. He heads the County Board's Finance Committee and is the Democratic committeeman for the 11th Ward, where the Snitzer property is located.

Mitchell said the decision to have the property appraised according to its current "vacant industrial" zoning was made by Briatta, but it was the standard way the city did it.

Mitchell and city Planning Comissioner Chris Hill said there was "no favoritism involved" in pricing the city property for sale to the Snitzer group. Mitchell declined to make Briatta available for questioning.

The report by one of the appraisal firms, Real Estate Analysis, said in three different places that the parcel would have "substantially higher value" if the city would let the land be appraised as residential property.

Plan body OKs Bridgeport homes on bargain-price land
Chicago Sun-Times, Nov 17, 2000 by CHARLES NICODEMUS

A riverfront housing development in Bridgeport that will include six acres of land bought from the city at a bargain price won swift approval from the Plan Commission on Thursday, with few questions and no opposition.

Ald. James Balcer, whose 11th Ward would take in the 12-acre, 111- home project, called the proposal "great . . . one of the biggest single-family home developments in the city."

Among representatives of the development firm, JSII LLC, at the meeting were attorney Jack George, of the Daley & George law firm, where Mayor Daley once was a partner.

The only questions raised about the development in Bridgeport, long the home turf of the Daley family, came from planning consultant Thomas P. Nelson, who commended the construction of single-family homes and urged that a boat-launching site be added to the plans.

"But I hope that this will not be a gated community," Nelson said. "We don't need that."

The development features a 30-foot-wide, landscaped riverfront swath with an 8-foot-wide riverwalk. But the riverwalk area would be closed to the public during the same hours that city parks normally are closed, the Planning Department said in recommending approval of the project.

The irregularly shaped project would run roughly from 32nd Place south to 34th Street (extended) and from the South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River east to Benson and Racine.

The Chicago Sun-Times disclosed last month that developer Thomas Snitzer and JSII LLC had been permitted to buy half of the tract from the city for only $87,000 an acre earlier this year, after paying Conrail $421,000 an acre for the same-size adjoining tract with the same zoning last October.

Balcer told the commission he believed that the vacant former industrial land had been "virtually worthless," even though another developer also had tried to buy it from the city for a town house and warehouse conversion project.

Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

Snitzer catches key breaks for site
Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 10, 2000 by CHARLES NICODEMUS

City records show good things happened to builder Thomas Snitzer once he gave Chicago officials his opening proposal in late 1997 for a giant residential development along the Chicago River in Bridgeport.

A prominent competing developer, Zale Homes of Buffalo Grove, wanted to buy the same vacant 6.6-acre city parcel that Snitzer sought, to incorporate into a development Zale was proposing nearby.

But city Planning Department records, and comments by top Zale executive Leon Joffe, indicate Zale was stalled until it dropped out of the competition. Those same records show Snitzer got a friendlier reception-even though the city said both proposals sought too-high project densities.

In the summer of 1999, Snitzer came in with a revised proposal, switching from a town house proposal to 212 single-family homes. Then, in early September 1999, Snitzer and John George, of Daley & George, went to see Cosmo Briatta in the city's General Services Department. Briatta handles the sale of city property. Their mission, the city said: to ask that the 6.6 acres, which the city wouldn't sell to either Snitzer or Zale in 1998, be put on the market, so Snitzer could now buy it.

Records show Briatta put the sale in motion Sept. 8-before Snitzer could submit his purchase request. Snitzer and George declined to be interviewed about that meeting or other contacts. And the city declined requests for interviews with Briatta and other city staffers with whom Snitzer and George dealt.

Briatta ordered two appraisals of the property, which is routinely done by the city. But he failed to give the appraisal firms a copy of the plat showing exact dimensions for the irregularly shaped parcel. A city spokeswoman said Briatta "wasn't aware" he had the plat, and found it only after the appraisals were done.

As a result, both appraisers underestimated the parcel's size. Briatta took the appraisal with the lowest square footage but the highest valuation; added more square feet, and called the result "The equivalent of the appraised fair market value." The Appraisal Institute in Washington, a national professional group, called such a process "an oddity" the group had not encountered before.

On Feb. 3, 2000, after the appraisals were complete, Briatta advertised the property for sale-for one day. The ad gave any potential bidders just 14 days to come up with a development plan for the land and a description of proposed financing-issues Snitzer had had two years to deal with. The city said that's how all such sales are handled. There were no other bidders.

"We don't want to make it too easy for some other developer to step in and buy the property," said Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle. "We may believe one proposal is better for the city, and the neighborhood, than another."

Zale's Joffe said he had "repeatedly asked to be informed" by the city when the property finally was going on the market. He wasn't. Hoyle said no city staffer could recall his request.

City officials say they didn't even notice that the firm that Snitzer's associates were using to buy the city property, called JS2LLC, had been dissolved by the state, and didn't even exist when the City Council approved the sale April 12, or when the purchase money was paid on June 5. (The firm was reactivated June 19, "legalizing" the land sale.) And while any potential competing bidders were required to show credentials and financing, JS2LLC wasn't required to show anything except a purchase check-which the city said was normal procedure.

Both before and after the sale, the city started actions to take over three nearby businesses whose land Snitzer was eyeing for inclusion in his project. The city pulled back when the property owners resisted.

Before the City Council had even approved the sale April 12, reporters found Snitzer's work crews out on the city property, starting to clear the land and then bringing in a grader, a backhoe, eventually a crane and other heavy equiopment. City officials said if that happened, "it was wrong."

Snitzer's crews also fenced off gravel-topped parts of two city streets and blocked off a fire hydrant serving nearby homes and a factory. When neighbors and the Sun-Times questioned the actions, the city "freed up" the hydrant and ordered parts of the streets opened up.

Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

Bridgeport development grows despite neighbors' objections
Chicago Sun-Times, May 3, 2003 by Fran Spielman

Find More Results for: ""thomas snitzer""

The working river;...

Boom in Bridgeport; A...

Developers to fix code...

Family room moves up...

Developers of a Bridgeport riverfront housing development--built on city land sold at a bargain price--will add five more single- family homes to their 111-home project, thanks to another land sale that advanced Friday over neighborhood objections.

Bridgeport residents accused the City Council's Transportation Committee of allowing political clout to run roughshod over their concerns about traffic congestion and preserving a quiet street where children can play.

Developer JSII LLC is represented by the law firm of Daley & George. Mayor Daley was once a partner in the firm, which still includes his brother Michael.

On Friday, aldermen agreed to sell an unfinished portion of South Benson Street between 32nd Place and Throop to the developer for $275,000.

That will pave the way for construction of five more homes, starting at $485,000, on a triangular piece of land across the street from the 111-home development.

The problem, according to the 140 residents who signed petitions opposing the street closing, is the change in traffic patterns. Now that the street is being turned over to a private developer, it can never be improved. Traffic will be redirected east on 32nd Place and south on Throop--right past their homes.

"I want to be able to have my family--kids who know the joys of playing in the area--be able to play on the street and not have to worry about a 400 or 500 percent increase in traffic," said Paul Bulvan, who lives in the 3200 block of South Throop.

"Why should we sacrifice the street so he [developer Thomas Snitzer] can make more money building more homes at our expense?" said Edward Dwulat. "[Attorney Jack] George, Mayor Daley's brother's partner--they just railroad you and take it right over."

George countered that Benson Street, although planned, is "not really a street. ... It's just a mound of dirt that exists in that area." Ald. James Balcer (11th) went so far as to present photographs that show the site is a dumping ground for old tires, piles of wood and mounds of construction debris.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported nearly three years ago that developer Snitzer and JSII LLC bought 6.6 acres from the city--half of the site--for only $87,000 per acre after paying Conrail $421,000 an acre for the same-size adjoining tract with the same zoning one year before.

Mayor Daley defended the bargain price for city land in his native Bridgeport. He said the 6.6-acre parcel was a "dead piece of property" with "access and environmental problems" that "could not be sold" to anyone else.

Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

Daley defends Bridgeport sale
Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 11, 2000 by FRAN SPIELMAN

Find More Results for: ""thomas snitzer""

The working river;...

Boom in Bridgeport; A...

Developers to fix code...

Bridgeport development...

Mayor Daley on Tuesday defended the low price paid for city land in Bridgeport by a developer represented by the mayor's old law firm, saying the 6.6-acre tract "was a dead piece of property that could not be sold" to anyone else.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that another prominent developer, Zale Homes, had initially sought the property, along with the eventual buyer, Thomas Snitzer.

But Zale dropped out of the competition after the firm was unable to get clear information from the city-at a time when Snitzer was having frequent contacts about the property with city planning officials, records show.

The land sale last February "was handled appropriately," Daley told reporters at City Hall.

Asked if the land sale process gave Snitzer an advantage, Daley said, "No. None whatsoever."

When asked why the property was advertised for sale for only one day, he said, "I really don't know."

Daley was also pressed on why the city's asset director, Cosmo Briatta, failed to give copies of the city's detailed plat of the irregularly shaped parcel to the two appraisers retained to evaluate the land so they could accurately compute the acreage.

"I really don't know that," the mayor said. "I'll get (Planning Commissioner) Chris Hill here."

Hill was off sick. But press aides to Hill and to General Services Commissioner Timothy Mitchell provided written responses.

They said one day's advertisement of such a land sale is all the city believes is necessary. And they said the appraisers could operate without Briatta's plat, even though both appraisers miscalculated the acreage, requiring an adjustment by Briatta.

Daley was asked why Snitzer had to pay only $580,000 for the 6.6 acres of city property when Snitzer's development team had had to pay a railroad company nearly five times that much for a 6.5-acre tract next door-and which was also vacant with identical zoning.

Daley said there were "access and environmental problems" with the city property. But earlier, city officials had told the Sun-Times that environmental problems were not cited by the appraisers or the city in deciding on the sale price.

And one appraisal report said the city had stressed that a potential access problem-an old, unused railway right-of-way that crossed the city property-should be ignored. Snitzer himself had full access to the city property because he had bought the adjacent railroad land.

Daley was asked why neither Briatta, who handled the sale for General Services, nor key aides in the Planning Department who worked with Snitzer were permitted to talk to the Sun-Times about the sale and contacts with Snitzer.

"We had Chris Hill, Tim Mitchell. They are the commissioners. They are in charge," Daley said.

Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.


Who was the guy who carried Tommy Diapazza at sewers?
He got caught at the race track

Where did the money come for construction

DiPiazza helped Slick Degnan
s son get a condo below market race

Why is no one concerned that Snitzer got kicked out of the south loop for building multiple code violations?

The building department inspectors are laying off the Degnan related Piazza - Ferro development.
Piazza got a good condo for Slick Dignan's kid.
DiPiazza is married into the Roti and Caruso families. They control the building department.

Reyes got other favors on his home.

Look at development from Roosevelt to Cermak.

Joseph now Josephina aka Joey DiPiazza the son (now daughter) of Tommy DiPiazza is a f*****, c*** sucking, bottom, he-she, h****phrodite. Because his dad was out to much making a lot of money and with the 26th Street Street Crew acting like a real McGaffer instead of giving attention to his son/daughter.

Hey, even the Mayor's son Patrick is half a f** when he used to grab guys d***s at night clubs and molest them when they used to sleep. Maybe some big black man will slap the sissy out of him in the Army.

It was a scandal for these Bridgeport and Chinatown guys to be gay. But we should all be more tolerant.

What's with the rips on Joe DiPiazza? I dont get it.

f*** u u f***in haters. tommy d and his son aint gay u dumb f***

Daley defends Bridgeport land deal
By Gary Washburn | Tribune staff reporter
1:07 PM CDT, October 25, 2007
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Single page view Reprints Reader feedback Text size: Mayor Richard Daley insisted Thursday that a land purchase from a Bridgeport insider "was not a sweetheart deal" and that any seller would have received the $1.2 million that the city paid for the parcel.

"The land is very, very valuable along the river," Daley said. "You talk to anyone there. . . . That land has gone up tremendously along the Chicago River."

Earlier this week, the Tribune reported that developer Thomas DiPiazza and a partner bought the 1.8-acre parcel at the juncture of the river's south branch and a tributary known as Bubbly Creek for $50,000 in 1998. The city paid 24 times that amount in 2004 when it purchased the land for a park.


Daley said he had no conversations with DiPiazza or his associate, Timothy Degnan, about the city's acquisition. Degnan is a former top mayoral aide and a long-time Daley adviser.

The mayor was unable to say why the city paid a price based on the parcel's value with residential zoning, even though it is zoned industrial.

"I don't know about that," he said. "But the land is very, very valuable in that area. Everybody knows that."

gwashburn@tribune.com

Keep the heat on Daley

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)