Federal investigators have requested city records on four West Side zoning changes pushed by Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), amid questions about Carothers' relationship with a Chicago developer who made secret recordings as an FBI mole.
Last year, Carothers' New 29th Ward Campaign Committee got $11,000 in contributions from Morgan Properties Inc., which lists FBI mole John Thomas as "manager."
The contributions came in payments of $9,000, $500 and $1,500, with the last one made on Feb. 23, 2007 -- four days before the aldermanic election, records show.
Last April 9, the committee returned all $11,000, offering no explanation in campaign records except "refund of excess contribution."
Carothers, the powerful chairman of the City Council's Police and Fire Committee, did not return calls seeking comment. He also declined to answer written questions.
Thomas is the Chicago developer-turned-FBI-mole who played a pivotal role in one of the two federal cases involving Tony Rezko, the indicted developer and political fund-raiser who is accused of business fraud and of seeking kickbacks and campaign contributions for Gov. Blagojevich from companies seeking state pension business.
The Sun-Times has reported that Thomas recorded hundreds of hours of conversations for federal investigators. Sources said the government had Thomas -- who is cooperating in hopes of getting probation for a felony fraud conviction in New York -- secretly record conversations with an unidentified Chicago alderman.
One of the 29th Ward zoning files that federal authorities requested from the city dates to May 2005, when Carothers introduced a zoning change for vacant land at Roosevelt and Central to be converted from manufacturing to heavy commercial.
The applicant for that zoning change was V-Land Chicago Roosevelt LLC. Jason Gigot, listed as a contact for the applicant, could not be reached. Nor could attorney John Pikarsky. Jay Javors, spokesman for listed property owner Roosevelt and Canal LLC, did not return calls.
Two of the three other zoning files pertain to the same property and were jointly introduced in August 2006 by Carothers and Ald. Emma Mitts (37th), his protege.
The applicant on those, Grand Central Center for Business LLC, was seeking to change zoning from manufacturing to mixed-use. The land, part of a so-called planned development, required -- and received -- a green light from the Planning and Development Department.
The fourth application was introduced by Carothers in 2007 on behalf of the Chicago Board of Education for Knute Rockne Stadium in Austin.
Three years ago, Carothers' name surfaced in the Hired Truck scandal. Carothers, a former Streets and Sanitation Department deputy, received $2,500 in contributions from Naperville businessman Martin McDonagh, who later pleaded guilty.
McDonagh allegedly made the contributions to Carothers at the request of John "Quarters" Boyle, who was sentenced to seven years for accepting $214,000 in cash, gifts and campaign contributions for steering Hired Truck business to favored companies.
At the time, Carothers said he knew Boyle from their days together on the city payroll. Carothers was not charged, said he did not ask Boyle to muscle truckers for gifts. And he returned the money.
Is the FBI going to investigate the 46th ward zoning changes, especially in light of recent contributions by the property owner of Labor Ready?
They gave her $250. That just doesn't seem like a lot. Someone posited earlier that this was surely just a taste, sorta like an entrance fee and that much more money was likely to flow from them to her in the future. Well that's probably true, but absent some other evidence (versus speculation, however intelligently made), a criminal investigation seems a stretch.
ReplyDeletePrison.
ReplyDelete... or, the Feds could assume that if 1 alderman might be using dirty tricks for zoning changes, the rest of the Council might be up to similar nafariousness.
ReplyDeleteGranted, Carothers deserves due process; but, if rotten fruit drops from a shaking of his tree, the Feds needs to check the rest of the forest.
Besides, the amount of the denomination shouldn't be a factor.
If Shiller did get a donation from someone who would profit from a decision she makes, and/or if the record demonstrates a trend of similar activity, then the Feds need to look into it.
Chicago obviously won't police itself. The State turns a conveniently blind eye to activities, here. It's up to the Feds to clean house.
Heck, the Feds should investigate if only to dispel accusations.
Dear Conspiracy Lovers,
ReplyDeleteObviously you skimmed the Alderman's campaign finance report to find that $250 contribution. Didn't you notice that the many of the contributions were for $250 all within a week of 11/15/2007?
Maybe because that was the week she held a fundraiser, possibly at the Kit Kat Club on Halsted? Possibly on November 15th, 2007 when her campaign paid them $500 for "hall rental".
I hope you guys don't get carried away with a vast $250 bribe to grease the way for Labor Ready conspiracy theory. More than likely the culprit is the Alderman's "distinctive" views on urban planning and community services.
Keep up the good fight Stop Labor Ready. Good luck.
All true...no vast conspiracy. But c'mon now, why all the sudden money love between Howard Slater and Helen Shiller? He has owned property in her ward for a long time. Before Labor Ready was willing to come in as a major cash cow, he probably thought that she was a pain in the arse because she was stopping the kind of commercial development that would make his properties return more $$$. If I were a developer in the area, I would be pretty pissed that his son holds meetings about encouraging reinvestment in Uptown with other developers and then just tries to cash in for himself on a problematic property. It is the definition of "free riding."
ReplyDelete"Obviously you skimmed the Alderman's campaign finance report to find that $250 contribution. Didn't you notice that the many of the contributions were for $250 all within a week of 11/15/2007?"
ReplyDeleteSo what?
The point is that particular donation, regardless of what other donations she recv'd on/around the same date, lends itself to an air of impropriety.
Considering the lack of transparency (or disdain for such) in her activities, you can't fault her constituency for being curious.
I do like how you stated: "distinctive." Care to expand on exactly what those views are, what steps she's taken to affect her views and, more importantly, how many people have actually found gainful employment and decent housing (SRO's don't count) because of her actions.
Anon, I think you might be a Shillee.
But, hey ... thanks for outing the Kit Kat as a possible pro-Shiller site. I'll be avoiding them.
Donations are legal and if anyone was going to take a bribe they won't report it.
ReplyDeleteStop Labor ready but this is the problem people don't focus their efforts where they need to be and it turns off a lot of people like me.
If Shiller was doing anything illegal I am sure the Feds would have had her by now.
She is not that stupid and remember there is a difference between something being illegal and un-ethical.
What's the color of the sun in your world?
ReplyDelete"there is a difference between something being illegal and un-ethical."
No there isn't. Especially when you've been elected to represent the public trust.
"If Shiller was doing anything illegal I am sure the Feds would have had her by now."
Not necessarily. It took many years and a tax evasion charge to get Capone.
yo
ReplyDeleteI am just a realist and have been around long enough to understand things.
You all wear rosie colored glasses the real world and politics doesn't work the way you think it does.
The reality of the situation is that Shiller's dug herself a pretty deep hole.
ReplyDeleteShe may be as clean as fresh hung laundry for all we really know; but, her past behavior and elusiveness towards her constituency tends to raise more than a few questions.
Asking these questions and demanding fair explanation is the right and duty of every person.
Our civic responsibilities do not start and end with our vote.
Accepting that the status quo is the status quo and rolling over is improper.
I doubt anyone really wants a Federal investigation, but since Shiller won't answer any of us directly, and behaves in rather questionable ways what other options do we have?
Feds will only go after big money and won't waste their time on small stuff. Shiller has no people's smarts but she remains savvy enough to keep bribes low and under the Fed's radar. That's how she and most other alderpeople avoid Federal prosecution.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, Shiller has earned a PhD in keeping the community divided so that she can maintain her power. Even some of the Shiller hate clubs have actually helped her in the past because she can point a finger and shout persecution and blame the division on others but never on herself.
Carothers got greedy and asked for too much. That was his problem and his stupidity.
"'there is a difference between something being illegal and un-ethical.'
ReplyDelete"No there isn't. Especially when you've been elected to represent the public trust."
Well I understand the frustration, but of course there's a difference. One can violate all sorts of ethical rules governing their occupation and not be in violation of any criminal statute or common law.
Doesn't mean the violator is any less of a scumbag and undeserving of his/her office...
I get it. Kinda like when Helen posted some video from the aldermanic debate on her campaign website even though she signed an agreement stating that she wouldn't do so. It may have been unethical but she really only broke a rule and not a law.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, she lied about signing the agreement and was unethical yet again, but still didn't break a law.
That Helen. silly silly silly silly silly
"One can violate all sorts of ethical rules governing their occupation and not be in violation of any criminal statute or common law."
ReplyDeletePoint taken.
I've been in Chicago long enough to realize that elected officials could care less about ethics.
Still - pick at the ethical seam long enough on Shiller, I'm sure the entire sweater comes unraveled.
Kinda like when Helen posted some video from the aldermanic debate on her campaign website even though she signed an agreement stating that she wouldn't do so.
ReplyDeleteI think she would say someone in her campaign did it and not her.
This stuff is done all the time it is happening right now between Clinton/Obama.
Hillary is doing things herself to bad mouth him make him look bad it's her campaign managers and staff and they same for Obama.
I am sorry you all don't understand how politics works in America.
Hillary isn't I ment
ReplyDeleteDid anyone find out about the malden arms zoning agenda on Friday?
ReplyDeleteWell, Helen had snippets of the debate video posted on her campaign website. She knew it was unethical to post them because she signed an agreement saying she wouldn't do it. Worse yet, she's a member of the city's Ethics Committee. I would think she knew better.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of her campaign website, she also had a link from her aldermanic website to her campaign website, another violation. Ethics be damned.
Helen has her strengths. Ethics is not one of them.