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.
Showing posts with label Illinois Attorney General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illinois Attorney General. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, December 04, 2005
I Was Right The First Time
The word has come down from on high---the State of Illinois is closing my complaint against my developer. To quote directly from the letter dated November 22nd, "We are doing so because we have exhaused all efforts available to us on your behalf."
In other words, as I previously stated, there are no protections against disreputable condo developers in the State of Illinois.
In other words, as I previously stated, there are no protections against disreputable condo developers in the State of Illinois.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Enola Gay
The letter below is my response to my developer's letter to the Attorney General's office:
November 18, 2005
Ms. Dolores Rodman
Citizen’s Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
Office of the Attorney General
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
RE: File No. XXXX
Ms. Rodman:
I appreciate the prompt response by your office and Mr. XXXX about my concerns.
While I find tenor of his response troubling, I would like to continue to offer solid documentable evidence that Mr. XXXX violated key procedural and safety regulations in the development of the XXXX Condominium Association.
Appendix I of our Declarations and Bylaws titled "Building Code Violations Citations (10 year period)” states that "all violations will be corrected." As evidenced by the open code violations from the city submitted with my initial complaint that is not the case. Closer inspections of those code violations cite multiple issues with the rear wooden porches.
From what I understand, rehabbed condominium conversions---and I use the term rehabbed conversion due to way the XXXX was marketed via the MLS listings---must adhere to many statutes with the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois. One of which is a certificate of occupancy issued by the city. It seems a huge coincidence that the XXXX was never issued one prior to the turnover of our association or in the subsequent two years that Mr. XXXX served as our board president.
While I cannot directly state why Mr. XXXX did not follow up and complete the certificate of occupancy process; it does seem odd that a combination of open violations, the non-filing of the property report with the city and the lack of a certificate of occupancy loom in the background.
While the delivery of the property report may be in contention, what can be proven is that it wasn't submitted to the city. A letter dated August 29th, 2005 from the city's Department of Consumer Services states that "our records indicate no property report on the address indicated above." Those addressed were 1501, 1503, 1507 and 1509 East XXXX Street and 6509 and 6511 South XXXX. If Mr. Knight has proof to the contrary, the City of Chicago and I would be extremely interested in viewing a copy.
The filing of a property report would have eventually triggered an inspection by the city. I surmise a city inspection would have in turn triggered a much closer look at the conversion of the buildings. Something that may have led to questions and more extensive and costly renovations for the project than Mr. XXXX and his partners may not have had budgeted for.
Mr. XXXX contends that I was given the Property Report dated February 2001. While I cannot prove when the documentation was given or received I can confidently state that had I seen the property report prior to closing, there is no way I would of ever purchased a unit in the XXXX.
Nonetheless, I can provide documents that support my contention of Mr. XXXX’s gross mismanagement at best or attempting to do an end run around the law at worst.
Per the electrical report from XXXX, which was included with my complaint, states within the third paragraph of his cover letter that “the grounding system for the entire condominium association, according to my equipment, is nonexistent.”
Mr. XXXX in his response confirms, “the electrical work consisted of replacing fixtures, outlets, switches, exterior lighting and wiring the HVAC in each unit.”
Moreover, my realtor XXXX, stated that she is willing to sign an affidavit that she saw portions of my unit torn down to the studs.
The bottom line is that since the rehabilitation construction in my unit exceeded a 40% threshold as set forth in the Chicago Electrical Code rules, Mr. XXXX or his vendors should have ensured that all BX conduits were removed and that the electrical system met or exceeded the current electrical code.
Every time I plug my iron in and the lights flicker, I’m reminded that those standards weren’t met.
As to Mr. XXXX’s assertions that the board “chose” to replace the existing wooden rear porches is nothing short of ludicrous. We didn’t choose to replace the porches at this point they are a health and safety issue---we have to replace the porches. Attached is a strongly worded letter from our Porch Vender the Porch People advising against the use of the porches for any reason and their general assessment of their poor condition.
This letter came about as they prepared for the temporary stabilization of our three rear porches and realized that their condition is so bad that they couldn’t even start the process. In fact to underscore the poor condition of our porches the Porch People’s Senior Filed Superintendent and the Master Carpenter could literally snap off planks of wood in their hands. Once the planks tore away from the porch, they literally crumbled to dust in their hands. Porches do not become that fragile and in that dangerous of a condition over the course of four years.
Our porches are imminently hazardous. Please do not believe that as a condo board we have taken this decision lightly.
To underscore that point, I’m sending along a copy of the roof and porches cost analysis report that the board prepared to lay out the multiple proposals we received regarding the possibility of replacement vs. repair. Of the proposals brought before the board you can see that The Porch People’s estimate (included previously) beat the other estimates not only in price but also in the scope of work. If the board had gone with another vendor, we would have been responsible for hiring an architect and structural engineer at a far greater cost than what The Porch People specified in their all-inclusive price.
Such a decision would have been poorly thought out and a waste of association money. Furthermore, if we had not done our due diligence with respect to an appropriate, licensed and cost effective porch vendor, I highly doubt that any financial institution would have given us a loan to start the work.
I would also like to correct a misstatement in my initial complaint. I stated that company Mr. XXXX owned a management company that managed a rental building at 79th & Colfax. I meant to state that the building was located at 75th & Colfax. That small misstatement notwithstanding, the paperwork still shows that Mr. XXXX not only mismanaged the building at 75th and Colfax but also blatantly ignored his fiduciary duties as our registered agent and condominium board president. While I’m sorry to hear that Mr. XXXX’s mother was ill, that is no defense against repeated attempts by the city to not only contact him as the head of III CD Management.
Forgetful employees or not, the buck stops with Mr. XXXX. It was his responsibility to make sure that he took care of hot water in 75th and Colfax building but to pay any appropriate fines. I find it the very height of arrogance to suggest that we as an association shell out money to pay for a lawyer to correct a problem that was his in the first place.
All of the paperwork from the city’s case was included in the first group of materials that I submitted with my complaint.
The question about what may or may not be legal electrical will be solved soon enough when Com Ed comes out to take a look at some components of the building’s electrical system. While I’m aware that our furnaces are gas operated, they are powered with electricity. If the power they draw upon is from an un-metered line I doubt that ComEd would have little problem tracing the account history of electrical service to the three buildings that comprise the XXXX Condominium Association.
The onus doesn’t lie with ComEd to make sure that they had the initial billing information correct but with Mr. XXXX and his partners. Moreover, Mr. XXXX was president of the association for two years. If he knew that the line was un-metered, why didn’t he make a concentrated effort to resolve this situation within that time frame?
As all of the evidence clearly illustrates, Mr. XXXX did not have the interests of the XXXX Condominium Association as a priority as a developer or board president. An evident conflict of interests seemingly prevented him from exercising sound judgment.
Even my past financial shortcomings aren’t enough to distract anyone from that glaring fact.
I brought up Mr. XXXX’s pending court cases, bankruptcies and the judgment against III CD Management not out of spite but rather to illustrate that prescribed laws and regulations have little effect on the way he conducts business. Lawsuits and fines seemingly mean nothing to a person that has put my neighbors and me in harm’s way financially and literally. The fact that Mr. XXXX truly believes that I have “used my position for self serving acts and personal gain” is grasping at straws.
If by self serving acts Mr. XXXX means the unit owners taking on both the indoor and outdoor maintenance to save money and if by personal gain he means having an accurate accounting of all monies received and spent—then each and every board member is guilty as charged.
I stand by my original conclusions and urge both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago to not only tighten the loopholes that allow condominium purchasers to be easily taken advantage of but to also hold Mr. XXXX financially accountable for his shoddy development of the XXXX Condominium Association.
Sincerely,
XXXX
Cc: City of Chicago, Consumer Services Division
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
Congressman Bobby Rush
State Representative Kwame Raoul
State Senator Barbara Flynn Currie
Alderman Leslie A. Hairston
November 18, 2005
Ms. Dolores Rodman
Citizen’s Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
Office of the Attorney General
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
RE: File No. XXXX
Ms. Rodman:
I appreciate the prompt response by your office and Mr. XXXX about my concerns.
While I find tenor of his response troubling, I would like to continue to offer solid documentable evidence that Mr. XXXX violated key procedural and safety regulations in the development of the XXXX Condominium Association.
Appendix I of our Declarations and Bylaws titled "Building Code Violations Citations (10 year period)” states that "all violations will be corrected." As evidenced by the open code violations from the city submitted with my initial complaint that is not the case. Closer inspections of those code violations cite multiple issues with the rear wooden porches.
From what I understand, rehabbed condominium conversions---and I use the term rehabbed conversion due to way the XXXX was marketed via the MLS listings---must adhere to many statutes with the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois. One of which is a certificate of occupancy issued by the city. It seems a huge coincidence that the XXXX was never issued one prior to the turnover of our association or in the subsequent two years that Mr. XXXX served as our board president.
While I cannot directly state why Mr. XXXX did not follow up and complete the certificate of occupancy process; it does seem odd that a combination of open violations, the non-filing of the property report with the city and the lack of a certificate of occupancy loom in the background.
While the delivery of the property report may be in contention, what can be proven is that it wasn't submitted to the city. A letter dated August 29th, 2005 from the city's Department of Consumer Services states that "our records indicate no property report on the address indicated above." Those addressed were 1501, 1503, 1507 and 1509 East XXXX Street and 6509 and 6511 South XXXX. If Mr. Knight has proof to the contrary, the City of Chicago and I would be extremely interested in viewing a copy.
The filing of a property report would have eventually triggered an inspection by the city. I surmise a city inspection would have in turn triggered a much closer look at the conversion of the buildings. Something that may have led to questions and more extensive and costly renovations for the project than Mr. XXXX and his partners may not have had budgeted for.
Mr. XXXX contends that I was given the Property Report dated February 2001. While I cannot prove when the documentation was given or received I can confidently state that had I seen the property report prior to closing, there is no way I would of ever purchased a unit in the XXXX.
Nonetheless, I can provide documents that support my contention of Mr. XXXX’s gross mismanagement at best or attempting to do an end run around the law at worst.
Per the electrical report from XXXX, which was included with my complaint, states within the third paragraph of his cover letter that “the grounding system for the entire condominium association, according to my equipment, is nonexistent.”
Mr. XXXX in his response confirms, “the electrical work consisted of replacing fixtures, outlets, switches, exterior lighting and wiring the HVAC in each unit.”
Moreover, my realtor XXXX, stated that she is willing to sign an affidavit that she saw portions of my unit torn down to the studs.
The bottom line is that since the rehabilitation construction in my unit exceeded a 40% threshold as set forth in the Chicago Electrical Code rules, Mr. XXXX or his vendors should have ensured that all BX conduits were removed and that the electrical system met or exceeded the current electrical code.
Every time I plug my iron in and the lights flicker, I’m reminded that those standards weren’t met.
As to Mr. XXXX’s assertions that the board “chose” to replace the existing wooden rear porches is nothing short of ludicrous. We didn’t choose to replace the porches at this point they are a health and safety issue---we have to replace the porches. Attached is a strongly worded letter from our Porch Vender the Porch People advising against the use of the porches for any reason and their general assessment of their poor condition.
This letter came about as they prepared for the temporary stabilization of our three rear porches and realized that their condition is so bad that they couldn’t even start the process. In fact to underscore the poor condition of our porches the Porch People’s Senior Filed Superintendent and the Master Carpenter could literally snap off planks of wood in their hands. Once the planks tore away from the porch, they literally crumbled to dust in their hands. Porches do not become that fragile and in that dangerous of a condition over the course of four years.
Our porches are imminently hazardous. Please do not believe that as a condo board we have taken this decision lightly.
To underscore that point, I’m sending along a copy of the roof and porches cost analysis report that the board prepared to lay out the multiple proposals we received regarding the possibility of replacement vs. repair. Of the proposals brought before the board you can see that The Porch People’s estimate (included previously) beat the other estimates not only in price but also in the scope of work. If the board had gone with another vendor, we would have been responsible for hiring an architect and structural engineer at a far greater cost than what The Porch People specified in their all-inclusive price.
Such a decision would have been poorly thought out and a waste of association money. Furthermore, if we had not done our due diligence with respect to an appropriate, licensed and cost effective porch vendor, I highly doubt that any financial institution would have given us a loan to start the work.
I would also like to correct a misstatement in my initial complaint. I stated that company Mr. XXXX owned a management company that managed a rental building at 79th & Colfax. I meant to state that the building was located at 75th & Colfax. That small misstatement notwithstanding, the paperwork still shows that Mr. XXXX not only mismanaged the building at 75th and Colfax but also blatantly ignored his fiduciary duties as our registered agent and condominium board president. While I’m sorry to hear that Mr. XXXX’s mother was ill, that is no defense against repeated attempts by the city to not only contact him as the head of III CD Management.
Forgetful employees or not, the buck stops with Mr. XXXX. It was his responsibility to make sure that he took care of hot water in 75th and Colfax building but to pay any appropriate fines. I find it the very height of arrogance to suggest that we as an association shell out money to pay for a lawyer to correct a problem that was his in the first place.
All of the paperwork from the city’s case was included in the first group of materials that I submitted with my complaint.
The question about what may or may not be legal electrical will be solved soon enough when Com Ed comes out to take a look at some components of the building’s electrical system. While I’m aware that our furnaces are gas operated, they are powered with electricity. If the power they draw upon is from an un-metered line I doubt that ComEd would have little problem tracing the account history of electrical service to the three buildings that comprise the XXXX Condominium Association.
The onus doesn’t lie with ComEd to make sure that they had the initial billing information correct but with Mr. XXXX and his partners. Moreover, Mr. XXXX was president of the association for two years. If he knew that the line was un-metered, why didn’t he make a concentrated effort to resolve this situation within that time frame?
As all of the evidence clearly illustrates, Mr. XXXX did not have the interests of the XXXX Condominium Association as a priority as a developer or board president. An evident conflict of interests seemingly prevented him from exercising sound judgment.
Even my past financial shortcomings aren’t enough to distract anyone from that glaring fact.
I brought up Mr. XXXX’s pending court cases, bankruptcies and the judgment against III CD Management not out of spite but rather to illustrate that prescribed laws and regulations have little effect on the way he conducts business. Lawsuits and fines seemingly mean nothing to a person that has put my neighbors and me in harm’s way financially and literally. The fact that Mr. XXXX truly believes that I have “used my position for self serving acts and personal gain” is grasping at straws.
If by self serving acts Mr. XXXX means the unit owners taking on both the indoor and outdoor maintenance to save money and if by personal gain he means having an accurate accounting of all monies received and spent—then each and every board member is guilty as charged.
I stand by my original conclusions and urge both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago to not only tighten the loopholes that allow condominium purchasers to be easily taken advantage of but to also hold Mr. XXXX financially accountable for his shoddy development of the XXXX Condominium Association.
Sincerely,
XXXX
Cc: City of Chicago, Consumer Services Division
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
Congressman Bobby Rush
State Representative Kwame Raoul
State Senator Barbara Flynn Currie
Alderman Leslie A. Hairston
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Shot Over The Bow
So my developer has responded back to my fraud charges with a letter to the Attorney General. I'm reproducing it verbatim:
November 6, 2005
XXXX
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois
Consumer Protection Division
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
RE: XXXX
File No: 2005-CONSC-00135772
Ms. XXXX,
When my partners and myself purchased the XXXX, it was the worst building on the block. It is now one of the best, if not the best. Our idea was to create homes in our community for people in he community, and we kept our prices low. This was our first condo conversion, so it may not have been perfect, but an effort was made to satisfy everyone. I have made myself available to every owner to address their concerns, taking care of some repairs years after their purchase, using personal funds as recent as 2 months ago replacing a condenser for 1503, 1st floor.
It seems odd that Ms. XXXX did not receive her Bylaws and Declarations since our broker, Metro Pro, gave a set to each purchaser upon signing their contract. In addition, Ms. XXXX was represented by attorney XXXX from July 30 2001 until her closing November 15 2001 and it was part of his responsibility to ensure that she obtained all documents for her purchase. Coincidentally Mr. XXXX is now the board's attorney. We also had available at the turnover, Bylaws and Declarations, but Ms. XXXX did not attend, I surmise because she was behind in her assessments and was in danger of being evicted by the board, and she had given the board numerous bad checks.
The XXXX Condominium consists of one (1) building not 3, and it has 6 different addresses for 3 entrances, therefore the permit would only have one address for the entire building.
Ms. XXXX memory did not serve her correctly. There were no walls torn out to the studs. Any new drywall was placed over the existing walls, as the Property Report stated. The property was to be remodeled with plumbing fixtures, and electrical fixtures replaced. The rear porch was repaired with new lumber where needed for support, and new decking and stairs installed and then painted for a uniform appearance, and this was explained to all potential purchasers.
I agree that after 4 years the porch has deteriorated and needs repair. Replacement is an option that the board has chosen. The price of $81,000 is extremely high, and after discussing this price with the current board president, XXXX, he agrees, but says he was out voted by others on the board that contains members that have consistently attempted to use their positions for self serving acts and personal gain, Ms. XXXX included.
The electrical consisted of replacing fixtures, outlets, switches, exterior lighting and wiring the HVAC in each unit.
Each furnace is gas operated, not electric as Ms. XXXX states and does not operate through an illegal ComEd hook-up. Ms. XXXX should be aware of this via her Peoples Energy bill.
There was a separate feed for the air conditioners installed, and we contacted ComEd on multiple occasions to install a meter and the City and ComEd have inspected and read the meters many times in 4 years and have not noted any dangerous or hazardous conditions.
At one time I owned a property on 75th and Colfax, not 79th and Colfax, and my office may have received notice of a fine, but I was not aware. From 2000 to early 2002 I attended my mother who was ill with cancer and passed and basically my staff ran the properties, which caused many problems. I have no idea why the XXXX Condo Association is involved, and I agree that their name should be removed, but the association attorney must motion that since I do not represent the association.
As far as my past financial problems are concerned, they have nothing to do with the issues, but further illustrate the personal nature of these accusations, which is surprising, because it is obvious Ms. XXXX had financial difficulties of her own at one time.
In closing I can only say all work was done with the required permits, and the nature of the work to be done was specified in the property report. I will also note that months ago an offer was made to Ms. XXXX to re-purchase her unit at the purchase price plus interest on her equity, but she did not respond, probably because the unit she purchased for $125,000 is now valued at $200,000.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
XXXX
cc: Illinois Attorney General's Office--Fraud Division
Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gressel
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
State Representative Kwame Raoul
State Senator Barbara Flynn Currie
Alderman Leslie A. Hairston
Are you kidding me? This is almost too easy. My response will be forthcoming.
November 6, 2005
XXXX
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois
Consumer Protection Division
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
RE: XXXX
File No: 2005-CONSC-00135772
Ms. XXXX,
When my partners and myself purchased the XXXX, it was the worst building on the block. It is now one of the best, if not the best. Our idea was to create homes in our community for people in he community, and we kept our prices low. This was our first condo conversion, so it may not have been perfect, but an effort was made to satisfy everyone. I have made myself available to every owner to address their concerns, taking care of some repairs years after their purchase, using personal funds as recent as 2 months ago replacing a condenser for 1503, 1st floor.
It seems odd that Ms. XXXX did not receive her Bylaws and Declarations since our broker, Metro Pro, gave a set to each purchaser upon signing their contract. In addition, Ms. XXXX was represented by attorney XXXX from July 30 2001 until her closing November 15 2001 and it was part of his responsibility to ensure that she obtained all documents for her purchase. Coincidentally Mr. XXXX is now the board's attorney. We also had available at the turnover, Bylaws and Declarations, but Ms. XXXX did not attend, I surmise because she was behind in her assessments and was in danger of being evicted by the board, and she had given the board numerous bad checks.
The XXXX Condominium consists of one (1) building not 3, and it has 6 different addresses for 3 entrances, therefore the permit would only have one address for the entire building.
Ms. XXXX memory did not serve her correctly. There were no walls torn out to the studs. Any new drywall was placed over the existing walls, as the Property Report stated. The property was to be remodeled with plumbing fixtures, and electrical fixtures replaced. The rear porch was repaired with new lumber where needed for support, and new decking and stairs installed and then painted for a uniform appearance, and this was explained to all potential purchasers.
I agree that after 4 years the porch has deteriorated and needs repair. Replacement is an option that the board has chosen. The price of $81,000 is extremely high, and after discussing this price with the current board president, XXXX, he agrees, but says he was out voted by others on the board that contains members that have consistently attempted to use their positions for self serving acts and personal gain, Ms. XXXX included.
The electrical consisted of replacing fixtures, outlets, switches, exterior lighting and wiring the HVAC in each unit.
Each furnace is gas operated, not electric as Ms. XXXX states and does not operate through an illegal ComEd hook-up. Ms. XXXX should be aware of this via her Peoples Energy bill.
There was a separate feed for the air conditioners installed, and we contacted ComEd on multiple occasions to install a meter and the City and ComEd have inspected and read the meters many times in 4 years and have not noted any dangerous or hazardous conditions.
At one time I owned a property on 75th and Colfax, not 79th and Colfax, and my office may have received notice of a fine, but I was not aware. From 2000 to early 2002 I attended my mother who was ill with cancer and passed and basically my staff ran the properties, which caused many problems. I have no idea why the XXXX Condo Association is involved, and I agree that their name should be removed, but the association attorney must motion that since I do not represent the association.
As far as my past financial problems are concerned, they have nothing to do with the issues, but further illustrate the personal nature of these accusations, which is surprising, because it is obvious Ms. XXXX had financial difficulties of her own at one time.
In closing I can only say all work was done with the required permits, and the nature of the work to be done was specified in the property report. I will also note that months ago an offer was made to Ms. XXXX to re-purchase her unit at the purchase price plus interest on her equity, but she did not respond, probably because the unit she purchased for $125,000 is now valued at $200,000.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
XXXX
cc: Illinois Attorney General's Office--Fraud Division
Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gressel
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
State Representative Kwame Raoul
State Senator Barbara Flynn Currie
Alderman Leslie A. Hairston
Are you kidding me? This is almost too easy. My response will be forthcoming.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Hasty
Apparently I am a dumb ass. My comprehension skills aren't quite what I thought they were.
I called the AG's office to confirm that my complaint had been given the middle finger and was pleasantly surprised when I found out that I misunderstood the letter.
Then of course when I read that the business in question may contact you a bout a possible settlement I take that to mean that then of course they may not contact you. I've always looked at the glass as half empty. It's just the nature of my personality.
Nonethelss I received a phone call back for the citizen's advocate who's name is listed on the letter and she pointedly informed me that my developer has 15 days to respond to the forwarded complaint. When that time frame has passed, she'll let me know the next step.
She also stated---and this a direct quote---"The letter is pretty clear."
Ouch.
I let one of my co-workers read the letter and she got it---why didn't I? Is all of this drama finally blurring my perspective? Re-read the letter in the post below and let me know if I'm losing my mind.
I called the AG's office to confirm that my complaint had been given the middle finger and was pleasantly surprised when I found out that I misunderstood the letter.
Then of course when I read that the business in question may contact you a bout a possible settlement I take that to mean that then of course they may not contact you. I've always looked at the glass as half empty. It's just the nature of my personality.
Nonethelss I received a phone call back for the citizen's advocate who's name is listed on the letter and she pointedly informed me that my developer has 15 days to respond to the forwarded complaint. When that time frame has passed, she'll let me know the next step.
She also stated---and this a direct quote---"The letter is pretty clear."
Ouch.
I let one of my co-workers read the letter and she got it---why didn't I? Is all of this drama finally blurring my perspective? Re-read the letter in the post below and let me know if I'm losing my mind.
The Middle Finger
The office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois sent me this little ditty:
Dear XXXX:
The consumer protection division of the office of the Attorney General has received your consumer complaint. A copy of your complaint has been forwarded to the above named business for their review and response,
The business may contact you about a possible settlement after they receive our letter. We encourage you to consider any reasonable offer. If the business responds directly to our office, a copy of their response will be mailed to you.
This is an informal meditation process. We are unable to represent private citizens in legal disputes.
Please direct all correspondence to my attention, Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601. Please reference your file number on all correspondence.
Sincerely,
Attorney General
State of Illinois
Everyone please take note, you have more protections in the State of Illinois if you buy a crappy car than if the roof over your head is dangerous. I just got told to fuck myself from the AG's office.
Apparently my developer has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the State of Illinois.
I can hear the bullshit now, "It's not that we're not sympathetic but your case simply doesn't fit the parameters of fraud. The statutes are very specific."
Whatever.
The crusade continues.
Dear XXXX:
The consumer protection division of the office of the Attorney General has received your consumer complaint. A copy of your complaint has been forwarded to the above named business for their review and response,
The business may contact you about a possible settlement after they receive our letter. We encourage you to consider any reasonable offer. If the business responds directly to our office, a copy of their response will be mailed to you.
This is an informal meditation process. We are unable to represent private citizens in legal disputes.
Please direct all correspondence to my attention, Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601. Please reference your file number on all correspondence.
Sincerely,
Attorney General
State of Illinois
Everyone please take note, you have more protections in the State of Illinois if you buy a crappy car than if the roof over your head is dangerous. I just got told to fuck myself from the AG's office.
Apparently my developer has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the State of Illinois.
I can hear the bullshit now, "It's not that we're not sympathetic but your case simply doesn't fit the parameters of fraud. The statutes are very specific."
Whatever.
The crusade continues.
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:
Posts (Atom)
