* Expect an immediate appeal…
Former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel meets the residency requirement to run for mayor of Chicago and will remain on the Feb. 22 primary ballot, a Cook County judge ruled Tuesday.
In a ruling issued early Tuesday afternoon, Cook County Circuit Judge Mark Ballard upheld an earlier 3-0 ruling by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners that Emanuel, despite having lived in Washington, D.C., for the past two years to serve as President Obama’s chief of staff, is eligible to run.
“On the question of whether candidate Emanuel has satisfied the 1-year residency requirements… the court finds no error with the Board’s decision,” Ballard wrote. “We find the analysis presented by respondent candidate Emanuel to this court persuasive on the issue of whether an individual must have a ‘place to sleep’ to satisfy the litmus test of continued residence.”
More…
Ballard heard arguments from lawyers from both sides during a 45-minute hearing on the 19th floor of the Daley Center. Burt Odelson, attorney for the objectors, argued Emanuel is trying to “re-write history” by claiming he was a Chicago resident, saying it was akin to the George Orwell’s book “1984.”
“But they can’t re-write the law,” Odelson said.
This thing is gonna go on for a while yet. Nothing is finalized, but the score is now 3-0 Emanuel (hearing officer, city elections board and circuit court).
…Adding… Emanuel statement…
The Board of Elections and the court have both now concluded what I have said all along – that the only reason I left town was to serve President Obama and that I always intended to return. Now that these decisions have been reached, Chicago voters should have the right to decide the election and to vote for me or against me. And they deserve to have the campaign focus on the challenges facing the city and the need for safe streets, strong schools, and stable city finances.
* In other news, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, who set off a firestorm with his report on Chicago’s parking meter deal, now doubts the city can get out of it…
The idea sounds simple and very appealing: Cancel and renegotiate the much-despised deal that privatized Chicago’s parking meter system.
But the idea may well be too good to be true, with outside experts warning that cancellation, even if legal, could stick the city with a tab for more than $1 billion that it doesn’t have. […]
If a court were to overturn the parking meter contract, Morgan Stanley et al. “would have a good argument” to reclaim their $1.16 billion, says former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, who for two years has criticized the deal as providing an inadequate return.
The courts more than likely would order both sides “to return to the starting point,” Mr. Hoffman says. Meaning that Chicago would get the meters back, but the Morgan Stanley group would get its $1.16 billion back — money the city has already pretty well burned through to fill budget holes.
Even getting that far is questionable, Mr. Hoffman adds. “The idea that you can overturn this contract in court is just highly unlikely,” he says. And, given credit market conditions, the city “maybe” would do better if it rebid the pact today, and “maybe” would do worse.
* Related…
* Emanuel: Ads could help pay for after-school programs
* Four major Chicago mayoral candidates debate Jan. 27
* Del Valle Notches Two Progressive Endorsements
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
–Burt Odelson, attorney for the objectors, argued Emanuel is trying to “re-write history” by claiming he was a Chicago resident, saying it was akin to the George Orwell’s book “1984.”–
Yeah, just like “1984.” Who’s writing Odelson’s material, Glenn Beck?
- zatoichi - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 2:00 pm:
So if Chicago ‘has already pretty well burned through’ $1.16B after only a couple of years what happens next? Follow Arizona and sell everything? Good luck.
- Excessively Rabid - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
Re: Hoffman - What this tells us is that it’s incredibly stupid to sell off this kind of public asset, even when you’re desperate. What a fiasco.
- KDS - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 2:08 pm:
What this tells us is that it’s incredibly stupid to sell off this kind of public asset, even when you’re desperate. What a fiasco.
=====
What this REALLY tells us is that it it incredibly stupid to sell of public assets and then spend the money quickly and foolishly in year while the deal is supposed to last for 75.
These moves are controversial, but they can be a benefit to the city. But not when the money is spent improperly.
- cynical - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 2:51 pm:
Agrees with Excessively rabid on this. When is it ever a good idea to do deal like this? It reminds me of those firms that will convert a structured settlement into a lump sum amount. It’s just nuts.
- bored now - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:08 pm:
KDS: no, what it really tells us is that private corporations will endeavor to make a profit (as big a one as possible), while governments *should* endeavor to serve the public good/interest. the two are mutually exclusive…
- GetOverIt - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:15 pm:
On the parking meter deal: Let’s pretend the deal had never been made, does anyone know how much in revenue the parking meters would produce? This year? Over a 75 year period? Let me suggest it would be far less than the $1.1B the city recieved to lease the meters. As a life long resident of the city I can tell you that enforcement was often lacking or non-existent; the meters often inoperable; and tickets for failing to pay a meter, rare.
Certainly the city could have upgraded the meters, but at what cost - especially during the present economic turbulance. So it is my hunch that the city would come out ahead over a 75 year period by leasing.
Now, are the terms fair to residents of the city…NO! Hopefully there is enough political pressure and room in the contract to renogiate some of the terms and avoide a costly legal battle. Afterall, I’m sure it’s in Morgan Stanley’s self-interest to keep city hall happy.
- chiatty - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:17 pm:
I’m not saying that the parking meters deal was good financially for the city, that seems pretty well settled, but does anybody believe that the city could have achieved in ten years what this private company has achieved in a year or so? It is so much easier to park in the city now. They’ve done an amazing job of getting rid of the old meters and putting in the new machines. You can actually count on finding parking in virtually every neighborhood now.
- Honest Abe - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:29 pm:
“Nothing is finalized, but the score is now 3-0 Emanuel (hearing officer, city elections board and circuit court).”
True enough, in terms of the facts, but absolutely meaningless.
It is not uncommon for the appellate court justices to reverse election boards and the circuit courts. Our law libraries are filled with cases where this has occurred.
Burt Odelson was interviewed about a possible challenge to Rahm Emanuel’s residency some weeks ago on WLS 890 AM Radio and he predicted that the case would have to be appealed if there was any chance of removing Emanuel from the ballot. Odelson predicted that he would lose before the the electoral board and at the circuit court level. He went as far as to predict that the best opportunity for the objectors to succeed would be outside of Chicago if the case ended up in Springfield.
- Joe Blow - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:33 pm:
If Rahm can get the courts on his side so he is eligible to run for office then he can get them on his side to renegotiate the parking meters.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:34 pm:
–He went as far as to predict that the best opportunity for the objectors to succeed would be outside of Chicago if the case ended up in Springfield.–
Given the Illinois Supremes’ quick action in the Burris case, we should have a decision sometime around Labor Day.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:44 pm:
Will Justice Burke recuse herself?
- Anon 1 - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:46 pm:
Wasn’t it Orwell’s Animal Farm where history and rules were continually rewritten to the benefit of the new ruling class?
- chi - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:13 pm:
GetOverIt-
Your premise is that the City had two options, (1)the lease deal, and (2) the status quo. This was not the case.
The red light cameras are not cheap, but they pay for themseleves. Likewise, hiring more meter maids, increasing the prices, and/or buying new meters are steps that would have paid for themselves, your ‘hunch’ not withstanding.
- It's Just Me - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:17 pm:
Why is Hoffman in this debate at all? He was supposed to find fraud and corruption in Chicago, which this issue is neither. Now he is the FORMER inspector general. What office is he trying to run for now?
- GetOverIt - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:20 pm:
@Chi - What other options were there? Do you seriously think that the city is in the position to “hire” anyone? In addition, can you imagine the city hall raising parking rates in this climate? Again, just a hunch, No and No on both counts.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:28 pm:
Is the Walter Maksym who was listed on the original suit the same guy who has represented Drew Peterson?
- the Dark Horse - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:05 pm:
Odelson fancies himself as a preeminent election lawyer, but among practitioners, he is not viewed that way at all. He is a showboating clown, while Rahm has Mike Kasper and Kevin Forde- two lawyers who are top notch.
- Honest Abe - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:34 pm:
Odelson has won more than a few; he beat Kasper as recently as 2010 in the Illinois Supreme Court.
Kasper is a good lawyer, but he cannot change the facts that his client, Emanuel, created.
Any other candidate would have been tossed given the same set of facts, but Emanuel has power and influence.
- older and wiser - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:42 pm:
anyone with any financial sense knows that the meter deal can’t be undone. To do so would require the city to essentially buy the meters back from the buyers. Around $1.5B at least.
Any candidate who suggests otherwise is simply wrong and should not be taken seriously. So, CMB no. Who else has said the deal can be “undone”?