10% or less Redux

I posted my thoughts about this previously.

I have been given around 40 pages of information about this transaction from a friend (Thanks, Dude). They don't mind if I call them by name, but I want to keep that private for now.

First off a little recap.
Captain U. Cupcake (Leighton) had the city buy the double-block at 86-88 Carlisle Street.
Cost $8500 and $1,500 to close out federal mortgages, So $10,000.
He then sold the property to Leo A. Glodzik III (a campaign contributor) for $7500.
That's a loss to the city of $2,500 right off the bat.

The city and Glodzik claim,
1. "one side of the property was completely gutted to the studs, and all the copper pipe and electrical wiring was removed. He said he couldn’t access the basement on that side because the stairs were missing."

2. “It was a shell. That’s all that was there,”

3. “The whole kitchen was pretty much caved in on itself,”

4. “There was mold throughout that side of the basement,”

5. "duplex sold for $7,500 because of its deplorable condition"

YET, and here is the corruption. If this is true, and the city would have had to have known it to sell the property for $7,500, THEN WHY DID THEY LET GLODZIK GET AWAY WITH REMODELLING THE PROPERTY WITH 2 PERMITS, EACH WITH AN 'ESTIMATED COST OF BUILDING' OF $2,000!!! That is a total of $4,000! That's it. The ONLY 2 permits taken out.

So what is the truth? It is one of 4 things.
1. The house was worth WAY more than $7,500 (HELL the land is worth more than that)
2. Glozdik did WAY more work than $4,000 (and got away with it because of political connections).
3. Someone dropped the ball appraising the property (because of incompetence or political pressure)
4. All of the above

I'd go with 4.



Don't forget Glodzik has a history of ignoring the law, he was caught doing work he is not licenced for, no permit, putting an apartment where he knew he couldn't and fined for it at 253 New Hancock St.
1. Complaints about work on property
2. W-B towing contractor fined for illegal apts.
3. Glodzik cited with zoning violations
4. W-B’s car tower gets fined again
5. W-B’s tower to appeal fines concerning permits, work on property
6. W-B reduces city tower’s fines

This is very fishy and something is wrong with this. I'm not done looking into this.
"One half of the property was inhabited up to the time it was sold to the city in an October 2007 back-tax sale, according to a relative of the prior owner. But Barrouk stressed the property was not occupied by the time the city acquired it."
Then why was it only a 'drive by' assessment?

“The land itself was assessed at $16,400, The 3,666-square-foot structure on a 0.11-acre lot is in an attractive neighborhood" Urban said.
Commissioner Urban, please don't let this go. This is what you promised to investigate. Follow the money and the paper trails. Do what you have to.
You can't fix corrupt, but you can bring it to the light!!!


Dan Emplit WBFD
AKA Don Quixote