1
   

Hastert Land Deal Questioned

 
 
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 11:47 am
Given the newly-found interest that many of our Republican friends have shown in land deals around the country involving elected representatives, I thought I would share this story I found about Hastert:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/politics/printable1740900.shtml

Quote:
Speaker Hastert's Land Deal Questioned
WASHINGTON, June 22, 2006(CBS/AP) House Speaker Dennis Hastert denied Thursday that he pushed for federal funding for a proposed highway in northeastern Illinois so he and his wife could reap about $1.8 million from land deals near their home in Kendall County.

The Sunlight Foundation, a newly created group whose declared aim is to inform the public about what members of Congress do, has accused Hastert of not divulging connections between the $207 million earmark he won for a highway, the Prairie Parkway, and an investment he and his wife made in nearby land.

The Foundation says Hastert used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, and notes that Hastert's 2005 financial disclosure form, released Thursday, makes no mention of the trust. Hastert lists several real estate transactions in the disclosure, all of which were done by the trust. Kendall County public records show no record of Hastert making the real estate sales he made public today; rather, they were all executed by the trust, the Foundation says.

However, Hastert disclosed the transactions on the annual personal financial statements members of Congress are required to file, the Chicago Sun Times reports. But Hastert did not take the extra steps called for in the House Ethics Manual and volunteer that he held land in a secret land trust called "Little Rock Trust," the newspaper says.


In defending himself, Hastert told The Associated Press the land in question was 5.5 miles from the proposed highway.

"So, it has nothing to do with the Prairie Parkway," the Yorkville Republican said. "I owned land and I sold it, like millions of people do every day."

Hastert attorney Randy Evans wrote to the foundation, calling its statements false, libelous and defamatory, and demanding that they be withdrawn and corrected.

Among Evans' criticisms was that the property Hastert purchased is adjacent to Hastert's home and is more than 5.5 miles from the Prairie Parkway corridor.

"This would be like complaining about a purchase in Alexandria, Virginia, based on renovations at the Capitol," in Washington, D.C., he said.

Hastert business partner Dallas Ingemunson, a former Kendall County state's attorney, questioned the use of the 5.5 mile estimate, saying the distance was "probably less than three miles... as the crow flies." But he agreed with Hastert that the Prairie Parkway had nothing to do with their land deals.

As The Washington Post reports, in February 2004, Ingemunson, who was also treasurer of Hastert's campaign committee and chairman of the Kendall County Republican Party, established Little Rock Trust. A week later, through the trust, Hastert and his business partners purchased a 69-acre parcel for $340,000, providing road access to part of Hastert's farm that had been landlocked. Hastert owned a quarter of that parcel.

The approximately 138 acres was bought for about $2.1 million and later sold for almost $5 million, or nearly $3 million more.

The Hasterts were sole owners of one parcel bought in May 2005; Hastert and Ingemunson each had a quarter-interest in the other tract, bought in February 2004, with longtime Hastert friend and supporter Tom Klatt having a half-interest.

Based on Ingemunson's figures, Hastert paid roughly $259,000 for one parcel and later pocketed about $621,000 from its sale; and the speaker paid about $1.03 million for the other parcel and later reaped $2.48 million. Altogether, Hastert turned about $1.3 million in investments into about a $1.8 million profit in less than two years.

Ingemunson said Wallanches sold his property at a relatively good price for the buyers because the farmer was worried that the "bubble" was about to burst in the local real estate market. He said the subsequent property value was in line with fast-rising real estate in Kendall County.

For years, Hastert has pressed for federal support of the proposed north-south access road to meet the transportation challenges of Chicago's suburbs, including Kendall County, one of the fastest-growing areas in the nation. His pitch for the parkway had bipartisan support within the Illinois congressional delegation.

When President Bush last summer signed the multiyear transportation bill that included Hastert's Prairie Parkway, he even mentioned the connector road designed for joining two major highways.

In explaining the transactions, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean backtracked to before 2004, when the Hasterts, using proceeds from selling their Yorkville residence and other assets, bought a 195-acre farm in Plano to serve as their new home.

About 70 acres of that land was hemmed in by other landowners, so Hastert bought additional acreage with Klatt and Ingemunson to give his farm frontage road access, Bonjean said.

Bonjean said Hastert borrowed money from his bank to pay for the quarter-interest in the adjacent property, and he said the loan was made on commercially available terms and fully secured by the value of the property.

In late 2005, Hastert sold 68.9 acres of his original 195-acre farm plus the 69.55 acres he and his partners had an interest in, Bonjean said. The speaker then bought 275 acres in Crawford County, Wis., for a possible future vacation home and, on equal footing with Klatt and Ingemunson, bought 126 acres in Kendall County.

"The Prairie Parkway was never a factor in these transactions," Bonjean said. "None of the properties purchased by the speaker are near enough to the Prairie Parkway to be affected by the proposed highway. ... When the property was purchased they did not know the Prairie Parkway was going to go down that route."

Anthony Casaccio, a Chicago-based real estate developer who says he owns several thousand acres in Kendall County, said he recently bought and sold commercially zoned property in the area where Hastert made his purchases and more than doubled his money in about two years.

"Depending on location and proximity to sewer and water, you could see easily doubling your money in a short period of time," said Casaccio, who said he was not a campaign contributor to Hastert and was not active politically.

Bonjean referred a reporter to Casaccio, saying he was expert in real estate matters in Kendall County.

Bill Allison, a spokesman and researcher for the Sunlight Foundation, said he would like to see paperwork from Hastert to back up the statements made by his staff and Ingemunson. He said too little is known about the transactions because much of the wheeling and dealing in real estate involved a trust, and, under Illinois law, it is difficult to learn about the details of transactions involving trusts.

Keith Ashdown, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense told the Washington Post that after chronicling Hastert's efforts to secure the parkway funding, he also remains suspicious.

"The facts are the facts," he told the newspaper, "and the facts are, he made a lot of money off this deal, and he was the one who got this earmark."


This case is at least as smelly as the Harry Reid case that Republicans seem so concerned about; more so even, since Hastert had a 'secret' trust which was unreported, AND he worked to get monies earmarked to make the value of the properties in question rise greatly.

Will we see calls for an investigation by the Right wing?

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,433 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:14 pm
Sure does stink to me.

The use of Trusts or LLC's are common "techniques" used by many to shift liability and or ownership. Yet LLC's and Trusts usually are unable to shift taxation from the Grantor of the Trust or the partners in the LLC.

The reason this stinks is similiar to Reid as Hastert used his influence for personal gain.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:15 pm
With the noted difference that there is proof that Hastert was involved with his material gain, whereas in the Reid case, no proof, or even substantial allegations.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
With the noted difference that there is proof that Hastert was involved with his material gain, whereas in the Reid case, no proof, or even substantial allegations.

Cycloptichorn


Bull!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:23 pm
I'm not sure what you are referring to as 'bull.'

There is proof that Hastert was behind the Earmark which led to a rise in the property value of his home. Read the article.

There is no proof, allegations, or even evidence that Reid had anything to do with the rise of value of his property. I invite you to present said proof, if it exists.

But, that's beside the point of this thread. Do you, woiyo/some other reader of this thread, believe that Hastert should be investigated for this?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:40 pm
Investigate as not only a "procedural matter", investigate as a criminal matter as well.

ALL politicians must be held to the highest of standards, with stiffer penalties than the common citizen.

Yet, no one has the balls to make an example of anyone of them.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:43 pm
woiyo wrote:
Investigate as not only a "procedural matter", investigate as a criminal matter as well.

ALL politicians must be held to the highest of standards, with stiffer penalties than the common citizen.

Yet, no one has the balls to make an example of anyone of them.


I'll second that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:44 pm
And I'll third it.

Here's hoping that both Reid and Hastert are fully investigated in this matter. I believe that clarity in gov't rules, and the abscence of corruption, is more important than partisanship.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
And I'll third it.

Here's hoping that both Reid and Hastert are fully investigated in this matter. I believe that clarity in gov't rules, and the abscence of corruption, is more important than partisanship.

Cycloptichorn


No..No..No...

You don't get off that easy until you admit Reid's deal STINKS just as much as Hasterts deal. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 12:48 pm
It doesn't, though, because in the Reid deal there is a critical factor missing: allegations of illegal actions taken on Reid's part to increase the value of his land.

Show me those allegations, and what information lead to those allegations, and I will agree with you that Reid's deal 'stinks.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:27 pm
This is old news.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:29 pm
More relevant now in the face of calls for investigation of Reid's land dealings, however.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
More relevant now in the face of calls for investigation of Reid's land dealings, however.

No, not really. Hastert's questionable land deal bears no relevance whatsoever to Reid's questionable land deal. The only possible reason for someone to bring up Hastert's land deal in connection with Reid's land deal is to point up the potential hypocrisy of the politicians and/or partisans who ignore the former or the latter. But pointing out hypocrisy among politicians is like pointing out achromatism among penguins. It hardly rates as a startling revelation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:58 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
But pointing out hypocrisy among politicians is like pointing out achromatism among penguins. It hardly rates as a startling revelation.


I'll never use a line like that . . . but it was a honey . . .
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 04:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is no proof, allegations, or even evidence that Reid had anything to do with the rise of value of his property. I invite you to present said proof, if it exists.

There is proof, allegations, and evidence that his close personal friend Mr. Brown did it for him -- so close they didn't even need paperwork for a multiple-hundredthousand-dollar transaction.

I say "tomeyto", you say "tomuto" ....

On the Hastert deal itself, I agree Hastert's failure to report the trust he partly owned is comparable to Reid's failure to report the shares of the company he partly owned. What is not comparable is the link between their political influence-peddling and the rise in their propertie's value. When your buddy gets to re-zone your real estate from residential to commercial, and your real estate appreciates in value, that's a very short causal link. On the other hand, when you buy a plot of land near Chicago, lobby for a road 5.5 miles from that plot, and its value appreciates, that's a very weak causal relation. Land values have been rising for almost everyone near Chicago, and I doubt a road 5 miles from ones estate would add much to whatever appreciation happens anyway.

And to answer your original question, I have no problem with a Hastert examination, except that it's a little late to be demanding it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 04:15 pm
Sure, but if Mr. Brown did it for him, it isn't illegal, is it? Or unethical for that matter.

It's proof of an illegal, unethical, or immoral act on Reid's part that I'm most interested in.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 04:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure, but if Mr. Brown did it for him, it isn't illegal, is it? Or unethical for that matter.

I stand by my assertion in the Reid thread: If you are a senator, and if a private entrepreneur lobbies zoning officials, with the result that land you bought for 0.4 megabucks now sells sells for 1.1 megabucks, then he is giving you something of significant value, and you are accepting it. I don't know if this is technically illegal. But it's close enough to a bribe to make it unethical and immoral.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 04:26 pm
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure, but if Mr. Brown did it for him, it isn't illegal, is it? Or unethical for that matter.

I stand by my assertion in the Reid thread: If you are a senator, and if a private entrepreneur lobbies zoning officials, with the result that land you bought for 0.4 megabucks now sells sells for 1.1 megabucks, then he is giving you something of significant value, and you are accepting it. I don't know if this is technically illegal. But it's close enough to a bribe to make it unethical and immoral.


Well, what I would like to know is what rule or law keeps a Senator from enjoying the same rights to make money as other investors?

Because if there isn't anything illegal done, and Reid is not found to have used his influence to increase the value of the land, then what did Reid do, exactly, that was unethical or immoral?

I understand that he didn't report the income correctly, and that is a problem for which he will have to answer to; but it hardly rises to the level of unethical or immoral behavior, unless he profited in some way by filing incorrectly. I haven't seen any evidence yet that he did.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 04:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, what I would like to know is what rule or law keeps a Senator from enjoying the same rights to make money as other investors?

1) Other investors aren't public officials, so cannot make money by selling political favors. This makes it unethical for Senators to accept things of value that regular investors could accept without ethics problems.

2) Why do you keep making this about illegal behavior? I never said Reid or Hastert did anything illegal. I said they did things that were unethical. And the Senate ethics rules, judging by the articles people cited in the other thread, seem to agree with me, at least about the reporting part. Why do you keep arguing with me on points I am not making?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 04:34 pm
Well, since there isn't currently any evidence that Reid 'sold' political favors for money OR promised future political favors in return for the deal, how can you say his actions in this case are either unethical or immoral?

Forget the illegal angle (I have no desire to shout past each other).

What is 'close enough' to a bribe to count as illegal or unethical? Reid made a land deal, he made money off of the deal. Until evidence is provided that he somehow used his station to make additional monies off of the deal, OR that he promised future political favors in return for the deal, then he hasn't done anything unethical or immoral; at least, there isn't any evidence that he has done so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hastert Land Deal Questioned
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.31 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 03:56:17