The letter finally came.
The City of Chicago Consumer Services Department has filed charges against that bootleg taxicab driver who wouldn’t take me home a few months ago.
It would seem that I have a knack of running into drivers that won’t take me to the south side.
It’s kind of like a gift, really.
While it sucks in the moment, at least in my own way I’m rooting out crappy taxi drivers.
Like a scrubbing bubble, I’m doing the hard work so you don’t have to.
Nonetheless, the form letter from Consumer Services states that the driver could “demand a trial.”
I say bring it on, homeboy.
We could have avoided this whole mess.
Everyone involved in this rigmarole could be going with the countless other things they have going on in their lives had the driver simply taken me home.
Personally I can name about twelve other things I’d rather be doing than taking a taxi driver to task over refusing me service.
It really is just that easy.
Why didn’t my cab driver think so?
If history is any precedent, the night driver of 6215 will think twice before he pulls that crap on anyone else.
South side, represent.
Showing posts with label Department of Consumer Services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Consumer Services. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Here I Go Again
I went out last night to some of my regular haunts.
Hell, I just secured regular employment so I think I’m due for a little celebrating.
Like most Chicagoans out on Friday night, I made a late night food run to McDonalds.
I hailed a cab---cab 6215---heading south on Clark Street with the intent of going home.
Unfortunately for me, my driver must have missed that part in taxi 101 where he takes me to where I want to go.
Now I’d tell you his name but he wouldn’t reveal his name and he was a little less forthcoming about taking his hand from over his taxi license.
Nonetheless---the drama jumped off when I gave him my address and wanted to go home.
Immediately he told me that he had no gas.
I replied, “No worries, go ahead and find some gas.”
He pulled into the BP station at Wabash & Roosevelt.
At least he was heading south which was a step in the right direction.
That’s when he dropped the bomb.
“You’re gonna have to pre pay your fare.”
I started to get that old familiar feeling.
Why do I keep on running into cabbies that won’t take me home?
Naturally, 911 was contacted.
And like the last time, the police took the side of the cabbie.
At least this time they seemed sympathetic but the result was still the same.
The cab driver told them that I because I was on the phone talking to someone about the situation, that he “Didn’t feel comfortable driving me.”
Implying that I was setting him up for some type of misfortune.
I explained to Officers Evans and Lee (Beat 133) that I simply wanted to go home and when I gave him the address of where I was going, all of the problems started.
First the no gas story, then the demand for prepayment---he clearly didn’t want to take me to my destination which is a violation of the municipal code.
If my memory is correct, the officers said that they couldn’t make him take me anywhere and that this was a civil matter.
Unbelievable.
They suggested that I get out and take another cab.
I got out and walked away but not before getting the bright idea to turn back and use the camera option on my cell phone. I have a picture of the placard that faces
the customer in the back seat but not much else.
It seems the driver was a little camera shy.
So here I go again.
I’ll file another complaint and wait till it grinds its way through the Department of Consumer Services.
All I wanted to do was go home.
A simple request, really. Why do some people have to make it so hard?
Hell, I just secured regular employment so I think I’m due for a little celebrating.
Like most Chicagoans out on Friday night, I made a late night food run to McDonalds.
I hailed a cab---cab 6215---heading south on Clark Street with the intent of going home.
Unfortunately for me, my driver must have missed that part in taxi 101 where he takes me to where I want to go.
Now I’d tell you his name but he wouldn’t reveal his name and he was a little less forthcoming about taking his hand from over his taxi license.
Nonetheless---the drama jumped off when I gave him my address and wanted to go home.
Immediately he told me that he had no gas.
I replied, “No worries, go ahead and find some gas.”
He pulled into the BP station at Wabash & Roosevelt.
At least he was heading south which was a step in the right direction.
That’s when he dropped the bomb.
“You’re gonna have to pre pay your fare.”
I started to get that old familiar feeling.
Why do I keep on running into cabbies that won’t take me home?
Naturally, 911 was contacted.
And like the last time, the police took the side of the cabbie.
At least this time they seemed sympathetic but the result was still the same.
The cab driver told them that I because I was on the phone talking to someone about the situation, that he “Didn’t feel comfortable driving me.”
Implying that I was setting him up for some type of misfortune.
I explained to Officers Evans and Lee (Beat 133) that I simply wanted to go home and when I gave him the address of where I was going, all of the problems started.
First the no gas story, then the demand for prepayment---he clearly didn’t want to take me to my destination which is a violation of the municipal code.
If my memory is correct, the officers said that they couldn’t make him take me anywhere and that this was a civil matter.
Unbelievable.
They suggested that I get out and take another cab.
I got out and walked away but not before getting the bright idea to turn back and use the camera option on my cell phone. I have a picture of the placard that faces
the customer in the back seat but not much else.
It seems the driver was a little camera shy.
So here I go again.
I’ll file another complaint and wait till it grinds its way through the Department of Consumer Services.
All I wanted to do was go home.
A simple request, really. Why do some people have to make it so hard?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
The City Hates Him Too
Ladies and Gentlemen seeking justice for our beleaguered condo association has been a driving force in my life for the past two years.
It’s why I started this blog.
Well that and I thought I’d go bat shit crazy from all of the association drama.
It’s been a long road.
I’ve discovered that if you pursue it long enough, things may start to change for the better.
I think that’s about to happen with respect to bootleg developers.
After countless months of waiting the City of Chicago is starting (or has started) a joint task force between The Mayor’s Office, The Department of Consumer Services and The Department of Construction & Permits to rout out bad developers and general contractors.
We have been delivered from the wilderness.
Hopefully the process will be smoothed out and properly publicized by the end of the calendar year so the general public will know how to put a shady developer or general contractor on “blast.”
The difference between these proceedings and a regular civil city lawsuit is that the city would be seeking remedies that bar the developer from doing business in the city---EVER AGAIN and to put the property or properties that he or she is developing into receivership.
Nice, huh? I call it the developer death penalty.
Now obviously there will be ways for someone to get around the death penalty, but that means you as the smart informed consumer that you are (after reading this blog) will actually have to perform due diligence.
Better yet, if you see your bootleg developer is doing another project, you have to blow the whistle on him or her.
Find the real estate agents that they list with and follow the paper trail from there. It’s incredibly easy and now that everything’s online all the information you ever wanted to know is at your fingertips.
Literally.
The minute I get word of how you’ll be able to report your ghetto ass developer, I’ll put it on the blog ASAP.
It’s about time the city brings the pain.
It’s why I started this blog.
Well that and I thought I’d go bat shit crazy from all of the association drama.
It’s been a long road.
I’ve discovered that if you pursue it long enough, things may start to change for the better.
I think that’s about to happen with respect to bootleg developers.
After countless months of waiting the City of Chicago is starting (or has started) a joint task force between The Mayor’s Office, The Department of Consumer Services and The Department of Construction & Permits to rout out bad developers and general contractors.
We have been delivered from the wilderness.
Hopefully the process will be smoothed out and properly publicized by the end of the calendar year so the general public will know how to put a shady developer or general contractor on “blast.”
The difference between these proceedings and a regular civil city lawsuit is that the city would be seeking remedies that bar the developer from doing business in the city---EVER AGAIN and to put the property or properties that he or she is developing into receivership.
Nice, huh? I call it the developer death penalty.
Now obviously there will be ways for someone to get around the death penalty, but that means you as the smart informed consumer that you are (after reading this blog) will actually have to perform due diligence.
Better yet, if you see your bootleg developer is doing another project, you have to blow the whistle on him or her.
Find the real estate agents that they list with and follow the paper trail from there. It’s incredibly easy and now that everything’s online all the information you ever wanted to know is at your fingertips.
Literally.
The minute I get word of how you’ll be able to report your ghetto ass developer, I’ll put it on the blog ASAP.
It’s about time the city brings the pain.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Phoning It In
I had my day in court last week.
More specifically I had my administrative hearing for my taxicab complaint last Friday.
Despite the attempts of the driver to discredit my story. Justice (and truth) reined supreme and he was found liable of the charges.
But I’m putting the cart before the horse. Let me backtrack a little.
When you have an administrative hearing, you are given the option of either attending the actual hearing or phoning in and giving your testimony. Since we’re soon to be laid off, I thought it better to do this via the telephone than to burn precious vacation time.
I was sworn in by the hearing officer and was asked a series of questions by the attorney for the city which allowed me to tell my side of the story.
Once that was over, the driver was allowed to cross examine me.
If that’s what you want to call it.
He made a rather feeble attempt to discredit me by asking me if I said he picked me up on South Chicago Avenue.
I said no.
He replied, “You just said that I picked you up on South Chicago Avenue.”
I replied, “No---I said that I was standing on the south side of Chicago Avenue with the intent of the cab heading east and having a straight shot out to Lake Shore Drive.”
‘Cause anyone knows that Chicago Avenue which is on the north side and South Chicago Avenue which is on the south side are two completely different streets.
Nice try, homeboy.
He then tried to hammer away that I had a case of mistaken identity.
While I could identify the cab number, the driver asked me to describe who drove me that night and the color of the cab.
I could do neither.
The color of the cab is insignificant as a cab can be one color one month and completely different the next. The cab number on the other hand does not change.
Cab 606 is cab 606 no matter what color the vehicle may be.
Now for a couple of years I’ve been adamant about a few things when I get into a cab.
I either text a friend with the cab number that I’m in or call them with the information and that I’m on my way home. And I make sure that the person who’s driving me home is the same person in the picture of the cab license that’s displayed to the public.
On occasions, if a cab has several different drivers through the course of a day sometimes they may forget to switch out the licenses.
You always want to make sure everything is matchy matchy before you go too far.
So while I couldn’t describe the driver in detail, I could tell that he was a man of color with dark hair who spoke with an accent.
I couldn’t give a height as he was sitting down and it was seven months ago. Like I said, I just make sure the picture matches---I don’t have a photographic memory.
This seemed to satisfy the hearing officer who sustained the objection of the city’s attorney after the cab driver kept on repeatedly asking me if I could identify him.
Asked and answered butthead.
At that point, my testimony was complete. There was nothing more for me to do so I was excused by the hearing officer and hung up the phone.
An hour or so later the city’s attorney called me and said that the cab drive had been found liable of the charges.
As a result he has to pay a $225.00 fine, take a drug test and a physical as well as sign up for cab driver 101 at Harold Washington College.
Did I mention that the cab driver 101 course costs $275.00?
So the driver is spending $500.00, the cost of the drug test and physical. Additionally he will be losing money because he won’t be out making a living.
He’ll be learning, turning his head and coughing and pissing into a cup.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to take me home?
More specifically I had my administrative hearing for my taxicab complaint last Friday.
Despite the attempts of the driver to discredit my story. Justice (and truth) reined supreme and he was found liable of the charges.
But I’m putting the cart before the horse. Let me backtrack a little.
When you have an administrative hearing, you are given the option of either attending the actual hearing or phoning in and giving your testimony. Since we’re soon to be laid off, I thought it better to do this via the telephone than to burn precious vacation time.
I was sworn in by the hearing officer and was asked a series of questions by the attorney for the city which allowed me to tell my side of the story.
Once that was over, the driver was allowed to cross examine me.
If that’s what you want to call it.
He made a rather feeble attempt to discredit me by asking me if I said he picked me up on South Chicago Avenue.
I said no.
He replied, “You just said that I picked you up on South Chicago Avenue.”
I replied, “No---I said that I was standing on the south side of Chicago Avenue with the intent of the cab heading east and having a straight shot out to Lake Shore Drive.”
‘Cause anyone knows that Chicago Avenue which is on the north side and South Chicago Avenue which is on the south side are two completely different streets.
Nice try, homeboy.
He then tried to hammer away that I had a case of mistaken identity.
While I could identify the cab number, the driver asked me to describe who drove me that night and the color of the cab.
I could do neither.
The color of the cab is insignificant as a cab can be one color one month and completely different the next. The cab number on the other hand does not change.
Cab 606 is cab 606 no matter what color the vehicle may be.
Now for a couple of years I’ve been adamant about a few things when I get into a cab.
I either text a friend with the cab number that I’m in or call them with the information and that I’m on my way home. And I make sure that the person who’s driving me home is the same person in the picture of the cab license that’s displayed to the public.
On occasions, if a cab has several different drivers through the course of a day sometimes they may forget to switch out the licenses.
You always want to make sure everything is matchy matchy before you go too far.
So while I couldn’t describe the driver in detail, I could tell that he was a man of color with dark hair who spoke with an accent.
I couldn’t give a height as he was sitting down and it was seven months ago. Like I said, I just make sure the picture matches---I don’t have a photographic memory.
This seemed to satisfy the hearing officer who sustained the objection of the city’s attorney after the cab driver kept on repeatedly asking me if I could identify him.
Asked and answered butthead.
At that point, my testimony was complete. There was nothing more for me to do so I was excused by the hearing officer and hung up the phone.
An hour or so later the city’s attorney called me and said that the cab drive had been found liable of the charges.
As a result he has to pay a $225.00 fine, take a drug test and a physical as well as sign up for cab driver 101 at Harold Washington College.
Did I mention that the cab driver 101 course costs $275.00?
So the driver is spending $500.00, the cost of the drug test and physical. Additionally he will be losing money because he won’t be out making a living.
He’ll be learning, turning his head and coughing and pissing into a cup.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to take me home?
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Taxi Cab Rebellion
I recently received this letter from the Department of Consumer Services regarding the taxicab complaint I filed earlier this year:
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held at the above listed date, time & location against the cab drive you reported to this department for investigation.
The cab driver has been charged with violations of the municipal code of Chicago.
As a key witness, your testimony is essential for an effective prosecution of the case against the cab driver. A copy of the affidavit you submitted is enclosed for your reference and review.
Contact me at 312-XXX-XXXX or at XXXX@cityofchicago.org as to your availability to testify on the above listed hearing date and time. Please inform me whether you will be testifying via telephone, indicate the phone number you can be reached on the date and time of hearing. Please allow for a two hour window to testify by phone.
Your failure to testify may result in the case being dismissed.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Always reference the above listed complaint number in all communications with this department.
It may have taken five months but the wheels of justice are finally turning for a sister.
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held at the above listed date, time & location against the cab drive you reported to this department for investigation.
The cab driver has been charged with violations of the municipal code of Chicago.
As a key witness, your testimony is essential for an effective prosecution of the case against the cab driver. A copy of the affidavit you submitted is enclosed for your reference and review.
Contact me at 312-XXX-XXXX or at XXXX@cityofchicago.org as to your availability to testify on the above listed hearing date and time. Please inform me whether you will be testifying via telephone, indicate the phone number you can be reached on the date and time of hearing. Please allow for a two hour window to testify by phone.
Your failure to testify may result in the case being dismissed.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Always reference the above listed complaint number in all communications with this department.
It may have taken five months but the wheels of justice are finally turning for a sister.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Slow Grind
The city has finally responded to my cab driver complaint I filed earlier in the year. This letter came in the mail on Saturday:
To: The Woodlawn Wonder
Re: Complaint SR Number07-0000XXXX
This letter is an update of the Department of Consumer Services’ investigation of the taxicab, taxicab driver or taxicab company you reported for investigation.
Based on your complaint affidavit and the Department of Consumer Server (“the Department”) investigation, the Department filed charges against the taxicab, taxicab driver or taxicab company for violations of the Municipal Code of Chicago at the City of Chicago’s Central Administrative Hearing Facility.
If the Respondent(s), the taxicab, taxicab driver, or taxicab company, demand a trial the Department will notify you of the scheduled trial date and time. You will be notified by mail, phone call and or e-mail or the trial date, time and location. Your testimony is essential for an effective prosecution of the Department’s case. You will have the option to testify by phone or in person at the trial.
If the case does not progress to a trial you will still be notified of the outcome of the Administrative hearing proceedings. Possible other outcomes are that the Respondent(s) plead liable to the charges OR that a Default Order is entered against the Respondent(s) for failing to appear at the initial hearing.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Please reference the above listed complaint SR number in any correspondence with this Department.
It sounds like someone is about to get sat in the corner for not playing fair. Updates will be forthcoming.
To: The Woodlawn Wonder
Re: Complaint SR Number07-0000XXXX
This letter is an update of the Department of Consumer Services’ investigation of the taxicab, taxicab driver or taxicab company you reported for investigation.
Based on your complaint affidavit and the Department of Consumer Server (“the Department”) investigation, the Department filed charges against the taxicab, taxicab driver or taxicab company for violations of the Municipal Code of Chicago at the City of Chicago’s Central Administrative Hearing Facility.
If the Respondent(s), the taxicab, taxicab driver, or taxicab company, demand a trial the Department will notify you of the scheduled trial date and time. You will be notified by mail, phone call and or e-mail or the trial date, time and location. Your testimony is essential for an effective prosecution of the Department’s case. You will have the option to testify by phone or in person at the trial.
If the case does not progress to a trial you will still be notified of the outcome of the Administrative hearing proceedings. Possible other outcomes are that the Respondent(s) plead liable to the charges OR that a Default Order is entered against the Respondent(s) for failing to appear at the initial hearing.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Please reference the above listed complaint SR number in any correspondence with this Department.
It sounds like someone is about to get sat in the corner for not playing fair. Updates will be forthcoming.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Shock & Awe
I can't believe the city is prosecuting a developer. Read more about it here.
I also can't believe I didn't know about this when it happened. I must be losing my touch.
I also can't believe I didn't know about this when it happened. I must be losing my touch.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Crabby Cabbie
Living on the south side of Chicago is a daily test of your patience and will.
My fellow Chicagoans often give those of us who live south of Madison Street the back of their hand when it comes to common courtesy and respect.
Not being a native Chicagoan, I was often bewildered at the whole south side north side animosity/rivalry thing.
Let’s suffice it to say that after living on the south side for five years I totally get it---the mystery is gone.
One of the daily injustices that south siders face is the taxicab situation.
On the one hand you have to be organized and time conscious to get to where you’re going via public transportation. Knowing that you either have to catch a bus or a train for work or for play makes you budget your time efficiently.
On the other hand, it sucks when you have to attend a formal event and wait over an hours for a cab---if you’re lucky.
We have a little law here in Chicago that states that the cab companies must have dedicated “neighborhood cabs” that service every neighborhood in the city.
That’s a nice way of saying, “Service the south side, you bootleg motherfuckers.”
But what the law (or ordinance) says and what actually happens are two different things.
I fully know that if I call one of the big cab companies that I won’t ever see a cab. They can put the call out all they want but if no one responds, what can the dispatcher do?
Or so I’ve been told.
So in order to save my sanity, I don’t rely upon the large cab companies to come and get me but if I’m on the north side---I do rely upon them to ferry me home.
95% of the time I have no problem. But that 5% can be a problem.
So began my (early) Saturday morning.
I hailed and got into a cab at approximately 12:30 AM on Saturday morning (12/30) only to be told by the driver that he was “off duty” after I gave him my destination address.
I was in no mood to put up with some cab driver’s bullshit
.
He told me that since he was “off duty” that I should get out and find another cab.
Ding, ding---game on.
I was pissed.
Pissed with a capital “P.”
I stated that I hailed him, he picked me up and wasn’t off duty until I revealed my destination address. I further added that I wasn’t going to take another cab.
“You need to take another cab.”
“Are you refusing to take me to my destination?”
It went on like this for a few minutes.
The cabbie (Mr. Mohanadinoner, if I copied his name down correctly) then stated that he was going to call the police if I didn’t get out of the cab.
I told him I’d beat him to the punch and already had 911 dialed on my cell phone.
The cops arrived a few minutes later.
Unfortunately they were of little assistance.
The officers essentially refused to enforce the City of Chicago rules that state the following:
When you hail a cab, drivers cannot refuse service unless the "Not for Hire" sign is displayed
Cabs licensed within the City of Chicago may take you anywhere in the city or to the suburbs
After a boatload of hard looks and my explanation of the situation, one of the officers strongly suggested that I copy down the cab driver’s information and take another cab.
From the looks he was giving me, I knew this was a fight I wasn’t going to win. I took the necessary information and got out of the cab.
Thanks a lot Officer Friendly.
Unfortunately I didn’t get the officer’s badge number so I could file a complaint against his handling of the situation. But let me share something with you ladies and gentlemen, if you start some shit with the Chicago Police Department, you better be ready for a very unfriendly and extremely personal fight.
I don’t suggest it unless it’s a circumstance in the most extreme.
And even then you better have multiple copies of corroborating evidence and credible eyewitnesses backing your story.
It wouldn’t hurt to be the spouse or immediate family member of an officer just as an extra level of protection.
This is Chicago, if you start a fight be better damn well be able to finish it.
Even if I had his badge number, I’m not gonna start a pissing match over some bootleg cab driver.
I did on the other hand fill out the city’s online complaint form lodging an official complaint against the driver and my treatment.
I will not be treated “less than” because you perceive my worth or the worth of my neighborhood to not be up to your standards.
Fuck you.
I don’t care he thought the neighborhood was unsafe or that my fare would take him too far away from other potential fares in a mainstream entertainment district.
Hell, I don’t care if he doesn’t like black people.
That wasn’t his call.
When his service light was on and I got into his cab, all of that hoo-ha flew out the window.
Let’s see if I can acquaint the cabbie with the power of one.
I’ll keep the blog updated as developments occur.
My fellow Chicagoans often give those of us who live south of Madison Street the back of their hand when it comes to common courtesy and respect.
Not being a native Chicagoan, I was often bewildered at the whole south side north side animosity/rivalry thing.
Let’s suffice it to say that after living on the south side for five years I totally get it---the mystery is gone.
One of the daily injustices that south siders face is the taxicab situation.
On the one hand you have to be organized and time conscious to get to where you’re going via public transportation. Knowing that you either have to catch a bus or a train for work or for play makes you budget your time efficiently.
On the other hand, it sucks when you have to attend a formal event and wait over an hours for a cab---if you’re lucky.
We have a little law here in Chicago that states that the cab companies must have dedicated “neighborhood cabs” that service every neighborhood in the city.
That’s a nice way of saying, “Service the south side, you bootleg motherfuckers.”
But what the law (or ordinance) says and what actually happens are two different things.
I fully know that if I call one of the big cab companies that I won’t ever see a cab. They can put the call out all they want but if no one responds, what can the dispatcher do?
Or so I’ve been told.
So in order to save my sanity, I don’t rely upon the large cab companies to come and get me but if I’m on the north side---I do rely upon them to ferry me home.
95% of the time I have no problem. But that 5% can be a problem.
So began my (early) Saturday morning.
I hailed and got into a cab at approximately 12:30 AM on Saturday morning (12/30) only to be told by the driver that he was “off duty” after I gave him my destination address.
I was in no mood to put up with some cab driver’s bullshit
.
He told me that since he was “off duty” that I should get out and find another cab.
Ding, ding---game on.
I was pissed.
Pissed with a capital “P.”
I stated that I hailed him, he picked me up and wasn’t off duty until I revealed my destination address. I further added that I wasn’t going to take another cab.
“You need to take another cab.”
“Are you refusing to take me to my destination?”
It went on like this for a few minutes.
The cabbie (Mr. Mohanadinoner, if I copied his name down correctly) then stated that he was going to call the police if I didn’t get out of the cab.
I told him I’d beat him to the punch and already had 911 dialed on my cell phone.
The cops arrived a few minutes later.
Unfortunately they were of little assistance.
The officers essentially refused to enforce the City of Chicago rules that state the following:
When you hail a cab, drivers cannot refuse service unless the "Not for Hire" sign is displayed
Cabs licensed within the City of Chicago may take you anywhere in the city or to the suburbs
After a boatload of hard looks and my explanation of the situation, one of the officers strongly suggested that I copy down the cab driver’s information and take another cab.
From the looks he was giving me, I knew this was a fight I wasn’t going to win. I took the necessary information and got out of the cab.
Thanks a lot Officer Friendly.
Unfortunately I didn’t get the officer’s badge number so I could file a complaint against his handling of the situation. But let me share something with you ladies and gentlemen, if you start some shit with the Chicago Police Department, you better be ready for a very unfriendly and extremely personal fight.
I don’t suggest it unless it’s a circumstance in the most extreme.
And even then you better have multiple copies of corroborating evidence and credible eyewitnesses backing your story.
It wouldn’t hurt to be the spouse or immediate family member of an officer just as an extra level of protection.
This is Chicago, if you start a fight be better damn well be able to finish it.
Even if I had his badge number, I’m not gonna start a pissing match over some bootleg cab driver.
I did on the other hand fill out the city’s online complaint form lodging an official complaint against the driver and my treatment.
I will not be treated “less than” because you perceive my worth or the worth of my neighborhood to not be up to your standards.
Fuck you.
I don’t care he thought the neighborhood was unsafe or that my fare would take him too far away from other potential fares in a mainstream entertainment district.
Hell, I don’t care if he doesn’t like black people.
That wasn’t his call.
When his service light was on and I got into his cab, all of that hoo-ha flew out the window.
Let’s see if I can acquaint the cabbie with the power of one.
I’ll keep the blog updated as developments occur.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Bob Goulet
There are times that I feel like I’m doing my best Don Quixote imitation; tilting at windmills, fighting giants that aren’t there.
Blinded out of my sense of justice to the stark reality of our situation.
To be told by not one but two governmental agencies that my developer has not broken any laws. Wading through the indifference of neighbors who are either too busy or too lazy to take the time to mount a campaign or file a charge in their own defense.
Daring to question and take on my developer who has seemingly played this game before.
It’s enough to wear a normal sister out.
Luckily for me I’ve never been described as “normal.”
Let me give you good folks a personal observation then a story:
Do you know someone who literally has everything dropped in their lap? You know the type of person who puts a quarter in the slot machine and hits the jackpot. The person whose fortune always happens to put them in the right place at the right time; the individual that always comes out smelling like a rose?
I am not that person.
Rather, I am the scrapper---the person who always had to work a little harder to keep up and exercise a considerable amount of effort to succeed.
And trust me; it hasn’t come at the cost of many mistakes. I’m just as much as a dumbass as the next person. But I do try to learn and not make the same mistake over and over. Twice usually does it for me.
Then of course no man (or woman) is an island. I have a select group of people who I count as friends and more importantly if gloves have to come off will be there for a sister.
My point is I have no choice but to work hard for what I have. Shit just won’t fall in my lap because that’s my most cherished wish. Get in the mix and make it happen. That’s how I was raised.
That’s why this whole bootleg developer thing bothers me so much.
It was never a case of asking above and beyond what was expected but rather what was fair. If my developer and I were in front of Judge Larry Elder in Moral Court, I’m sure I would win.
Now there’s an idea. Perhaps I should get to work on that.
Lying in a bed I didn’t make is not in my nature. No one will stand up for you if you don’t stand up for yourself.
O.K., I’m finished with the insight, now for the story.
From my freshman to senior years in college I applied every spring for an internship with the Chicago Cubs.
Every year I was shown the door; except for my senior year.
After much persistence and showing up every year like the swallows coming back to Capistrano, I finally secured an internship in the marketing department.
I had an amazing summer, made some great friends and had an experience that some people would kill for----to get an intimate business view of a Major League Baseball Team.
Straight, no chaser within a storied franchise no less. That’s about as baseball as baseball can get.
The moral: Don’t accept the first, second or even the third no as a final answer. I still have to remind myself of that from time to time.
No laws to address shoddy development? Bah, I’ll start a grassroots effort to get them changed.
Disinterested neighbors? I should be thankful for the ones who are in the good fight with me.
But if need be I’ll stand alone tilting at windmills singing about my impossible dream.
Blinded out of my sense of justice to the stark reality of our situation.
To be told by not one but two governmental agencies that my developer has not broken any laws. Wading through the indifference of neighbors who are either too busy or too lazy to take the time to mount a campaign or file a charge in their own defense.
Daring to question and take on my developer who has seemingly played this game before.
It’s enough to wear a normal sister out.
Luckily for me I’ve never been described as “normal.”
Let me give you good folks a personal observation then a story:
Do you know someone who literally has everything dropped in their lap? You know the type of person who puts a quarter in the slot machine and hits the jackpot. The person whose fortune always happens to put them in the right place at the right time; the individual that always comes out smelling like a rose?
I am not that person.
Rather, I am the scrapper---the person who always had to work a little harder to keep up and exercise a considerable amount of effort to succeed.
And trust me; it hasn’t come at the cost of many mistakes. I’m just as much as a dumbass as the next person. But I do try to learn and not make the same mistake over and over. Twice usually does it for me.
Then of course no man (or woman) is an island. I have a select group of people who I count as friends and more importantly if gloves have to come off will be there for a sister.
My point is I have no choice but to work hard for what I have. Shit just won’t fall in my lap because that’s my most cherished wish. Get in the mix and make it happen. That’s how I was raised.
That’s why this whole bootleg developer thing bothers me so much.
It was never a case of asking above and beyond what was expected but rather what was fair. If my developer and I were in front of Judge Larry Elder in Moral Court, I’m sure I would win.
Now there’s an idea. Perhaps I should get to work on that.
Lying in a bed I didn’t make is not in my nature. No one will stand up for you if you don’t stand up for yourself.
O.K., I’m finished with the insight, now for the story.
From my freshman to senior years in college I applied every spring for an internship with the Chicago Cubs.
Every year I was shown the door; except for my senior year.
After much persistence and showing up every year like the swallows coming back to Capistrano, I finally secured an internship in the marketing department.
I had an amazing summer, made some great friends and had an experience that some people would kill for----to get an intimate business view of a Major League Baseball Team.
Straight, no chaser within a storied franchise no less. That’s about as baseball as baseball can get.
The moral: Don’t accept the first, second or even the third no as a final answer. I still have to remind myself of that from time to time.
No laws to address shoddy development? Bah, I’ll start a grassroots effort to get them changed.
Disinterested neighbors? I should be thankful for the ones who are in the good fight with me.
But if need be I’ll stand alone tilting at windmills singing about my impossible dream.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
My Response To The City
January 17, 2006
Barbara Gressel
Department of Consumer Services
Richard J. Daley Center
50 West Washington Street
Room 208
Chicago, IL 60602
Re: Case #XXXX
Ms. Gressel:
It was with great disappointment I received your letter dated January 12, 2006.
I appreciate and thank both you and your staff for the extensive review of the fraud complaint I filed against XXXX with regards to the XXXX Condominium Association.
I am curious about what document(s) or burden of proof one needs to file to successfully prove a violation of the deceptive practices ordinance? Further clarification would be gratefully appreciated.
Lastly, I recently found a copy of a newspaper ad that ran in the Chicago Sun Times advertising the sale of the XXXX Condominium Association and have included a copy for your records. Above the starting price of $99,500 reads a tag line that states “Fully renovated 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units…”
If the words “fully renovated” don’t imply or indicate that the home that you’re buying is free from latent defects, poor workmanship, unheeded code violations and third party lawsuits then the laws and ordinances of both this city and state need a major overhaul.
Once again, thank you for you and your staff’s scrutiny of my complaint. I look forward to receiving your answer about my deceptive practices question.
Sincerely,
The Woodlawn Wonder
Cc: XXXX, Attorney General’s Office, State of Illinois
Re: XXXX
Alderman Leslie Hairston, 5th Ward
Barbara Gressel
Department of Consumer Services
Richard J. Daley Center
50 West Washington Street
Room 208
Chicago, IL 60602
Re: Case #XXXX
Ms. Gressel:
It was with great disappointment I received your letter dated January 12, 2006.
I appreciate and thank both you and your staff for the extensive review of the fraud complaint I filed against XXXX with regards to the XXXX Condominium Association.
I am curious about what document(s) or burden of proof one needs to file to successfully prove a violation of the deceptive practices ordinance? Further clarification would be gratefully appreciated.
Lastly, I recently found a copy of a newspaper ad that ran in the Chicago Sun Times advertising the sale of the XXXX Condominium Association and have included a copy for your records. Above the starting price of $99,500 reads a tag line that states “Fully renovated 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units…”
If the words “fully renovated” don’t imply or indicate that the home that you’re buying is free from latent defects, poor workmanship, unheeded code violations and third party lawsuits then the laws and ordinances of both this city and state need a major overhaul.
Once again, thank you for you and your staff’s scrutiny of my complaint. I look forward to receiving your answer about my deceptive practices question.
Sincerely,
The Woodlawn Wonder
Cc: XXXX, Attorney General’s Office, State of Illinois
Re: XXXX
Alderman Leslie Hairston, 5th Ward
Sunday, January 15, 2006
The City's Response
January 12, 2006
Re: Case #XXXX
Dear XXXX,
The Department of Consumer Services has completed an extensive review of the complaint you filed against XXXX. The legal staff examined the douments submitted by you and by Mr. XXXX, and reviewed the testimony from the informal hearing held December 7th 2005. This department is unable to proceed on your behalf in this matter.
The department is limited to issuing citations for violations of specific ordinances such as a business obtaining the required city license(s) and providing mandated documents for home repair contracts. The department does enforce a deceptive practices ordinance, however the documents do not show that a violation of that ordinance has occurred.
The latent defects that exist in your condominium unit and in the building's common areas may be actionable in another forum. I urge you and the condominium association to contact a private attorney to discuss your legal rights and options.
Your case is now closed. Please contact this office if we can be of service to you in the future.
Sincerely Yours,
Barbara Gressel, Attorney At Law
Department of Consumer Services
Richard J. Daley Center
50 West Washington Street, Room 208
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: Case #XXXX
Dear XXXX,
The Department of Consumer Services has completed an extensive review of the complaint you filed against XXXX. The legal staff examined the douments submitted by you and by Mr. XXXX, and reviewed the testimony from the informal hearing held December 7th 2005. This department is unable to proceed on your behalf in this matter.
The department is limited to issuing citations for violations of specific ordinances such as a business obtaining the required city license(s) and providing mandated documents for home repair contracts. The department does enforce a deceptive practices ordinance, however the documents do not show that a violation of that ordinance has occurred.
The latent defects that exist in your condominium unit and in the building's common areas may be actionable in another forum. I urge you and the condominium association to contact a private attorney to discuss your legal rights and options.
Your case is now closed. Please contact this office if we can be of service to you in the future.
Sincerely Yours,
Barbara Gressel, Attorney At Law
Department of Consumer Services
Richard J. Daley Center
50 West Washington Street, Room 208
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
The Hearing
The wheels of justice grind slowly.
Today was the informal fact finding hearing between me, my developer and the City of Chicago’s Department of Consumer Services. All of the above parties plus my developer’s lawyer and an aide from my alderman’s office were in attendance.
The hearing lasted a little over an hour and I kept my talking points were the following subjects:
The poor condition and replacement of the porches.
The poor condition of the electrical system.
The fact that we as a condo association got stuck with a fine that was the result of our developer’s mismanagement.
I was direct, had supporting documentation and kept on message. The facts spoke for themselves. So much so that if I continued on, I would have been repeating myself which would have made me look disorganized.
My developer responded by confirming what he did and did not do with respect to the rehabilitation of the buildings. During his explanation, the hearing officer interrupted to establish several facts:
My developer did not and does not have developer’s license.
Very little, if any, demolition was done on the building.
My developer did not replace or pull any of the existing electrical wiring.
My developer did not replace any of the existing plumbing.
What my developer called a property report was actually a small portion of what constitutes a true property report.
A property report of any kind was never filed with the city.
My basic argument was the filing of the property report was key to triggering inspections. Many of the latent problems that we as an association are encountering today could have been corrected.
My developer countered with a whole bunch of talk about who was called at the city to come out and inspect the property for a certificate of occupancy and that it had been completed.
Unfortunately for him, he didn’t come with any documentation that could prove his claims. Perhaps he’ll unearth his paperwork and present it to the hearing officer at a later date.
She did seem miffed that documentation she had requested a few weeks ago from my developer had not been produced in enough time for the hearing. He offered the excuse that one of his business partners took care of those issues and that the paperwork was never given to him.
He also mentioned the same tired excuses that he did in the letter that he sent to the Attorney General’s Office----the building was the worst building on the block; he kept the prices low so that the units could be affordable; in some cases he spent his own money to address punch list items; he offered to buy our places back from us but none of us accepted; the reason why none of use accepted is that our property value is estimated to be somewhere in the low $200’s and the fact that we got stuck with a fine that was originally his was due to a dishonest employee.
Nothing was ever his fault. There was an excuse for every issue.
Once he was finished, I countered that due to the four foreclosures in our building that the true value of our homes has yet to be firmly and consistently established, Furthermore I had neighbors attempt to sell their two bedroom at the $160 price point and had no luck as the electrical system was a major deterrent to potential home buyers.
Additionally, I told the hearing officer how we’ve turned our fortunes around as an association by establishing standard bookkeeping practices as well as saving money by doing our own maintenance.
My developer jumped in by stating that because he wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest that he largely told the board that we could do whatever we wanted to do in our governing. That he would stay out of the way.
The hearing office seems puzzled by this and asked him why he remained condo board president for two years if he was to “stay out of the way?”
He replied, “Because the original officers were re-elected.”
Who can argue with that logic?
Our hearing officer is a seemingly nice lady---but a seemingly nice lady with a massive poker face. There was really no reading her. I have no idea how she will “take this under advisement.”
I’m concerned that the building’s issues will be given the brush off once again---only time will tell.
My fingers are crossed.
Today was the informal fact finding hearing between me, my developer and the City of Chicago’s Department of Consumer Services. All of the above parties plus my developer’s lawyer and an aide from my alderman’s office were in attendance.
The hearing lasted a little over an hour and I kept my talking points were the following subjects:
The poor condition and replacement of the porches.
The poor condition of the electrical system.
The fact that we as a condo association got stuck with a fine that was the result of our developer’s mismanagement.
I was direct, had supporting documentation and kept on message. The facts spoke for themselves. So much so that if I continued on, I would have been repeating myself which would have made me look disorganized.
My developer responded by confirming what he did and did not do with respect to the rehabilitation of the buildings. During his explanation, the hearing officer interrupted to establish several facts:
My developer did not and does not have developer’s license.
Very little, if any, demolition was done on the building.
My developer did not replace or pull any of the existing electrical wiring.
My developer did not replace any of the existing plumbing.
What my developer called a property report was actually a small portion of what constitutes a true property report.
A property report of any kind was never filed with the city.
My basic argument was the filing of the property report was key to triggering inspections. Many of the latent problems that we as an association are encountering today could have been corrected.
My developer countered with a whole bunch of talk about who was called at the city to come out and inspect the property for a certificate of occupancy and that it had been completed.
Unfortunately for him, he didn’t come with any documentation that could prove his claims. Perhaps he’ll unearth his paperwork and present it to the hearing officer at a later date.
She did seem miffed that documentation she had requested a few weeks ago from my developer had not been produced in enough time for the hearing. He offered the excuse that one of his business partners took care of those issues and that the paperwork was never given to him.
He also mentioned the same tired excuses that he did in the letter that he sent to the Attorney General’s Office----the building was the worst building on the block; he kept the prices low so that the units could be affordable; in some cases he spent his own money to address punch list items; he offered to buy our places back from us but none of us accepted; the reason why none of use accepted is that our property value is estimated to be somewhere in the low $200’s and the fact that we got stuck with a fine that was originally his was due to a dishonest employee.
Nothing was ever his fault. There was an excuse for every issue.
Once he was finished, I countered that due to the four foreclosures in our building that the true value of our homes has yet to be firmly and consistently established, Furthermore I had neighbors attempt to sell their two bedroom at the $160 price point and had no luck as the electrical system was a major deterrent to potential home buyers.
Additionally, I told the hearing officer how we’ve turned our fortunes around as an association by establishing standard bookkeeping practices as well as saving money by doing our own maintenance.
My developer jumped in by stating that because he wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest that he largely told the board that we could do whatever we wanted to do in our governing. That he would stay out of the way.
The hearing office seems puzzled by this and asked him why he remained condo board president for two years if he was to “stay out of the way?”
He replied, “Because the original officers were re-elected.”
Who can argue with that logic?
Our hearing officer is a seemingly nice lady---but a seemingly nice lady with a massive poker face. There was really no reading her. I have no idea how she will “take this under advisement.”
I’m concerned that the building’s issues will be given the brush off once again---only time will tell.
My fingers are crossed.
Friday, November 11, 2005
The Hearing Notice
A letter arrived yesterday from the City of Chicago Department of Consumer Services. The complaint against my developer is receiving an informal fact finding hearing on December 7th.
This ought to be interesting. I'll keep you all updated.
This ought to be interesting. I'll keep you all updated.
Friday, October 21, 2005
I've Gone And Done It--Part III---The Friday Bonus
This is the last part of my letter to the Illinois Attorney General's Office and the Chicago Department of Consumer Services:
SUGGESTED REMEDIES
The City of Chicago and the State of Illinois use all means within their legally vested powers to hold XXXX financially and legally accountable for the damages he has caused the XXXX Condominium Association which may include:
Remove the outstanding judgment against the XXXX Condominium Association and have the debt transferred back to Mr. Knight.
Send a summons to XXXX Bank and XXXX Bank to discover any possible assets (including trusts) of Mr. XXXX and freeze them pending the possible outcome of pending litigation.
Put liens against any real property Mr. XXXX holds in the City of Chicago and Cook County.
Ban Mr. XXXX or any corporations or property development business he may have an interest in from doing business in the City of Chicago.
The XXXX Condominium Association is reimbursed $81,000 to repay the loan for the construction of our new porches and any future loans or costs associated with Mr. XXXX’s mismanagement or negligence.
All developers in the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois be bonded against latent defects in their developments up to $1,000,000.
I trust that the City’s knowledge about this nightmarish situation can bring about a much needed change.
Sincerely,
The Woodlawn Wonder
Cc: Illinois Attorney General’s Office---Fraud Division
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
Congressman Bobby Rush
State Representative Kwame Raoul
State Senator Barbara Flynn Currie
Alderman Leslie A. Hairston
SUGGESTED REMEDIES
The City of Chicago and the State of Illinois use all means within their legally vested powers to hold XXXX financially and legally accountable for the damages he has caused the XXXX Condominium Association which may include:
Remove the outstanding judgment against the XXXX Condominium Association and have the debt transferred back to Mr. Knight.
Send a summons to XXXX Bank and XXXX Bank to discover any possible assets (including trusts) of Mr. XXXX and freeze them pending the possible outcome of pending litigation.
Put liens against any real property Mr. XXXX holds in the City of Chicago and Cook County.
Ban Mr. XXXX or any corporations or property development business he may have an interest in from doing business in the City of Chicago.
The XXXX Condominium Association is reimbursed $81,000 to repay the loan for the construction of our new porches and any future loans or costs associated with Mr. XXXX’s mismanagement or negligence.
All developers in the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois be bonded against latent defects in their developments up to $1,000,000.
I trust that the City’s knowledge about this nightmarish situation can bring about a much needed change.
Sincerely,
The Woodlawn Wonder
Cc: Illinois Attorney General’s Office---Fraud Division
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
Congressman Bobby Rush
State Representative Kwame Raoul
State Senator Barbara Flynn Currie
Alderman Leslie A. Hairston
I've Gone And Done It---Part II
Part two of my cover letter to the Illinois Attorney General's and the Department of Consumer Services for the City of Chicago:
OPEN CASE HISTORY/CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Despite his questionable and deeply troubling development of our association, Mr. XXXX has demonstrated that he is not concerned with any of the current consequences that any municipality or corporation can bring against him.
In the section titled “Open Cases” the cases that the city has filed against him is staggering. If I were to venture a guess, I would suspect that a majority of them may concern either the management or development of a property. While I can’t begin to second guess Mr. XXXX’s state of mind, it may be safe to surmise that the reason these
cases are of little concern to him may be the financial penalties assigned aren’t enough motivation for him to do the right thing.
In short, up to this point, Mr. XXXX has little reason to fear the City of Chicago.
In the section titled “Judgment” a debt that Mr. XXXX incurred for non-management of a building 79th & Colfax became our responsibility when the our association was cited as a third party defendant. In addition to being our developer, Mr. XXXX was also our condominium president from 2002-2004 and the registered agent for the association from our inception until 2004. The paperwork I assembled will show that despite the fact that these legal proceedings had started prior to our association being formed, Mr. XXXX was in receipt of registered mail about this situation. He never once notified anyone on the board about this issue. Even though he was our registered agent, to the best of my knowledge he was never a paid employee of the XXXX Condominium Association.
The debt that started out at $2,550 in 2001 has now grown to almost $4,500. It would seem that Mr. XXXX did not act in the best interests and in a fiduciary manner concerning the welfare of the association.
Also note that the first page of the “Judgment” section is from the most recent bankruptcy filing of Mr. XXXX. I secured this information by going to the bankruptcy clerk’s office at the Dirksen Federal Building. The social security number cited on that document is XXX-XX-XXXX. If you look at what appears to be the social security number on the documents concerning the judgment for the Colfax building, you’ll see that the number is XXX-XX-XXXX.
It also appears that in the multiple bankruptcy filings that Mr. XXXX has filed over the past 10-15 years, several companies---including utilities---have come out with little more than a debt incurred by Mr. XXXX and no repayment.
CONCLUSIONS
From my personal dealing with XXXX and by the paperwork that I have gathered, it’s not difficult to see that he is well versed cutting corners and evading financial and legal responsibility. What continues to puzzles me is the following:
How can a man who has questionable business practices at best be allowed to call himself a developer?
What qualifications, if any, does the city of Chicago require for any person to call themselves a developer? If I can’t cut someone open with a scalpel and call myself a doctor, why can any individual just call themselves a developer?
Why are there no central resource to allow both the city and interested consumers to check on the accreditations or violations of developers
Why was Mr. XXXX allowed to apply for and receive construction permits despite the number of open violations on all three buildings?
Additionally, why didn’t the city follow up with its permit process by at least inspecting the building for which the permit was pulled?
Why didn’t the lack of occupancy permit set off a red flag?
How did permits get issued in 2001 when there were open violations in 2000?
Why aren’t engineering firms be held liable for the property reports that they issue? If CEO’s and CIO’s of large publicly traded companies have to sign off on the accuracy of their finances, why are engineering companies any less liable for the safety and habitability of someone’s home?
Why are there seemingly little protections for the consumer when purchasing a condominium in the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois? Why is the onus put on the consumer---in many cases a first time home buyer---to prove they didn’t know about latent defects? If there specific lemon laws for cars, why can’t there be one for homes?
Will it take a death of a person before someone on the governmental level responds to these loopholes? Mr. XXXX is fully aware that we cannot even begin to pay a law firm to pursue these matters civilly. Quite frankly we’re too busy making sure our porches don’t fall down and that we don’t burn to death in our sleep to even mount such a campaign. We only have so many financial resources and felt it best to address matters directly related to our health and safety prior to looking into litigation. Nonetheless, I believe in the power of government to protect us from individuals and entities that would egregiously take advantage of week or non-existent legislation.
How can where I eat (restaurant), nightclub entertainment, and smoking be so heavily regulated but who builds the place where I rest my head at night is not?
OPEN CASE HISTORY/CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Despite his questionable and deeply troubling development of our association, Mr. XXXX has demonstrated that he is not concerned with any of the current consequences that any municipality or corporation can bring against him.
In the section titled “Open Cases” the cases that the city has filed against him is staggering. If I were to venture a guess, I would suspect that a majority of them may concern either the management or development of a property. While I can’t begin to second guess Mr. XXXX’s state of mind, it may be safe to surmise that the reason these
cases are of little concern to him may be the financial penalties assigned aren’t enough motivation for him to do the right thing.
In short, up to this point, Mr. XXXX has little reason to fear the City of Chicago.
In the section titled “Judgment” a debt that Mr. XXXX incurred for non-management of a building 79th & Colfax became our responsibility when the our association was cited as a third party defendant. In addition to being our developer, Mr. XXXX was also our condominium president from 2002-2004 and the registered agent for the association from our inception until 2004. The paperwork I assembled will show that despite the fact that these legal proceedings had started prior to our association being formed, Mr. XXXX was in receipt of registered mail about this situation. He never once notified anyone on the board about this issue. Even though he was our registered agent, to the best of my knowledge he was never a paid employee of the XXXX Condominium Association.
The debt that started out at $2,550 in 2001 has now grown to almost $4,500. It would seem that Mr. XXXX did not act in the best interests and in a fiduciary manner concerning the welfare of the association.
Also note that the first page of the “Judgment” section is from the most recent bankruptcy filing of Mr. XXXX. I secured this information by going to the bankruptcy clerk’s office at the Dirksen Federal Building. The social security number cited on that document is XXX-XX-XXXX. If you look at what appears to be the social security number on the documents concerning the judgment for the Colfax building, you’ll see that the number is XXX-XX-XXXX.
It also appears that in the multiple bankruptcy filings that Mr. XXXX has filed over the past 10-15 years, several companies---including utilities---have come out with little more than a debt incurred by Mr. XXXX and no repayment.
CONCLUSIONS
From my personal dealing with XXXX and by the paperwork that I have gathered, it’s not difficult to see that he is well versed cutting corners and evading financial and legal responsibility. What continues to puzzles me is the following:
How can a man who has questionable business practices at best be allowed to call himself a developer?
What qualifications, if any, does the city of Chicago require for any person to call themselves a developer? If I can’t cut someone open with a scalpel and call myself a doctor, why can any individual just call themselves a developer?
Why are there no central resource to allow both the city and interested consumers to check on the accreditations or violations of developers
Why was Mr. XXXX allowed to apply for and receive construction permits despite the number of open violations on all three buildings?
Additionally, why didn’t the city follow up with its permit process by at least inspecting the building for which the permit was pulled?
Why didn’t the lack of occupancy permit set off a red flag?
How did permits get issued in 2001 when there were open violations in 2000?
Why aren’t engineering firms be held liable for the property reports that they issue? If CEO’s and CIO’s of large publicly traded companies have to sign off on the accuracy of their finances, why are engineering companies any less liable for the safety and habitability of someone’s home?
Why are there seemingly little protections for the consumer when purchasing a condominium in the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois? Why is the onus put on the consumer---in many cases a first time home buyer---to prove they didn’t know about latent defects? If there specific lemon laws for cars, why can’t there be one for homes?
Will it take a death of a person before someone on the governmental level responds to these loopholes? Mr. XXXX is fully aware that we cannot even begin to pay a law firm to pursue these matters civilly. Quite frankly we’re too busy making sure our porches don’t fall down and that we don’t burn to death in our sleep to even mount such a campaign. We only have so many financial resources and felt it best to address matters directly related to our health and safety prior to looking into litigation. Nonetheless, I believe in the power of government to protect us from individuals and entities that would egregiously take advantage of week or non-existent legislation.
How can where I eat (restaurant), nightclub entertainment, and smoking be so heavily regulated but who builds the place where I rest my head at night is not?
I've Gone And Done It---Part I
The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Today at lunch I officially lodged a complaint of fraud against my developer with the Illinois Attorney General’s office and the Department of Consumer Affairs for the City of Chicago. While I'm optimistic that this may help our situation, it may not. We'll just have to take it one step at a time.
Part I of the five page cover letter accompanying a three ring binder chock full of corroborating information reads like this:
Ms. XXXX
Department of Consumer Services, City of Chicago
50 West Washington Street
Room #208
Chicago, IL 60602
Ms. XXXX:
Pursuant to our phone conversation, I am filing a fraud complaint against my condominium developer, XXXX. As the accompanying documentation will show, Mr. XXXX not only violated key procedural and safety regulations but he has little regard for any consequences that the city may bring.
Please also note that due to the volume of information, I have separated it into sections with the following section headers:
Porches Decs & Bylaws
Building Report Open Violations
Permits Judgment
Open Cases Electric Report
The first section is not titled but contains the original MLS listings and my purchase agreement.
BUILDING CONCERNS
As the MLS listings will show, the three buildings that comprise the Blackstone Condominium Association were marketed as a “new conversions.” If memory serves me correct, when I first saw many of the units in my building, they were torn down to the studs. The Property Report clearly makes mention of remodeling in Sect 2.02, the poor condition of the back porches in Sect 2.03 and that the existing electrical would be maintained (Sect 2.07). Unfortunately the property report and the final set of Declarations and Bylaws were never given to me prior to closing. I only obtained a set from a neighbor who closed six months after me.
The Declarations and Bylaws mention on one of its last pages that all open violations will be corrected. As you can see by the supporting documentation obtained in 2001, 2002 and 2005 that is not the case from the city’s point of view.
Additionally, Mr. XXXX only applied for what seems to be incomplete permits under the 6509 XXXX address. No mention is ever made of the 1501, 1503, 1507 & 1509 XXXX Street addresses. In my investigation, no certificate of occupancy was ever applied for.
As an association we are going into our third year after the initial turnover only to discover the true quality of the work that was done on our homes. The porch is close to crumbling and our non-grounded electrical system is an imminent threat to every resident’s health and safety.
With this incarnation of this current board, the first full board without Mr. XXXX as a member, we have been able to identify and are attempting to rectify these hazardous situations before someone gets hurt.
We have been able to secure a reputable porch contractor as well as financing to address the issue. We are simply awaiting construction permits from the city. While we would like to have this project done before the weather changes, the fact of the matter is that the current permit process can take up to four months. As an association we have made the condition of the porches known to our unit owners and residents---all we can do is cross our fingers and hope that the permits come in prior to the cold weather.
The electrical system is a much different and more dangerous story. Per the enclosed report from master electrician XXXX, our electrical is not grounded. There is substantial, life threatening issues with the construction of the complete system throughout the association.
In the rehabilitation of a property that is over the 40% construction threshold, the City of Chicago Electrical code clearly states that all of the BX conduits must be removed and the electrical system must meet or exceed its current rules and guidelines. As Mr. XXXX’s report painstakingly details, these rules and guidelines weren’t even a factor in the rehabilitation of our buildings.
We now also know that our central air conditioning and heating units are running off of a separate illegal feed from Commonwealth Edison. (It keeps on getting better, huh?)
Ms. XXXX these are merely the serious infrastructure issues that we currently know about. I fear what discoveries the future may bring.
I’m sure there are a couple of run-on’s, comma splices and tense changes but I’m sure you all get the drift. That was merely round one of my deliveries. Next week the elected officials get a copy then I need to start to cultivate a close personal relationship with our local news hounds.
Ding, ding---game on.
Today at lunch I officially lodged a complaint of fraud against my developer with the Illinois Attorney General’s office and the Department of Consumer Affairs for the City of Chicago. While I'm optimistic that this may help our situation, it may not. We'll just have to take it one step at a time.
Part I of the five page cover letter accompanying a three ring binder chock full of corroborating information reads like this:
Ms. XXXX
Department of Consumer Services, City of Chicago
50 West Washington Street
Room #208
Chicago, IL 60602
Ms. XXXX:
Pursuant to our phone conversation, I am filing a fraud complaint against my condominium developer, XXXX. As the accompanying documentation will show, Mr. XXXX not only violated key procedural and safety regulations but he has little regard for any consequences that the city may bring.
Please also note that due to the volume of information, I have separated it into sections with the following section headers:
Porches Decs & Bylaws
Building Report Open Violations
Permits Judgment
Open Cases Electric Report
The first section is not titled but contains the original MLS listings and my purchase agreement.
BUILDING CONCERNS
As the MLS listings will show, the three buildings that comprise the Blackstone Condominium Association were marketed as a “new conversions.” If memory serves me correct, when I first saw many of the units in my building, they were torn down to the studs. The Property Report clearly makes mention of remodeling in Sect 2.02, the poor condition of the back porches in Sect 2.03 and that the existing electrical would be maintained (Sect 2.07). Unfortunately the property report and the final set of Declarations and Bylaws were never given to me prior to closing. I only obtained a set from a neighbor who closed six months after me.
The Declarations and Bylaws mention on one of its last pages that all open violations will be corrected. As you can see by the supporting documentation obtained in 2001, 2002 and 2005 that is not the case from the city’s point of view.
Additionally, Mr. XXXX only applied for what seems to be incomplete permits under the 6509 XXXX address. No mention is ever made of the 1501, 1503, 1507 & 1509 XXXX Street addresses. In my investigation, no certificate of occupancy was ever applied for.
As an association we are going into our third year after the initial turnover only to discover the true quality of the work that was done on our homes. The porch is close to crumbling and our non-grounded electrical system is an imminent threat to every resident’s health and safety.
With this incarnation of this current board, the first full board without Mr. XXXX as a member, we have been able to identify and are attempting to rectify these hazardous situations before someone gets hurt.
We have been able to secure a reputable porch contractor as well as financing to address the issue. We are simply awaiting construction permits from the city. While we would like to have this project done before the weather changes, the fact of the matter is that the current permit process can take up to four months. As an association we have made the condition of the porches known to our unit owners and residents---all we can do is cross our fingers and hope that the permits come in prior to the cold weather.
The electrical system is a much different and more dangerous story. Per the enclosed report from master electrician XXXX, our electrical is not grounded. There is substantial, life threatening issues with the construction of the complete system throughout the association.
In the rehabilitation of a property that is over the 40% construction threshold, the City of Chicago Electrical code clearly states that all of the BX conduits must be removed and the electrical system must meet or exceed its current rules and guidelines. As Mr. XXXX’s report painstakingly details, these rules and guidelines weren’t even a factor in the rehabilitation of our buildings.
We now also know that our central air conditioning and heating units are running off of a separate illegal feed from Commonwealth Edison. (It keeps on getting better, huh?)
Ms. XXXX these are merely the serious infrastructure issues that we currently know about. I fear what discoveries the future may bring.
I’m sure there are a couple of run-on’s, comma splices and tense changes but I’m sure you all get the drift. That was merely round one of my deliveries. Next week the elected officials get a copy then I need to start to cultivate a close personal relationship with our local news hounds.
Ding, ding---game on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
