* I seriously doubt there was some sort of conspiracy…
* From the story…
Republican candidate for governor Darren Bailey regularly rails against government spending while accusing Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker of trying to solve the state’s problems merely by tossing money into “the four winds.” […]
But absent from Bailey’s criticism is recognition that his father, mother and sister have benefited from two transactions over the last two decades worth more than $8 million in federal and state funds tied to a sprawling spread of property the trio owned in southern Illinois, including $4.32 million from, oddly enough, the Pritzker administration, according to records obtained by the Tribune.
In the little-noticed transaction in 2021, Pritzker’s Department of Natural Resources bought from the Baileys more than 2,290 acres of mostly wetland about 100 miles south of Urbana-Champaign. The land is slated to become a public recreation and hunting area, according to state officials and financial records.
Beyond the proceeds for selling the land, Bailey’s relatives also collected sizable federal government payments tied to most of that same property. They entered a contract to receive $3.74 million through a 2005 federal wetlands easement that required them to preserve the land as a natural habitat, according to local, state and federal records.
Go read the rest.
The real estate promotional flier is here.
…Adding… It should be noted that Darren Bailey himself made no money on the land sale.
- JS Mill - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:24 am:
The DNR buys land from private citizens all the time. This is a fairly large purchase, but they do it to provide public hunting/fishing ground for those of us not as wealthy and elite as the baileys so that we can hunt and fish.
The money they made from the set aside program was pretty sweet too. Lots of farmers make money off these programs. I would guess, and I could be wrong, that the program they were being paid through is coming to an end and that is why they were sellin. But that is just a guess.
Anyway, bailey loves government that pays him and his, but hates it when it benefits anyone else.
- vern - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:31 am:
===I seriously doubt there was some sort of conspiracy===
This seems more like strong evidence of no conspiracy at all. A state program functioned normally with no political filter applied to the beneficiaries. Pritzker likely didn’t know about any of it until the Tribune story.
And in Bailey’s defense, his many criticisms of Pritzker don’t include “he micromanages state agencies for political benefit.” I think he’d be more likely to make the opposite critique, that Pritzker has been too hands-off. DCFS, IDVA, the Tollway, etc.
- Highland IL - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:32 am:
Wayne Rosenthal is mentioned as making the deal for the Rauner Administration. Of course, they didn’t have the money until JB’s Administration.
- Homebody - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:41 am:
==Pritzker likely didn’t know about any of it until the Tribune story.==
I’ve worked for multiple different state agencies, some large, some small. I’ve worked in places where millions of dollars were at stake, and where human life and death decisions were made. Almost none of those decisions were elevated to the head of my agencies, let alone to the governor’s office.
- CT Guy - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:52 am:
Would seem like this would be a bigger news story if it had NOT gone through because it involved immediate family members of the opposite party.
- XonXoff - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:23 am:
== It should be noted that Darren Bailey himself made no money on the land sale. ==
It should also be noted that unless his parents tire of all this attention and write him out of their will… well, you know.
- Moosey - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:24 am:
As a state employee who has seen the inside of these kinds of land sales for various agency purposes, everyone should know that insider relationships affect many purchases. For example, in rural areas, land is often found through friend and relation networks established by the local state employee in the execution of his/her job. In Chicagoland, it is insider politics that usually determines which parcel gets purchased. If the parcel fits the intended use and the price is appropriate then I tend to not worry about the process. However, sometimes the intended use is glossed over in favor of buying the right parcel from the right person. I find the Chicagoland method to produce the most egregious outcomes. But no one should overlook the critical factor of land being available for purchase, which greatly limits parcel choice sometimes. Not every state purchase is eligible for eminent domain, and state agencies like Ag can object to certain purchases and land uses even from a willing seller.
It seems likely that a local DNR employee heard about this parcel through their network (or even had it suggested to them by a connected person), but hopefully there was enough of a process to screen the land for fitness of purpose. It wouldn’t hurt to ask.
- Anon221 - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:29 am:
Moosey- Not sure when the flyer was created, but Don Bailey had this expressly in the sales flyer-
“The farm truly should be in the hands of IDNR, Ducks Unlimited or some other conservation group to protect what it’s become for the next generation of hunters.”
- Moosey - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:45 am:
===Wayne Rosenthal, the DNR director under Rauner, said he did not think there was “anything political” surrounding the land sale, but that it was the No. 1 parcel the agency’s team of reviewers sought for that southeast area of the state, part of DNR’s “mission to provide opportunities for people to get in the outdoors.”===
How the land became an acquisition target is one question. Did the local DNR District Heritage Biologist find it or prioritize it, was it suggested to DNR by other private conservation groups like DU, or was did it go straight to the top of DNR in a political move? Clearly there were contacts with several administrations, starting not long after the original purchase. The other question is whether it met the needs of the agency. Only DNR can answer.
- MisterJayEm - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 11:08 am:
“It should be noted that Darren Bailey himself made no money on the land sale.”
And I haven’t made any money from the appreciation of my parents’ landholdings either, but unless they throw centuries of estate law out the window in the next 50 years…
– MrJM
- Lurker - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:01 pm:
This is the main reason I have repeatedly said DNR and Ag need to combine. They keep spending water money against each other. The Bureau of Land and Water is a mess.
Or for more fun. Go to Ag Departments home page to read about their involvement in Natural Resources and then to DNR to read about their involvement in Ag. Unsurprisingly, they are not in sync.
- Wading in... - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:02 pm:
Who would have thought a strong gravitation towards government funds and funding was genetically based?
- Floodwater gate - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:37 pm:
Whether it is in the Democratic north or Republican south, elected officials and their families shouldn’t profit from transactions with governments to which they have been elected. If a transaction is of such importance to either the elected official/family or to the State, the elected official has the option to resign his/her seat.
- XonXoff - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:38 pm:
Given proper conditions, taxpayer money also rolls downhill.
- (Sigh) - Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 6:13 pm:
The one thing this story proves is Bailey and his family are not struggling like other families in his Senate district.
For once Bailey had no comment, which suggests to me that his involvement or knowledge is more than what the family has acknowledged.