Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Stone's Corrupt Practices Continue

I remember during the course of the campaign, I saw a video clip somewhere, where Ald. Stone described his pattern of corruption along the lines of, "I do something for them, and they do something for me. What's the matter with that?" I'm paraphrasing here from memory.

One of the problems (aside from the outright corruption involved) is that this isn't what Stone practices.

Perhaps my definition of corruption and is a little different than Stone's. Stone seems to think that he has to be caught (by the Feds) with money in his freezer to be called corrupt. I disagree.

But we have a perfect example of why I think Stone is corrupt right now. A prospective new business owner took possession of 6969 Western Ave in January. According to him, he cleaned out the building, which he believed he had to do before he could apply for the necessary permits. When I talked to him about this, he didn't seem to think that he needed a zoning change when he moved in. He suggested that he had talked to the city about all the costs that were involved before he took possession.

It appears that he talked to the wrong person.

Because now he has applied for a zoning change that he isn't required to have. In Chicago, this has notoriously meant that some kind of money changes hands, whether directly or to the alderman's campaign committee. But what interests me about this example is how it is different from the alderman's own words. Unlike the alderman's simplistic description of his corruption above, the alderman expected something upfront, before he'd do anything for the person asking for help. What Stone expected first, before he'd even help this prospective business owner, was control over his window space.

You see, when this person started renting this space on Western Ave, he had no idea he was renting next to (actually, near) Stone's main opponent. And Stone's campaign wanted to use that empty storefront to send a signal to his opponents and the voters in the ward. So instead of helping this gentleman, walking him through the permit process, it was suggested that it would be wiser to wait until the election was over. "Don't want to stir up trouble."

Instead of opening up his business, the alderman interfered and took control of this property. He required something first, before he'd use his office to help start a new business in the ward. This is, to my way of thinking, corrupt. We already pay the alderman almost $100,000 (for part time work) to help the people who live and work in the 50th Ward. They shouldn't be required to bribe or do favors for the alderman to get him to do his job. If Stone needs to be bribed, then he shouldn't be drawing a salary from the city at all.

Outside of Chicago, bribery is most rampant in places where people do not make an adequate living, and they use their office or power for personal gain. No one can argue that Stone is underpaid, that he can't live quite comfortably off of $100,000 a year.

But Stone argues this is how Chicago works. I'd suggest that it is evidence of how Chicago doesn't work. These kind of impediments to starting a business or improving a home (or whole neighborhood) hurt the ward and hurt the whole city. They don't help it. When you walk or drive around the ward and wonder why there is so little business activity here, you will understand. Stone won't help new businesses move into the ward without a little something, something first. So why should they want to move in here? There's lots of better business environments very close to the 50th, without all the political obstacles.

It seems to me that only in Berny Stone's mind can Stone not be considered corrupt. I've tried to convince people to take these kinds of things to Patrick Fitzgerald (after all, the alderman has dared us to do so!). There's more to this story, but I wanted to focus on one aspect: evidence of Stone's unethical behavior and his resistance to change and growth in the neighborhood (that doesn't directly benefit him). Ald. Stone is corrupt, no question about it.

Labels: , , ,

38 Comments:

At May 15, 2007 12:09 PM, Blogger Hugh said...

Thanks for the post.

> A prospective new business owner took possession of 6969 Western Ave in January.

Just to clarify, the prospective businessman moved into a storefront, but the building PIN 11-31-113-001 is still in the same ownership since 1999.

 
At May 15, 2007 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This might be the clip you were refering too:

Stone: On Development

 
At May 15, 2007 1:35 PM, Blogger Jay said...

No. I hadn't seen that clip (or show). Stone seems to be consistent in his defense of corruption, even if he isn't honest about it.

 
At May 15, 2007 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I said: DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR NAY-CEE!

 
At May 15, 2007 7:50 PM, Anonymous CAPSMAN said...

JAY--YESTERDAY ,APPARENTLY YOUR LEGITIMACY WAS AN ISSUE.TODAY,YOUR ENTIRE CREDIBILITY AND LEGITIMACY ARE NO LONGER AT ISSUE---THEY DON'T EXIST!YOU HAVE CONCOCTED A WHOLE FALSE AND FICTIONAL NOVELLA TO LIBEL/SLANDER THE ALDERMAN IN ORDER MISLEAD YOUR READERS INTO FORMING A FALSE NEGATIVE CONCLUSION. THAT THIS POST OCCURS AT THE SAME TIME AS YOUR PREFFERRED ,DEFEATED (THIRD-PLACE FINISH 2/27) ALDERMANIC CANDIDATE ,WHO IN THE TRADITION OF ALL LOSERS WHO CAN'T GET OFF THEIR MERRY-GO-ROUND, ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A 50TH WARD VERSION OF THE LEFT-WING WHACKO GROUP KNOWN AS ALLIANCE(ITS SHRINE BEING THAT ANTI-AMERICAN CAFE ON GLENWOOD IN EAST ROGERS PK) IS MOST LIKELY MORE THAN COINCIDENCE;NOTHING LIKE KEEPING THE EMBERS OF LIES AND HATRED ALIVE IN A CHOREOGRAPHED TIME LINE.

YOUR ACCUSATION ABOUT THE ALDERMAN APPLYING FOR A ZONING CHANGE IS A COMPLETE LIE AND YOU KNOW IT!

 
At May 15, 2007 9:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay, we always know when your is on to something when CAPSMAN shows up!

 
At May 15, 2007 9:14 PM, Anonymous CAPSMAN said...

NO,CAPSMAN SHOWS UP WHEN THE ANTI-STONE LIES AND HATRED BECOME LIBEL,SLANDER,AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!!! YOUR FICTIONAL STORY IS A COMPLETE MALICIOUS LIE ,AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

 
At May 15, 2007 9:37 PM, Blogger Jay said...

LOL. Poor Capsman! Defending Daddy's honor.

 
At May 16, 2007 12:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what is the intended use of the property?

 
At May 16, 2007 6:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

according The department of Construction and Permits website, no ermits have bben applied for at that address in the last 18 months. So permits are you talking about?

 
At May 16, 2007 10:58 AM, Blogger Jay said...

I've been as specific as I can. I didn't ask those specific questions, so I can't answer them.

 
At May 16, 2007 1:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not sure which is sadder, you anti-stone nut cases thinking that the election is still going on or thinking that anyone cares about what you say. This just in, Stone won, Stone won, STONE WON. And in all lower case, stone won. Tell lies about him, hate him, say bad things about him, it is your right to do so. But if I were you I would think about who you are going to run next election, instead of this bs you are talking on this thing. Stone Won, oh happy day… oh happy day Stone Won.

 
At May 16, 2007 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
I didn't ask those specific questions, so I can't answer them???.

Maybe you should get your facts straight before you start a blog.

A prospective new business owner took possession of 6969 Western Ave in January. According to him, he cleaned out the building, which he believed he had to do before he could apply for the necessary permits.


According The Department of Construction and Permits website, no permits have been applied for at that address in the last 18 months

 
At May 16, 2007 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
I've been as specific as I can. I didn't ask those specific questions, so I can't answer them.


you are getting to be as bad as HUGH

 
At May 16, 2007 3:10 PM, Blogger Jay said...

I should have been more clear. The fact that someone believed that they had done what was required would have been sufficient in any other ward. But Stone's interference, his demand for a favor BEFORE he would help a new business open in his ward, is what I wanted to discuss. That no new permits have been requested supports the evidence of the alderman's intervention here (unless you want to argue that no new business is attempting to be opened there). Or so it appears.

Stone's corruption stifles new business activity in the ward.

 
At May 16, 2007 4:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay
You are so off base, you dont even know what your talking about. You must also be a big wheel as big wheels go around in circles.

The fact that someone believed that they had done what was required would have been sufficient in any other ward???
Whats that about?? I dont think so.

You are totally contradicting yourself. Is the person trying to open a business, was he going to open a business, was he going to build, what’s the true story here?? Has nothing to do with corruption.

 
At May 16, 2007 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see a contradiction. Maybe your looking for something thats not there. People are talking about this, so I don't understant their confusion.

 
At May 16, 2007 6:24 PM, Anonymous Bikers for Stone said...

So we are getting a body art designer near the Harley dealership. Big deal, I don't see a problem with that. And neither should you.

 
At May 16, 2007 11:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why have you chosen to make up such a False accusation about Stone? You are posting your own hallucinations,and therefore,are trying to dupe readers with pure falsehoods that are intended to create wrong conclusions,based on lies.Do you think,Jay,that having a blog gives you license to act so morally reprehensible?

 
At May 17, 2007 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
I should have been more clear. The fact that someone believed that they had done what was required would have been sufficient in any other ward. But Stone's interference, his demand for a favor BEFORE he would help a new business open in his ward, is what I wanted to discuss. That no new permits have been requested supports the evidence of the alderman's intervention here (unless you want to argue that no new business is attempting to be opened there). Or so it appears.

Stone's corruption stifles new business activity in the ward.

May 16, 2007 3:10 PM

You dont need an Alderman permision to apply for building permits or business permits. You might need their support for a zoning change.

 
At May 17, 2007 8:56 AM, Blogger Jay said...

So is the "false accusation" that I think this practice of Stone's is corrupt or that he doesn't? I'd be mortified if I had wrongly accused Stone of thinking this isn't corrupt. It would be a start down the right path for him to acknowledge that this is a corrupt practice.

I agree, you don't need the alderman's permission for permits. But I don't know that Stone could be honest with prospective businessmen about that. The alderman's support for zoning change would seem critical -- but first it must be determined that a zoning change was required to open that business. This doesn't appear to be the case here. Rather, it looks like Stone has falsified the need for a zoning change in order to extract a favor from a prospective businessperson. Even if you don't agree that this is corrupt (if true), it is clearly an abuse of aldermanic power (which is corruption, to my thinking).

Now I'd be the first to back down if it was ever PROVEN that Ald. Stone was not corrupt. But I believe the stories about Stone and corruption. It looks like corruption. It sounds like corruption. It's fairly safe to assume it IS corruption.

Stone's defense of corruption and patronage in Chicago makes it easy for me to believe he's corrupt. I haven't hidden that fact. It would seem impossible that Stone hasn't acted improperly here. What other reason would explain why the proposed business at 6969 Western Ave is not open? It doesn't take five months to open a new business, nor even to start (start, not complete) a zoning change. What Stone has done here is reprehensible. I can't imagine why anyone would defend Stone's practices of stifling business activity in the 50th Ward.

 
At May 17, 2007 11:12 AM, Blogger Hugh said...

> According The Department of Construction and Permits website, no permits have been applied for at that address in the last 18 months

Thanks for your initiative in trying to use the City website to answer questions about our community.

The DCAP permit search website you mention includes a database of BUILDING permit applications. It does NOT include applications for business licenses, zoning changes, or special uses, for example. If a proposal does not involve construction or alteration, it would leave no footprint in this database.

Thanks again and please try again.

 
At May 17, 2007 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hugh is back!!
Hugh have you made your neighbors happy ?? Have you had time to improve your property value, or should I say have you increased the value of your your neighbors by cleaning up your place?? Did you paint etc??

 
At May 17, 2007 3:45 PM, Anonymous CAPSMAN said...

THIS IS REALLY AN EXAMPLE OF TWO PROPAGANDISTS,YOU,JAY AND YOUR SOUL-MATE,HUGH COOKING UP,TOGETHER,A WHOLE FALSE STORY IN ORDER TO MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST STONE!
NONE OF THIS STORY HAPPENED! AND PUBLIC RECORDS ARE JUST THAT:WHAT TOOK PLACE OR DIDN'T,WHETHER IT BE PERMITS,PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPTS,OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PUBLIC RECORD. TO USE THEM TO BASE DEFAMATORY FALSEHOODS IS NOT ONLY IMMORAL,BUT DOWN RIGHT LYING,THE SAME AS ACCUSING ANY INNOCENT PERSON OF ANY CRIME BECAUSE HE WOKE UP THAT DAY,THEREFORE, HE HAD OPPORTUNITY AND "MUST" BE GUILTY.

 
At May 17, 2007 5:00 PM, Blogger Hugh said...

> You might need their support for a zoning change.

Anyone can apply for a zoning change for any property in Chicago.

Of course if you want it to PASS be prepared to show proper re$pect.

 
At May 17, 2007 7:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's IMMORAL to use PUBLIC RECORD to DEFAME A GOOD MAN! And Alderman Stone is A GOOD MAN! I should know, he's MY GRANDFATHER! Find some other way to defame him! Using public records is UNFAIR! It's just WRONG WRONG WRONG!

 
At May 17, 2007 7:36 PM, Blogger Jay said...

It is immoral to use the public record to criticize a public servant? That's a profoundly telling statement about your sense of right and wrong.

Other Americans would assert that this is their Constitutional Right. And they'd be right. I believe I've suggested this before: if your grandfather can not stand the criticism, retirement is an honorable option. You might want to talk to him about that.

 
At May 17, 2007 10:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

my grampa too. he got nothin to hide. to retirement near. LOL

 
At May 17, 2007 10:32 PM, Anonymous CAPSMAN said...

WHAT IS IMMORAL, IS TO DRAW IMAGINARY UNTRUE CONCLUSIONS BY EMPLOYING A TWISTED INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS ,WITH THE PURPOSE BEING TO REACH THAT FALSE CONCLUSION,DELIBERATLY!

 
At May 18, 2007 12:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Grampa Bernie U aint got notnin to hide why retire??
These people are nuts!!

 
At May 18, 2007 7:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
It is immoral to use the public record to criticize a public servant? That's a profoundly telling statement about your sense of right and wrong.

Other Americans would assert that this is their Constitutional Right. And they'd be right. I believe I've suggested this before: if your grandfather can not stand the criticism, retirement is an honorable option. You might want to talk to him about that.

You let hugh post public records but you wont post the public record showing there were no building permits take out on Hugh's place of residence to show he has not fix it up. In fact that record would not even give his address.

JS you are unamerican.

 
At May 18, 2007 8:05 AM, Blogger Jay said...

You're right. I didn't allow that post. I don't know Hugh's address, even though you said it wasn't his address. And I question your characterization of his property (without having seen it). If I could edit comments, I would have deleted the address and let it go through. I can't.

I don't understand your jihad against Hugh, but this is what I know: Hugh is NOT a public figure. I always think very carefully about that when approving posts. I won't be a party to your attempt to extract retribution from Hugh or anyone else here just because they disagree with your point of view.

You are welcome to dispute their points, or even prove them wrong. But I won't be party to juvenile attempts to humilitate people who speak out here. You want to do that, post it somewhere else.

You should also know that I no longer allow repetitive posts. I rejected the numerous (second) attempts at posting the Naisylies website, as well as several of Hugh's repetitive posts.

Government needs sunshine. Chicago government especially needs sunshine. If you have a problem with what Stone is doing, or it being exposed to the public, then I'd suggest asking him to stop doing it!

I will grant you that everything is subject to interpretation. But the one thing we have all taken away from the last election is that Berny Stone requires 24/7/365 scrutiny if we don't want our neighborhoods to deteriorate any more.

Stone won. But we don't trust Stone to protect our neighborhood. We will have to do it ourselves.

 
At May 18, 2007 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
You're right. I didn't allow that post. I don't know Hugh's address, even though you said it wasn't his address. And I question your characterization of his property (without having seen it). If I could edit comments, I would have deleted the address and let it go through. I can't.

I don't understand your jihad against Hugh, but this is what I know: Hugh is NOT a public figure. I always think very carefully about that when approving posts. I won't be a party to your attempt to extract retribution from Hugh or anyone else here just because they disagree with your point of view.


Back earlier this year Hugh was posting addresses from public record and names and donations. But I guess that was alright. I am not a public figure but that is alright aa well.

I should just sue him but why not use the same tactics that he uses.

Seems some can dish it out but cant take it. However I will respect you wishes and just wait to see when Hugh get cited by the city.

 
At May 18, 2007 9:14 AM, Blogger Jay said...

Most contributors know the exact threshold above which their names will be publicly disclosed. I know that Hugh has posted campaign contributions. In fact, all of the posts that I rejected from Hugh were listings of campaign contributions.

I can only assume that if you contributed to a campaign, you understood that this put you in the public record. If you didn't, welcome to Chicago! Now you know.

If you contributed to a campaign above the threshold, you should have no expectation of privacy about that. That is different than your attempt to make an inference from a negative (no permit to improve a piece of property).

If you have a specific complaint about a specific post that has been posted, I'd be open to looking at it again. Rules for moderation have evolved over time. I am trying to be fair, but from a completely prejudiced point of view!

 
At May 18, 2007 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
Most contributors know the exact threshold above which their names will be publicly disclosed. I know that Hugh has posted campaign contributions. In fact, all of the posts that I rejected from Hugh were listings of campaign contributions.

JS you just even the playing field even from a prejudiced point of view. That all one can ask.

 
At May 18, 2007 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You STONE HATERS are TWISTING public records to your own ENDS! Just because you find thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from someone who gets zoning change or a massive property tax subsidy, it DOES NOT MEAN the zoning change or massive property tax subsidy had ANYTHING to do with the thousands of dollars of campaign contributions! You are drawing FALSE CONCLUSIONS! Stone has too much INTEGRITY to be swayed by MONEY! Stone ALWAYS does what's best for the WARD! What's GOOD FOR STONE is GOOD FOR THE 50TH!

And Donald Tomczak, he was a GOOD MAN, just like Alderman Stone!

And Robert Sorich, he was INNOCENT!

And Al Sanchez, he was a GREAT COMMISSIONER!

And Eddie Vrdolyk, he was a GREAT LEADER!

You people no nothing of good government!

 
At May 18, 2007 3:18 PM, Blogger Jay said...

LOL. It's hard to take that comment seriously, but I agree that Stone is like Tomczak, Sorich, Sanchez and Vrdolyk. He just hasn't been indicted yet!

 
At May 22, 2007 4:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You STONE HATERS know NOTHING of what it takes to RUN A WARD! You can't get elected if you don't take campaign contributions! Naisy should know that by now!

You find in your precious public records that the guy who leases Stone's car to him is a campaign contributor, and you are SO smart, you think that MEANS something. Well, it DOESN'T!

Then you find out the folks Stone leases his ward office from are campaign contributors, and you think you know what THAT means. Well, you DON'T! IT'S ABSOLUTE FICTION!

Then you find that Stone's staff are all contributors, and you get all excited! OVER NOTHING! IT'S ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL!

Then oh my gosh you find campaign contributions from developers Stone did zoning changes for, and you are all, LOOK! LOOK! BRIBERY! BUT IT'S ALL LIES!

Then you find the developers who got TIF subsidies made contributions, and YOU THINK, AH HA! YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!

Stone has more WISDOM in HIS LITTLE finger than you STONE HATERS have in all your HATE-FILLED heads put together! If you have any QUESTIONS about what these public records REALLY MEAN, VISIT STONE DURING OFFICE HOURS! He will SHUT THE DOOR and he will PERSONALLY explain it ALL to you, real SLOW!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home