Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Photos on LINK cards cause heated debate
Next Post: Bill passes to eliminate gun waiting periods for order of protection filers
Posted in:
* Keep in mind when reading this story the lessons we all learned during Rahm Emanuel’s residency battle. Residency is about intent. The question is what was the intent here…
FOX Chicago News has found that Collins is claiming a homeowner’s exemption on a condo in Hyde Park while also claiming that she lives in the district she represents on the West Side. […]
But while Collins lists a rental unit on Warren Boulevard as her home on campaign and voting records, she’s been collecting that homeowner’s exemption on a condo five miles south of her legislative district. The law requires individuals to live in their homes in order to qualify for the tax break. […]
Collins refused to explain why has been claiming a homeowner’s exemption on a property outside of her district. She said she bought the Hyde Park condo before she ran for office in 2000, and is now renting it to her mother and brother. […]
Yet we found legal documents that show she is still receiving mail at the Hyde Park address, including letters from the mortgage company and a debt collection agency. The condo is being foreclosed.
And the Chicago Board of Elections said Collins’ voting status was de-activated in 2010 when a canvass card sent to the West Side address where she said she lives was returned by the post office as “not deliverable.” Collins has since been reinstated.
Former Rep. Pat Bailey was convicted after it was discovered that she didn’t live in her district. The difference is that Bailey was using a phony address as her residence. Nobody had lived in what was apparently an abandoned building and she never rented nor owned the place. And Emanuel also had the problem of returned voter registration canvass cards.
…Adding… This is from the form she’d have to sign…
“As owner of the above property, I hereby apply for the Homeowner Exemption. I affirm by signature that this property was occupied by its current or previous owner as a principal residence as of January 1, 2010. I understand that it is against the law to provide false information on this Homeowner Exemption application.”
Basically, she either might have broken the law by swearing she lived outside her district, or she might have broken the law by swearing she lived in her district. Not great.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 10:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Photos on LINK cards cause heated debate
Next Post: Bill passes to eliminate gun waiting periods for order of protection filers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is extremely odd. The Rahm case was very cut and dry in my opinion. This is extremely tricky and will be fun to watch the outcome of.
I hate to get off the subject, but I do find it bothersome that someone who has a job is getting foreclosed on while voting on a state budget. I’m just saying.
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:03 am
I think this is all a waste of time.
How about this, skip the residency drek and let the voters decide who they want to represent them.
If you want to point ot your campaign opponent does not live in the district fire away, if the voters want to elect a local they can. Let the voters decide if this matters and drop it as a technical basis for attacking elections.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:07 am
==How about this, skip the residency drek and let the voters decide who they want to represent them.==
That’s exactly what they did with Rahm.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:24 am
I think she can either have the homeowner’s exemption or the seat, but not both. I’d let her decide which is more important to her.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:29 am
reminds you of the old days when Ald. Keane represented the 31st ward and people said he lived up in a brick castle in Sauganash. troubling when living somewhere and voting somewhere are a mismatch.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:31 am
This is NOT analagous to Rahm’s situation. That was “residency”, where intent is the issue. Here, it is about “living” in. She can’t “live” in two different places, one for purposes of the exemption and one for the purpose of serving as the State Rep.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:37 am
I don’t see the problem here. She owns a condo (err, umm what with the foreclosure I suppose we can say owned) a condo. She has family members living there but still owns it (and assumedly doesn’t collect rent from them). She rents an apartment in order to reside in her district. How is that different from a snowbird owning a home in Chicago, not renting it out, and then taking the homeowner’s exemption.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:41 am
We have become a nation of men instead of a nation of laws as our founders intended. Laws and rules seem to have different meanings if we like the person or dislike the person or depending on which side is in charge. Just like the deal with Rahm he clearly did not live in Chicago and should not have been allowed to run until the next election cycle after he LIVED in Chicago for the time required but because he was liked the law doesn’t matter this time. I know your going to say he intended to move back, thats nice but he didn’t live there as required. As I said nation of men not laws.
Comment by Rob Roy Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:44 am
Thank you, Rob. My point exactly!
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:49 am
@Cheryl44: Which is coming sooner — the foreclosure or the next election?
I’d recommend correcting the homeowner’s exemption error that was no doubt due to an oversight (or lack thereof) then paying the $2300 plus possible fines while trying to win another election.
Congressman Jackson keeps winning and it looks like someone claiming to represent him tried to buy a senate nomination on his behalf for $6 million. What’s a $2300 oversight?
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:49 am
Rob Roy -
When I’m not traveling for work I head to the city every night and sleep at my significant other’s residence, but my license and all my mail go to the place I rent from my brother in the suburbs. Where do I LIVE? Where do I RESIDE?
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:55 am
According to law you live and reside where you sleep, unless you’re Rahm.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:59 am
One last KW observation: file an amended tax return.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:00 pm
Bill -
I’m still allowed to vote in the 10th district though, as I’ve done nothing to establish residency in the city…better arrest me for my ‘fraud’! I can see how it’s a different story if I claim tax exemptions on both of the places, or use the incorrect one for public office, but according to you that would be the one I sleep in, not the one I vote from or pay rent on.
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:02 pm
Mr. Rob Roy - you aren’t a lawyer I hope. Rahm’s issue was “residence” or being a “resident”. The statute in question did not say “live in”. The law does not equate “residence” as “living in”. No matter how many times you and others repeat it, “living” someplace and being a “resident” there are just NOT the same thing for legal purposes. Jeeesh.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:44 pm
Bill, don’t encourage the completely ignorant trolls. I know you’re joking, but he may not.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:56 pm
To quote the famous folks over at Firesign Theater, “How can you be 2 places at once, when you’re not anywhere at all”.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:01 pm
You don’t sign that homeowner’s exemption every year - it usually automatically renews.
Assuming the best, she probably just never corrected it once she moved over to her new, rented home. Its a mistake she can correct by filing a certificate of error and then being responsible for back property taxes owed.
Assuming the worst, she was trying to game the system and get a property tax reduction for the only property she owned.
Comment by George Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:07 pm
Rich -
I’ve been downgraded from a non-paying daily reader to a troll…ouch. Must be those pro-Cubs statements I made last week
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:12 pm
Rich
Just because I don’t follow yours or others popular beliefs does not make me ignorant or a troll. I guess you don’t follow your own rules, (gratuitous insults). Go ahead and ban me I see that you don’t really want input unless it follows your mind set. I did not say anything that was not fact as far as Rham was concerned and I see that I am not allowed to have an opinion or think for myself. Remove this post to Sir.
Comment by Rob Roy Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:19 pm
===I did not say anything that was not fact===
Your comment was devoid of facts. And you are a troll.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:20 pm
Oh, now I see how he was the troll and I was just mistaken…
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:24 pm
I am really tired of this type of gaming the system…which one is your home Senator?
Seems like this scenario pops up every other year with a House/Senate member…
Was the committee that vetted her and gave her the seat aware of this?
Bet the other comers for the job are none too pleased to learn this after the selection was made…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:36 pm
Dan:
When you have “A power so great it can only be used for Good or Evil.”
Comment by Way Way Down Here Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:46 pm
Check out Rep. Turner’s HB 505 amendment 1, which was passed out of committee today. I wonder if Collins (his Senator) would sponsor it in the Senate?
From the text: ==…If, upon determination by the chief county assessment officer, any property that was not eligible to receive a homestead exemption under Article 15 of this Code was erroneously granted a homestead exemption in any year or years not to exceed the current assessment year and 10 prior years, then the chief county assessment officer shall cause to be served upon the property owner a notice of intent to record a tax lien against the property with respect to which the erroneous homestead exemption was granted…In addition, the arrearages of taxes that might have been assessed, plus a penalty of 50% of the total amount of unpaid taxes for each year and 15% interest per annum, shall be charged against the property by the county clerk…==
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 2:18 pm
Didn’t Tom Lyons “live” in an apartment above his ward office and keep a “summer house” in Wilmette?
I seem to remember a photo way back when of Iola McGowan climbing through a hole in the wall of a padlocked, seeming abandoned building, claiming it to be her residence. Probably should lose that mental image forever.
As far as Emanuel goes, the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court, the Chicago Board of Elections and the hearing commissioner were all in on the scam, while two of three appeals court judges were the lone representatives of the law? Lonely job.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 2:47 pm
WWDH,
I was recently told I should inflate my shoes when getting off the bus. I wonder if that makes me a bozotroll?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 3:09 pm
maybe he friend the alderman will help her out of this one
Comment by jb Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 6:33 pm
We’re all bozotrolls on this bus.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 7:40 am
TC4eI2 Very true! Makes a cahnge to see someone spell it out like that.
Comment by Lyza Wednesday, Apr 20, 11 @ 1:38 pm