Would you pay $2,500 to save a piece of history?

no

lets see how many of those throwing a fit about this house pony up to purchase it. my guess is most of them wont.

Are you kidding? This is yet another project of the Naperville rich who have more money and even more ego than they know what to do with. Its nothing the "average" Naperville citizen would be involved with. Rather than give $2500.00 to save a crumbling mansion, why not donate that amount to a local food pantry or other charity? Sounds like another Carillon fiasco.

This will be interesting to watch. Now everyone has a chance to put their money where their mouth is. I'd be willing to bet the plan fails, as most people just want to preserver history with other peoples money, up to and including the last owners.

Also NO! I will buy a share in the wrecking ball for 2500 bucks. At least I will have a return on my investment as the wrecking ball takes down historic mansion after historic mansion.

Didn't we just have a broker get stuck with one of these fixer upper mansions that no one wants! Well, there is another job for my wrecking ball investment! Let us keep the ball rolling and make some money with our investments for a change!

I'm not sure what exactly the legal precedent would be to attempt to establish a public charity for a property such as this... as in who is receiving charity and how will it be delivered? I know the real estate market has tanked. I also didn't know the real estate market had tanked so much that Mr. Cobb now requires an outpour of community charity.

I'm also not sure what the legal precedent is for "investors" to buy 800 shares of a public charity? Most investors would want to know the expected rate of return as well as how long their money is going to be tied up. Or is Mr. Rasche really looking for public donations?

Possibly a non-profit organization might be a better way to organize and structure ownership, though not likely. Realistically and without some kind of ongoing revenue stream to pay taxes, utilities, insurance, operation, and maintenance cost the $2MM figure being thrown around may be enough to purchase and accomplish immediate repair/renovation needs I strongly doubt it would adequately fund any kind of endowment that would sustain itself until such future time when the next round of repair/renovations will be needed.

But let's stop and think about this for a minute. What is the point and value of saving and restoring a home like this if it is not going to be occupied by a another family? While this is but one home there are plenty more similar homes in the same general area. I think we all need to be concerned about what kind of precedent would be set by such a move considering that it is likely that more historic homes could come into similar stages of disrepair as both the properties and the owners age. Do we really want this neighborhood to become one of well maintained but vacant homes? What kind of a neighborhood is that?

Naperville does have a property maintenance ordinance on the books. The building department should be enforcing the property maintenance code on this home. If this structure does not meet city standards then the city should be explaining why it has not moved to enforce city ordinances and take legal action against Mr. Cobb to get the property repaired. The city has already gone on record by saying that this home is out of compliance with multiple building regulations. If that is the case why has no enforcement action been taken? The city simply can not sit by idly, do nothing, and allow this property to fall into further disrepair and become an attractive nuisance for children.

It is inexcusable for the city to allow Mr. Cobb, as the legal owner of this property, to blatantly ignore city codes and allow his property to fall into worse disrepair. Does any of us want the city to allow Mr. Cobb to become a slum landlord? At the rate the neglect is progressing it is becoming a slowly worsening eyesore casting a wide shadow over the entire neighborhood. Allowing this property to be neglected isn't fair to all of the other homeowners who maintain their property, especially considering what it is doing to their property values in an already down market.

Mr. Cobb is a real estate professional. He has lived next door to this home for years so he has had a long time to become familiar with the current conditions and needed repairs. He knew full well what he was getting into when he purchased this property. Maybe about right now he has buyers regret once he realized he was in way over his head financially with this purchase. To bad. If he made a bad business decision or a bad personal decision he will have to learn to deal with that.

While he is learning to deal with the consequences of his decisions Mr. Cobb remains the legal owner of this property and he alone needs to step up to the plate and take full responsibility for maintaining his property in full compliance with city standards.

Now, if Mr. Rasche would propose forming an LLC to purchase, renovate, and sell this property as a single family residence; I would be a willing investor to help make this project happen. My only conditions as a potential investor would be that the property must be purchased from Mr. Cobb at the currently assessed market value and the house must receive a final occupancy permit within 18 months of the date of purchase from Mr. Cobb.

Someone's got to explain this idea of civic charity to me... I'm not sure I get it. Here's my take (and I'm not trying to stir the pot here, just wondering)... it sounds like a case of someone buying a house they couldn't afford and now they want others to chip in for their misguided/irresponsible spending. I understand that it's a historic area of town, but didn't the owner know the risk when they bought the place? Why doesn't the bank just step in? How does one even go about starting a civic charity? People get tax write-offs for helping this person pay their mortgage? Does the city step in because of the location? Thanks for your help.

This is a beautiful home and deserves to be saved. I would love to donate, but it should be an open donation. I can't afford the $2500, but would like to donate something.

Is there anyway to get the Naperville Settlement involved and create a fund raiser event? Or we have a lot of big events in Naperville this month: Last Fling, Art fair, Wine Festival. Take a poll at these events and see how many Napervillians are willing to see this home saved!

Anonymouse, you seem to miss the point. Mr.Cobb will be more than happy to bring the property into compliance...by wrecking the house. When he pursued this plan, there was a huge outcry, as you probably know.

It seems that one of the people involved in the outcry has come up with a plan of using other peoples money to save the house, which is the usual tactic of those wishing to preserve buildings. The fact that past history shows this plan will never work does not seem to daunt Mr.Rasche.

Hopefully, once this seemingly last ditch effort to save the house at someone else's expense fails, the house can be wrecked as originally planned.

The public outcry will be even louder and longer if the city issues a demolition permit.

Here is Mr. Rasche's Plan.
1. Raise $2,000,000
2. Transfer shares of Naperville Landmark Restoration Fund LLC with $2,000,000 in account to select Naperville Charities.
3. INvestors get tax deduction for contribution of shares (this is like donating shares of IBM to your college)
4. The Restoration Fund restores the Hammerschmidt Mansion
5. The Mansion is sold to a singly family with Landmark Status.
6. The proceeds of the sale are distributed to the current owners - the select Naperville Charities.

The house is restored and registered with Landmark Status and all proceeds of sale go to local charities.

I hope this clarifies this concept. It was reported that 4 shares have already been subscribed.

This sounds a whole lot like tax fraud to me. If 800 suckers get caught up in this scheme there will be 800 people in tax trouble with the IRS. Of course, the organizers of this will have their own issues with the IRS as well.

Let's not forget that a huge chunk of the money being raised is going to transfer to Mr. Cobb is not tax deductible. And I'm sure he is going to try to sell this house at a greatly exaggerated profit. In a similar vein, all of the money paid out to contractors for labor and material also is not tax deductible.

The only amount out of each $2,500 share that would be eligible for a legitimate tax deduction would be an amount of the gift that directly benefits these "select Naperville charities" and that is only conditional upon all of these charities being duly registered as such.

This is no different than buying a box of Girl Scout cookies. Buying a box of cookies is not tax deductible. Giving money directly to the Girl Scouts is tax deductible.

Now let's talk about which charities are included in the list of "select Naperville charities". Who is making the decision as to which charities are on this so-called list and how much each will get? For a variety of personal and religious reasons not everyone in Naperville supports the same charities. This aspect alone will be a complex issue to amicably resolve.

Investor beware!

I'm with Deborah. . . I can't afford $2500, but would be willing to make a donation. Is it possible that with all the other "activities" in town over the next couple of months this Restoration Foundation could have a bucket set up for free-will donations? But Mr. Cobb shouldn't necessarily get what he paid for the property (plus his "carrying costs") -- he should get current fair market value (whether higher or lower) than what he paid for it. I'm sure if the RE market hadn't taken a downturn he would have been only too happy to sell this house for a large profit to someone else.

Will I pay $2500 to save the house? NO

Do I think $2MM can be raised? NO Look at the carillon fiasco, this is another one in the making.

Do I think taxpayers should save the Mansion? For what purpose?

Was Mr. Cobb ethical in using his fiancée as his front-man for the purchase? NO This practice is however commonplace in the downtown neighborhoods.

Would I pay $25 to see a boxing match between Mr. Cobb and Mr. Darfler? No, I'm already getting it for free.

Thanks to Deborah and Diane. I too, would be willing to donate, but flat out, don't have $2500 to give to Cobb. H

jom, Deborah and Diane,
I'm with you.
Ken, you just need a hug.

Folks, this is AMERICA.

People should not be required to maintain a dilapidated building unless it was their INTENT to live in it. If I were the Cobb's and my demolition permit was held up, I would board up the entire place and let it rot. Ultimately, it will cave in and then the City would HAVE TO ISSUE a demolition permit.

On the other hand, the Cobb's are willing to let somebody else buy the property. To date, seems to be no takers. If Rasche can raise the $2 million (or at least $775,000), he can pay the Cobb's their price. They can look to buy a new house where there is more land.

But there should be just two alternatives. 1. Somebody buy the land so they can do what they want. 2. The City buys the land at fair market value (they could condemn to preserve an historical landmark, but new Illinois laws would require them to pay more than the $775,000 the Cobbs have offered.

Other alternatives to tell people how to use THEIR land are UN AMERICAN. Period.

Eminent domain.
Dan D needs a hug too...

Sorry Dan D, but Cobb can not just board up the place and let it rot until it caves in. The city does have a property maintenance ordinance that would kick in long before the property is in such condition that it is in such bad condition that it might cave in.

Obviously there aren't too many people at city hall that like Cobb. They really stuck it to him by designating it as historic. Now he is stuck and stuck good. No one wants to buy it so he can't sell it. He can't demolish it either due to the historic status. Yet he is the legal owner so he is stuck paying the property taxes on it based upon his purchase price of $775K and maintaining it in it's historic condition.

HIs best bet at this point might just be to simply try to give it away. Though even then there probably might not be any takers.

If something like this happened to the average decent guy most of us would kind of feel sorry for him I think. From the long and poor relationship he had with his neighbors, to the underhanded way he went about skirting the previous owners wishes that the home not be sold to him, and the unbelievable way that he would "use" his own fiance in this transaction, to his attempt to profit off selling this house in the current down market leaves me feeling that he got exactly what was coming to him.

Payback is hell.

Where is Brenda Avalong and her merry band of elitists? Having saved Naperville from publicly exposed laundry line, have they ridden off into the sunset in their SUV's? Or are they hunkered down in their huge, high priced homes, basking in the glow of their advanced degrees in literature, philosophy, fine arts from impressive and expensive private universities?

Come on Brenda - gather your cohorts and cronies and pony up the bucks to save a broken down old house.

Dear Anonymous:

A wise man once said that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Every one of your points is wrong! Are you ignorant or indifferent to the truth?

Why are you attacking our effort? Do you not want this house saved? If we are unable to raise the money needed for this project it will be because of people like you!

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact if you had the courage to sign your name you would be guilty of slander. You make accusations of impropriety and incompetence without basis.

If we raise the money, stock worth $2,000,000(cash on hand) will be donated to charity. This provides the basis of the deduction. After the stock is transfered the home will be acquired and restored. The charities can keep it, raffle it or sell it. What ever funds they derive will be available for use by the charities.

Your comments and accusations are drivel.

Whether or not we are able to raise the money, we are honestly trying to save this house. What is your problem?

Are you so petty that other people's efforts and success offend you?

Regarding the selection of charities, we have only been working on this for two weeks and are still in the interview process. Several of the charities have indicated a desire to receive funds but do not believe it is appropriate to appear to take sides in a controversial matter. Notwithstanding, we will be providing more information on the charities shortly.

I have put my name to this and stand by my comments.

Sorry Rasche,

There simply isn't a basis for slander in anything that has been previously posted. You may like to disagree, but that does not make a cause for slander.

If you disagree with any of my previous points that is fine with me . Just point out which ones and your reasons why. Painting with a broad brush doesn't lend credibility or support your argument. If you have facts present them.

I actually have no problem with a private group attempting to do whatever they want to buy or as you say it "save" this house. I am not attacking your effort. I am attacking your method of funding.

I would have a major problem with using any public or tax supported money for this purpose. Forming a non-profit organization, including if it is further classified as a charity, definitely gets into the category of tax supporting because there would be direct issues related to federal and state tax deductions for the "donors" or "investors" or whatever they are to be called as well with the local property taxes.

As I said before I strongly disagree that this scheme will pass muster with the IRS and I also strongly suspect that anyone who "invests" their money is going to end up with tax issues if they try to claim it as a full tax deduction. If every single one of these 800 investors were simply gifting $2,500 directly to Naperville charities they would be entitled to a full $2,500 tax deduction. But that really is not the case if you follow the money.

The big problem you have not addressed is how to make all of this happen and include the purchase, renovation, and sale of this house. This big problem actually consists of two problems.

The first is the current fair market price at which the home must be acquired. And if it isn't purchased at current fair market value then there will be additional IRS issues to deal with since a charity and non-profit status is involved. Then their is the total cost of performing the renovations along with ongoing maintenance, upkeep, taxes, and insurance during the renovation period. When all of the work is completed the home has to be sold to a willing buyer at a fair market value that reflects the current purchase price plus the cost of renovation and cost of holding the property during the period of renovation. The big unknown is what the housing market will look like in 12-18 months and how many buyers will think the total renovated cost is a good deal. The fact that Naperville is loaded with many competent contractors who specialize in both renovation and new construction and none of them appear to be seriously interested in acquiring this home for renovation themselves suggests the economics of the current marketplace simply do not indicate it is worth their while. So if the professionals can't pull it off then how do a bunch of amateurs think they can do it?

The second part of the problem is that the investors will be giving the organization you are proposing to form $2,500 per share. Now let's look at some hypothetical numbers... let's say the house is purchased at fair market value for $600,000 and let's say the previous reports of renovations are accurate and that work costs another $500,000. At this point a total of $1,100,000 will have been spent on getting this house ready to be sold. Now let's say the home goes on the market and it is bought for $1,300,000. It is now time to transfer the money to qualified Naperville charities. A total of about $1,100,000 dollars will be left remaining that can be transfered to to Naperville charities. Of that $1,100,000 only a maximum of $900,000. or about $1,125 per share, could potentially be taken as a charitable donation because their original gift was made to your proposed organization and the rest of their donation was spent buying and remodeling the house. The $200,000 "profit" your organization made in the final sale of the property has no bearing on the 800 investors and is something your organization will have to address in your own financial filing with the IRS, especially considering your proposed non-profit and charity status.

So to those who are interested in investing $2,500 in this scheme... how many still think it is a good deal if they are only going to get $1,125 tax deduction out their $2,500 investment?

Here is something else to consider. If we forget about Naperville charities and just look at what it would take to turn this house... $1,100,000 divided by 800 investors equals an investment of $1,375 each. If the house sold for $1,300,000 they would each get a return of $1,625. That is a heck of a lot better return than banks or even CD's are paying right now. So instead of messing around with shady tax deductions why not just form an LLC and let everyone help the community "save" this house and make a few honest bucks at the same time?

Dear Still Anonymous

Impugning someone's professional reputation is slander per se. Your comments imply impropriety or worse incompetence. This is slanderous.

My only concern here is that you not leave a false impression with readers.

Our numbers were not selected from thin air like yours. We have estimates from a professional architect and contractor who visited the house on multiple occasions and took numerous pictures. These are experts whose numbers may be relied upon. The restoration will cost between $900,000 to $1,100,000. I also don't know where you got the market value of %600,000. It is public record that the property was purchased for $775,000. It is also public record that the Cobbs are willing to sell for about $800,000. You can argue all day about the price, but the reality is that that is what it will take to buy the house.

We selected $2,000,000 as an amount of money that is likely to cover all expenses. No one will benefit if sufficient funds are not raised to complete the project.

Keep in mind that we are not representing the Cobbs - we are representing the house. We have performed detailed market studies regarding its value. All of this information is contained in our Notice of Offering posted on our web site. You can make up blue sky all day, but it doesn't change the facts.

I have also explained the basis of the deduction and have confirmed it with a Professional CPA firm - so stop providing your non-professional opinion.

you refer to our efforts as a scheme which clearly has a negative conitation and you offer your opinion as to the deduction. What is your expertise? What professional degrees do you hold to make this acusation?

Clearly, you are out of your element but refuse to back down.

We have fully disclosed and explained everything and posted all of the information on our website with our names.

If you really believe what you say give us your name and contact information so the public can form their own opinion.

Russell P. Rasche, J.D. (practicing since 1973 - I have also achieved the designation of Registered Principal with the NASD.

Are you kidding me? I already bought two shares just for the heck of it.

I do think it's a joke however. We should be applauding people for wanting to save the home. But I'm seriously considering moving out of Naperville.

It's not what I thought it was. We should have no homes under $400,000 for tax purposes.

As someone who has lived California, I can tell you that's really the only way to keep a town from becoming a slum.

The city should be suing The Cobbs for this.

Sorry still Rasche,

Glad to read you have been practicing since 1973. Keep at it, maybe one of these years you can stop all the practicing and finally start.... but enough of the lawyer jokes.

First off no ones professional reputation has been impugned. If you have misread or taken something previously written out of context and come to your own wrong conclusion as to what was or was not implied, then accept responsibility for your own failings. Just don't go making wild accusations. Clearly a reasonable person would not have come to the same conclusion. For you to assume that I implied anything as silly as your accusation is just plain wrong. No where did I accuse anyone of any impropriety or incompetence. You certainly do have my sincere sympathy if you are so quick to see yourself or anyone else you know fit your own mental picture of what you have concluded to be impropriety or incompetence and cause me to wonder why that is. However, I do honestly believe that this scheme has sufficient loopholes written into it, deliberately or not, where the possibility of impropriety could exist and I will point out some of these hypothetical opportunities below because I believe the difference between whether or not these loopholes are exploited will make or break the distinction between whether or not this is a serious business offering or something altogether different.

I'm sure the Fund talked to all kinds of architects and even took the time to get second, third, and fourth opinions. Same with general contractors and all of the many subcontractors. Or did it? Personally, I've worked with more architects than I can remember over several decades and have never met one who couldn't spend a boatload of money given the opportunity and considering their fee is based upon how much they spend and not on how much they save the building owner. I'm sure they have condemned all of the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems and are likely to be proposing to gut the interior and exterior. If that is the case the Fund might as well just tear the whole thing down because it will be 95% new construction anyway. Plus it would have been cheaper in the long run.

According to the timetable provided construction is scheduled to commence Nov 3, 2008 and be complete by April 15, 2009. The likelihood of generating construction drawings and receiving city approval and building permits by Nov 3 is a huge long shot. Even more of a long shot when consideration is given that application for landmark status will be filed on Nov 3, 2008 and the Fund should fully expect the city to go over all the construction drawings in great detail to ensure the proposed work will meet the requirements of landmark status. In all probability the construction drawing review will probably be put on hold until the landmark status application is decided. Only then will the city be able to determine if the proposed plans meet landmark status or if they can be approved meeting a lessor standard. To then commence construction over the dead of winter with an approximately 5 1/2 month project timetable for a house that supposedly needs $1,100,000 worth of work is just not very realistic.... that or the actual renovation work that really is needed has been grossly overinflated. Let's not be quick to forget that the original seller provided a detailed list of renovations that was drawn up by another licensed architect and the value was previously reported to total around $500,000. Granted some time has passed and labor and materials may have increased some, but certainly not by $600,000. The Fund does not disclose why there is a $600,000 difference between the sellers good faith estimate of the cost of renovation and the cost of renovation determined by the Fund.

I'm sure Mr. Cobb is willing to sell this house for $800,000 or more IF HE COULD GET IT. What this property is worth today is not determined by what Mr. Cobb bought it for previously. Naperville properties are down 25% from what they were selling for a year ago which would make this house now worth +/- $580,000. Why would the Fund or anyone else pay one dime above FAIR MARKET VALUE if the house is actually worth significantly less than $800,000? While the Fund was talking to architects and CPA's did a professional MAI real estate assessor confirm what this property was really worth? And if not then the Fund doesn't even understand it's own baseline for this project.

What is interesting to note is that Mr. Cobb acquired this home for $775,000 and the Fund proposes to purchase it at $800,000 yet the Fund claims that the purchase price will not include any profit to the seller. If that is the case then the Fund should not be paying a dime more than $775,000. But a better question is why isn't the Fund committed to purchasing this property at fair market value? If the money being generated is truly intended to go to and benefit Naperville charities then it is unconscionable of the Fund to pay anything above fair market value on the date of sale. Now an even better question is does the Fund already possess a purchase agreement for this house and, if not, what does the Fund propose to do if Mr Cobb gets greedy and demands more than $800,000 knowing full well the Fund has $2MM on hand? The "Notice of Offering" does not address this or any other potential problem that could arise related to the sale of the house from Mr. Cobb to the Fund other than to use the money to acquire, restore, and sell the home with any proceeds going to charity. It is further noted that the "subscribers" literally have no rights if they disagree with how the Fund handles any of these transactions along the way, up to and including any refund of their money. The Fund has stacked the entire deck in it's favor and given management of the Fund a blank check of permission to do anything it wants with this money.

I've read the "Notice of Offering" and the Fund couldn't even add up the number of subscribers for this proposal correctly. I wonder how many other factual errors must exist in this document.?

Sounds like a real nice and cozy deal to me, as outlined in the "Notice of Offering. Why does the word incestuous come to mind? The Fund has already handpicked the architect, the general contractor, the project accountant, the lawyer, the real estate broker, and even the title insurance company. Glad to see that the Fund, on behalf of all these potential "donors" took the time to put this project out for a competitive bid. Also heartwarming to see who's hands are in who's pockets and who is related to who. Let's see, the "anticipated" fees for legal, accounting, etc are not expected to exceed 5%, but that is not a hard number. It could be less or then again it could be more, a lot more. And once the Fund is fully subscribed it doesn't have to answer to any of the donors on how the money is actually spent. Even 5% of $2MM means $100,000 is going for just legal and accounting fees. Plus lets not forget another 3% commission being paid on the real estate sales and I'm willing to bet a 3% commission will be paid buying the property from Mr. Cobb so that is $24,000 based on a purchase price of $800,000. Then after renovation when the house is sold for $2MM a second 3% commission will be an additional $60,000. Let's see then, since the seller has to provide title insurance and it's been disclosed that an agency relationship exists with various title companies another several thousand dollars in title insurance commissions will get paid. Knowing how both architects and general contractors work and how soft money moves around between these kinds of firms I'd love to know if either or both of them are paying any or all of the identified key figures on this project to be a special "consultants" or some other creative title on this project in exchange for them getting the inside track on a no bid deal? But then again this Fund doesn't have to answer to or account to anyone with how the money is spent. Maybe the Fund could start making some semblance of sense out of this scheme by identifying all of the principals involved with the Naperville Landmark Restoration Fund, LLC and how much each and every one of them stands to benefit financially from their personal or professional involvement in this enterprise. A broad brush picture has been painted that this enterprise is only about "saving this house". Just respect that I disagree and prefer to follow the money.

Now lets look at the transfer of share scheme. The Fund wants 800 investors to each fork over $2500 for a total of $2MM. For this the Fund is going to issue stock certificates. The stock certificates are then "gifted" to the lucky Naperville charities that were hand pick to participate in this scheme. The Naperville charities now become the legal owners of the stock certificates so the original investors are given tax statements for their "donation". Let's not forget to mention that anyone who gifts stock to a charity in this manner is required to file special tax forms to cover the transaction and must file a manual tax statement, no electronic filing is possible, unless the IRS changes the rules. Let's also not forget to tell these same investors that if they already own some real stock that is worth $2,500 and which they bought at a lower price that they could donate such stock in lieu of a cash donation and avoid capital gain tax on the profit since it is supposed to be a charitable donation. Causes me to wonder why something as obvious as this would not be communicated to a potential investor? Of course we could also talk about the cap on charitable contributions that might apply to some of the "high rollers" that the Fund is hoping to attract.

But let's keep drilling down on this stock transfer and follow the money. Ok, the Fund transfered the money to the Naperville charities, but that is all they get... a piece of paper and a promise to be paid some time in the future. The Fund is still holding all of the money. Now out of the $2MM being collected at least $800,000 is going to Mr. Cobb to buy his house, at least $1.1MM is going to the architect and general contractor to renovate the house, another $100,000 is going towards attorney (the Fund identifies Mr. Rasche) and accounting fees, another $84,000 (the Fund identifies Mr. Rasche) is going towards real estate commissions, plus probably another $2,000 (the Fund identifies Mr. Rashce) for title insurance commissions, plus real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, etc., etc. expenses totaling a minimum of $2,104,000 using the Fund's very own numbers. The actual expenses could be lower or higher, even much higher because the Fund has complete discretion to spend the money any way it sees fit.

Now on page 2 of the "Notice of Offering" it is interesting that the Fund speculate that the home might only sell for $1,700,000 and that is based on a final estimate of the home being worth $2MM and the market being down 15%. If the market is down 25% as I suggest then the home will only be worth $1,500,000. Of course this number means nothing until the final restored value of the home is known along with what an actual buyer is willing to pay. Fact is there is nothing in the offering that prevents the Fund from selling the home to one of the principals of the Fund or one of it's good buddies for any amount it so wishes. The Fund answer to no one on this! The Fund could sell it to one of the principals for $1 and no one could stop the sale or do anything about it. But here is a hypothetical example of what could happen. The home could go on the market and a private transaction could take place with a sale price of around $1,000,000 dollars. The buyer could be someone who is a member of a very special "good old boy club". The buyer could hold on to the property for a brief period of time and then list it for sale again... claiming the market has "recovered" and proceed to sell it at the then fair market value and pocket a real healthy profit.

Meanwhile what happened to the Naperville charities... well the house was bought at $800,000 which was an inflated amount to begin, well above fair market value. Another $1.1 MM was allegedly spent on renovations ($600,000 more than previously estimated) which include gosh knows what plus all the other miscellaneous nickel and dime stuff that is going on to a total expense of $2,104,000 minus the $2,000,000 originally collected means the project is running a $104,000 deficit at this point. Next it gets sold for $1,000,000 minus the $104,000 deficit and that leaves maybe around $896,000 to find its way to Naperville charities.

With no accountability to anyone but itself the amount paid by the Fund to acquire the property, the amount paid to renovate the property, and the final selling price all directly relate to the amount of money that will eventually go to Naperville charities. The amount could be higher or lower than the theoretical example. What is interesting to note is that the Fund makes no commitment regarding what kind of financial stewardship it will exercise over this money considering it is being "donated" on the premise of benefiting Naperville charities.

Yes, I called this a scheme and that is because that is exactly what it sounds like to me. And I remain convinced that these tax deductible donations are questionable. Donating publicly traded stock is perfectly legal especially where the purchase price and value on the date of transfer are all public record. Same with the value on the date the charity decides to convert the stock to cash. Depending upon market conditions the charity could sell at more or less than the value on the date of transfer. With this scheme there is no way the charity can possibly receive more than $1,600,000 and will most likely receive far less based upon how the Fund manipulates the expenses, not free market conditions. Considering that the IRS is handing out a total of $2,000,000 in tax deductions for what is being specifically designed to be as little as $896,000 going directly to charity; I remain convinced that the IRS will be very interested in how the accounting was handled in this scheme. The Attorney General of Illinois is also taking a hard look at non-profit and charitable organizations and some are loosing their tax exempt status and property tax waivers based upon how they handle their money. The tax aspects of this scheme does not bode well with the present structure.

All non profit organizations and charities are under a microscope these days with relationship to the money they collect thru fund raising, their administrative costs, and the amount that finally goes directly toward the true charitable efforts of the organization. Every single one of these Naperville charities is going to end up with a black eye if they receive only $896,000 out of a $2,000,000 donation. That means that they will have to treat the other $1,104,000 as an administrative cost and it will kill their administration cost percentages. No charity is going to accept money with an administrative cost of 55% because it will kill off other potential donors, especially among the most philanthropic who these days demand that administrative costs account to no more than about 2-3 %.

Lastly, after all of this we can look at the part of the scheme where the Fund identifies where it thinks the base of support will come from in raising $2MM. Five people who will each give $100,000 each. Another five people who will give $50,000 each. Another 50 people who will give $10,000 each. Now, best of luck and may the Fund prove me wrong. I'm just cynical enough to believe that just about everyone in Naperville is sentimental enough to say that they would like to see this house not be demolished. Considering the general market condition and economic climate I simply do not see 60 individuals who would be interested in putting their money where their sentiment is and donate $10,000 or more to this scheme and especially not if they spent a few minutes thinking real hard about who is benefiting, personally and financially from this, and how much will actually be going to charity. It is interesting to note that this whole scheme is built around being able to donate money to charity, yet the entire mechanics of the "Notice of Offering" is dedicated to addressing the needs of the house. No specific or even minimum guarantees of any real monies to be transferred to Naperville charities is made. In fact, the possibility exists for the Fund to generate such excessive expenses that it could totally consume the total value of the stock or even leave the Naperville charities holding this stock responsible for unfunded liabilities.

I'd hate to think what would happen if a worker was somehow fatally injured on this renovation project and the Fund had to settle a death claim lawsuit. The Fund can bet with pretty high confidence that every single one of the Naperville charities holding stock certificates will be be named as codefendants along with the principals of the Fund. What does the Fund propose to do if the General Contractor runs into financial difficulty in their business as a whole, ends up not paying it's subcontractors, and the property becomes encumbered with Mechanic's Liens? These are but two examples of unanticipated problems that can seriously impact any renovation project, there are many others and none of them have been addressed in the "Notice of Offering".

All things considered the Fund would probably have better luck collecting donations toward a second carillon. Before I would invest one dime of my own money in such a loopholed riddled scheme I would want to see a completely rewritten "Notice of Offering" that closes all of these glaring loopholes and commits the Fund and it's management to meeting a well defined and specific budget with detailed line items that would be the basis for guiding and managing this project from inception thru completion. Lacking such a budget I would be loath to become involved with such a project in any way. Other investors are obviously free to make their own decisions regarding how, when, and why they invest their own money and the level of risk that they find acceptable.

I hope that if the city council approves the landmark status, there are grounds for the Cobbs to sue the city and those who signed the petition for landmark status. It would be different if he bought in the historical district, or a house already designated, but since the city would be forcing this on him, he should be able to get paid what he paid for the house, or sue everyone involved.

There are no grounds for any lawsuits if landmark status is granted, provided the city council follows the requirements of the existing city ordinance in so granting such status by passing a new city ordinance. What follows is copied directly from the city municipal code on the procedure to follow to request landmark status. From what has been reported it appears that this procedure has been followed.

"1. Procedure:

1.1. Any person, group of persons or association, or the historic sites commission on its own initiative, may request landmark designation for any improvement which is located within the corporate limits of the city and which may have historic significance as set forth in the criteria for evaluation. No such person, group of persons or association, nor the commission, shall be required to obtain the consent of the owner of the improvement prior to filing the application for landmark designation, nor shall the owner's consent be required as a condition of designation itself.

The application for landmark designation shall be in writing and shall contain such information and be in such form as the commission shall, by rule, prescribe from time to time. Forms required for landmark designation shall be supplied by the zoning administrator, upon request."

The next section is also copied directly from the municipal code and contains the criteria any property must possess to be designated as a landmark. From what has been reported it would appear that the property meets the criteria as written.

"2. Standards for Designation of Landmarks: The Historic Sites Commission shall not recommend nor the City Council grant a designation of a landmark unless it shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case that the proposed landmark meets the following requirements:

2.1. That it is located within the corporate boundaries of the City; and

2.2. That it is over thirty (30) years old, in whole or in part; and

2.3. That one or more of the following conditions exists:

2.3.1. That it may identify with an historic personage or with important events in national, State or local history;

2.3.2. That is may embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type inherently valuable for a study of a period, style, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

2.3.3. That it may represent the notable work of a master builder, designer or architect whose individual genius influences an era;

2.3.4. That it may be an improvement embodying all or part of the above characteristics, which is subject to encroachment of detrimental influences;

2.3.5. That it may be an improvement of historic, architectural, or cultural significance which is threatened with demolition by public or private action;

2.4. That it possesses integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, feeling and association; and

2.5. That it embodies such other qualities and characteristics as in the judgment of the Commission should be considered for the designation of a landmark."

Where Ken errors in his judgement is that no structure is required to be physically located within the historic district to be designated as a landmark. By default all structures located within a historic district are included in the designation. However, this does not prevent the commission from designating structures outside the historic district as landmarks and there are already other examples of structures that have been designated in this manner.

Why not donate to the needy, a homeless shelter, a church or the humane society? This is a broken down old house that is privately owned and not a part of the historical district (and purchased without landmark status). What gives people that don't own the home the right to tell the people that do own the home what to do with it? Ethical or not, the Cobbs own it. Wow, Naperville residents are a bunch of catty people with nothting better to do with their time than argue over a piece of property that isn't theirs. I'm embarassed to say I'm a resident. Donate to cause that will save a life, not a piece of property. Shame on you people.

I don't err in judgment anywhere, Anonymouse. I said that I hoped there were grounds to sue, not that there were grounds to sue. I also don't know if anyone has challenged the policy in court. I know that the owners of Wrigley Field considered doing it until the City of Chicago made enough concessions so they did not sue. I also don't know if the Cobbs have the money or the will to pursue a lengthy court case.

I just don't see where a person should lose the right to do what they want with there property without either giving up that right themselves or being compensated for the ability to do what they want.

Obviously, Anonymouse, you and others favor the communistic style of government where personal property rights do not exist. I do wonder if you would feel the same if it was your house, but since most of you property grabbers wouldn't actually put your money where your mouth is, we will never know.

Another interesting aspect to think about that relates to these renovation plans that are suggested to be worth $1.1MM... In yesterday's Naperville Sun there was an article about Fire Station #10 (which is also the subject of another thread on this forum). According to the Naperville Sun article the newest fire station will be a modern 9,885 square feet, state of the art, LEED certified facility with a total price tag of $2.54MM. Included in this price is the cost of one new fire truck that costs a cool $1MM. Which means the cost of the fire house after subtracting the cost of the truck is $1.54MM. And the city is still trying to save additional money by doing additional value engineering.

Now, I think there are many people who believe that government projects always seem to cost more than what a similar project would cost if built in the private sector. But let's get a few things straight with the house being renovated... first off, it is no where near 9,885 square feet in size. The proposal is to renovate, not build an entirely new structure. With a house we are talking about pretty basic systems for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. The utility systems installed in a fire house are far more complex especially considering the mechanical ventilation systems and all of the expensive emergency communication gear, emergency generator, etc, etc.

When considering that the base house is proposed to be purchased for $800K and then add on $1.1MM in renovations... the final product should be worth at least $1.9MM even though the organizers think they may only be able to sell it for $1.7MM.

Either way renovating this existing old house will cost either a couple hundred thousand dollars more or several hundred thousand dollars more than building a much larger, more complex, brand new fire station.

Something about this project just stinks to high heaven. Something just doesn't add up right. Seems this renovation project should hire the city's value engineering consultant to get their stratospheric cost proposal in line with reality.

Ken,

Yes, you erred in judgement. You stated and I quote: "It would be different if he bought in the historical district, or a house already designated, but since the city would be forcing this on him, he should be able to get paid what he paid for the house, or sue everyone involved."

These ordinances have been in the Municipal Code for years. Mr. Cobb is a professional real estate agent so he should be well versed in all laws affecting property that he is selling either on behalf of sellers or buyers that he is representing. As a property owner or potential property owner it would have been his responsibility to do his own due diligence and learn what laws might have an effect on property that he is about to purchase. This is no different than someone buying an old gasoline station hoping to tear it down and build a hot dog stand only to find out a whole bunch of environmental laws have to be met. You ask questions, you do your own research, you hire consultants, etc.

After you have made the purchase and then discover that an existing law applies to your property is not the time to complain. The time to back out of the deal is before you sign on the dotted line.

Ignorance of the law is no defense... ever heard that saying? Well it applies to Mr. Cobb and it applies to your lack of judgement in trying to argue your point that things "would be different if he bought in the historical district". The law isn't on your side or Mr. Cobb's side. Right now it is on the commission's side.

Ken, you obviously do not know what form of government I or others favor. I do know that we have a republic form of government and that our duly elected officials passed these laws and they have been in place for some time. Since you have a radically different view of property rights from our elected officials that causes you to go off on such an angry rant I would suggest that it is you who is far more subversive to city government by even suggesting there should be merit for a lawsuit in this case.

Your thought processes are exceptionally childish and immature. For example, you wrote and I quote: "I just don't see where a person should lose the right to do what they want with there property without either giving up that right themselves or being compensated for the ability to do what they want." "To do what they want with there(sic) property"? So anyone can sit on their front porch and shoot squirrels out their trees just because it is their property. Or maybe they should be able to burn garbage in their backyard just because it is their property? Or maybe they should be able to dig for gold in their front yard and end up with a 60 foot deep hole like that whack case in California just because it is their property? And if they can't do any of these things or other things you think they should somehow be compensated in some way by the government? Now that is awfully liberal and socialist talk coming from someone accusing others of being communists.

First off property rights were never intended to be a carte blanche blank check to do everything and anything you want regardless of you, your family, your neighbors, or the unsuspecting public. Traditional principles of property rights only include: control of the use of the property, the right to any benefit from the property, a right to transfer or sell the property, and a right to exclude others from the property.

If you truly believe that property rights should give you total and unrestrained freedom to do absolutely anything that you want to do... well all I can say is I've heard about neighbors like you... neighbors from hell that is.

Anonymouse, you are a still wrong, as I have not erred in judgment. I have expressed a different point of view, with some knowledge of the law, and questioning other aspects of it.

You say that the Cobbs should have known that neighbors and Communist "community activists" from hell like yourself could force the house into landmark status. I would think that they had this knowledge, but assumed that since it rarely happens, and since the house was in such bad condition, it would not be a worry. Now they have a lot of people who want to save the house without having to financially aid the plan, including the sellers of the house, forcing a different course of action than they wanted to take. As I stated, they did not buy a historically designated house, so they should have been safe in their assumption that they could do what they want with their property within the law.

That brings me to property rights. I haven't said that there should be total unrestrained freedom for property owners, only an idiot would suggest such a thing. But it is reasonable to assume in a town full of tear downs, one could buy a dilapidated house and tear it down without protest. Even your list of traditional property values backs up the Cobb's right to tear down the property. Traditional property values don't allow for a city to tell you that you have to maintain the property in a historical way, that is a recent development.

As I also said, I wonder what would happen if someone had the money and the time to challenge those ordinances. It seems from the article in the Tribune yesterday that Cobb is going along with the crowd instead of fighting it, so obviously he will not be the one to challenge it. You seem to think that anyone who challenges an ordinance is subversive, but I wonder if you would have the same attitude if your property was under the same sort of attack. The law may be on the commission's side only because no one has mounted a challenge to it.

Ken,

Whether you want to admit it or not you are wrong. The laws were already on the book when Cobb bought the house. These laws have been in place for some time. These laws allow property to be designated as historic or landmark a variety of ways. If Cobb had done his own due diligence correctly he could have made a reasonable determination as to whether or not the property he was about to purchase could potentially be designated historic or landmark under this ordinance. Because Cobb failed to do his own due diligence is something he will have to deal with. However, you clearly stated that it would be different if the house was located in the historic district. You made that statement wrongly assuming these laws only applied to homes in the historic district. You were wrong, you are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong until such time as these laws are changed.

Now you try to spin and shift and twist what you said with regard to property rights. You stated, and I quote:L "I just don't see where a person should lose the right to do what they want with there property..." You clearly stated that a person shouldn't loose the right to do what they want with there(sic) property. You stated that without conditions which implies an absolute right to do anything. Now you try to change your argument to suggest that "only an idiot would suggest such a thing". Well since you suggested it I guess we are in agreement on that you are an idiot.

It is not reasonable to assume anything just because tear downs may occur in this town. Anytime you assume anything you run the risk being part of the classic saying... assume makes an ASS out of U and ME. Ask any builder they know there are rules and they have to be careful not to break any. That is why their are professional builders... they take the time to learn the rules and how to apply them. If nothing else this puts a large magnifying glass on Cobb's own lack of knowledge of the rules of engagement in the town where he grew up and operating a business. If he can do this poorly for himself, God help his customers.

The difference between you and me is that if I don't agree with a law I will work to do something about it. I will use the system to attempt to bring about change. In your case you are quick to label anyone who disagrees with you as a communist; which is just another one of your childish and immature tendencies. When you can't argue you resort to name calling. And then you start whining and complaining about the unfairness of the law. Then you take a feeble, backhanded attack on the law by suggesting that the law is only in place because it has never been challenged. Here's a clue Einstein... there is plenty of case law if you care to go find it and read it. To understand why these laws do not undermine property rights, well first you have to understand the legal principles behind property rights and those principles are something that have clearly been lost on you.

If you are so adamant that this law is incorrect or bad then put your money where your mouth is and get off your lazy butt and actually do something to get it changed. Until you take the first step you are nothing but a whiner and complainer and everyone sees you for what you are. And yes, people who sit around and do nothing but snipe about laws and the "system" and elected officials and such are subversive. Two hundred years ago we had an even stronger word that was used to describe these same kinds of people.

Well, Anonymouse, at least you finally admit you are an ass, and I completely agree on your admission.

As for the rest, as I stated before, only an idiot would think that my statement on property rights meant Carte Blanche for the property owner, and since you have seen it that way twice, as shown by your long winded rants, it is pretty obvious who the idiot is.

As for putting my money where my mouth is, I have. I have not contributed to the fund to save the house because, in my opinion, the fund is helping to take away the property rights of the owner who reasonably assumed no one would want to save a dilapidated house. Since the fund still has not reached its goal, that seems to be a reasonable assumption.

People who sit around here and comment, or as you want to put it, snipe at the actions of a bunch of busybodies with no financial stake in a property yet want to dictate how that property is used, including village officials, are giving their opinion. Seems to me that's what these blogs are for.

You have an interesting view on the law, Anonymouse. All those people that fight new laws are subversives? If we follow your view, I guess we don't need a Supreme Court or any of the other courts below it, since only subversives populate those courts. Again, that view, along with your draconian views of property rights makes you sound like a perfect fit for a communist society.

Just out of idle curiosity, what would I have been called in 1808?

Ken,

"As for putting my money where my mouth is, I have. I have not contributed to the fund to save the house because, in my opinion, the fund is helping to take away the property rights of the owner who reasonably assumed no one would want to save a dilapidated house. Since the fund still has not reached its goal, that seems to be a reasonable assumption."

You gave nothing and you actually consider giving nothing as putting your money where your mouth is? I guess there is no low point on how far you will go in an attempt to twist words around in a futile attempt to make you sound better.

Keep practicing your writing and who knows maybe one day you might actually get good enough at your spin doctoring to be a speech writer for Obama. Just realize that no matter how good you get there will always be people who are analytical enough to see right thru you and see you for what you really are.

As for what you would have been called in 1808... would you prefer clinical terminology or street language?

Well, Anonymouse, it is putting my money where my mouth is because I am supporting what I have advocated from the first, that this is no one but the Cobb's business. You would think an analytical thinker could see that.

As for what you say I would be called in 1808, I would just like an answer, not you dodging the question.

Ken,

What I think an analytical thinker can see and see quite readily is that, true to fashion, you have attempted to manipulate the true meaning of an idiom. If you aren't putting up your own money, and you haven't, to financially support what you believe then this idiom does not apply.

You can go ahead and retract what you said incorrectly and find another convenient idiom is you care too. Of course if you apply a new idiom incorrectly I'll be sure to point that out to you as well.

I should be taking bets on this! Ka-ching! Yank! Yank!

I don't know why this simple concept is so hard for you to understand, Anonymouse. My mouth, or typed statements, have advocated letting the property owner do what he wants with his money and property. Therefore, I have lived up to the idiom of putting my money where my mouth is, since I have advocated not spending any of my money on another man's property. The idiom basically means backing ones belief's with actions that reflect those beliefs. My belief is that since it is none of my business, I need to take no action.

I am still waiting for an answer on the other question. I see you are still avoiding it.

I don't know why this simple concept is so hard for YOU to understand, Ken.

There are independent definitions of idioms and "putting your money where your mouth is" has already been defined by the experts. Sorry to be the bearer or bad news but the people who defined this idiom simply don't agree with you.

Until you fork over some of your own precious hard, earned cash you are not using this idiom appropriately. Argue as you may to the contrary, but the only one you have convinced that your own made-up definition of this idiom is correct, is yourself.

Funny, I googled the idiom, and this is the first definition I clicked on:

put your money where your mouth is
to do something rather than to just talk about it. I finally realized that I should stop complaining about the people who run our town, put my money where my mouth is, and run for office.
Usage notes: sometimes used in the form put its money where its mouth is: Congress needs to put its money where its mouth is and really support energy conservation.

I guess I convinced the google search program also. While there is a literal definition, as you are saying, there is also a widely accepted figurative definition. I guess that if you want to blindly follow only the literal definition, you are entitled to your misinformed opinion, but most experts agree with both literal and figurative definitions when dealing with idioms.

If you insist that there is only your definition when most educated people know different, I will have to conclude that you are an idiom idiot as you can't accept the figurative meanings found in idioms.

Really? When I google and quote I always provide a reference to my source. How do we know you didn't make this up just for convenience? Would you like me to quote ALL of the search sources for idiom definitions that disagree yours? And how many of the same definitions that I read did you pass up looking, searching, hoping, desperate to find one that you think will support your lame argument? Fact is I never said that I was defining this idiom nor did I ever say that there was only one definition. I didn't bring up the literal vs. figurative usage either, you did. I simply said that their was a true meaning of this idiom. What I also clearly said was that this idiom has been independent defined by experts; note the plural usage, meaning there are more than one. You have yet to convince me that you are either: 1. an expert, or 2. that your own definition, as you have previously attempted to self-define this idiom, is credible or consistent with conventional usage.

Actually though your own example of a figurative definition doesn't support you either, it supports me. And how misguided can you possibly be to have even have thought that it did support you? How far off the mark do you have to be before you ever realize, much less admit, you made a mistake?

"...putting my money where my mouth is, and run for office." It takes money, actually a lot of money, to run for any elected office and candidates commonly throw the first dollars in the pot to get things started. Wrong example.

"Congress needs to put its money where its mouth is and really support energy conservation" Most everything Congress does is spend our tax money. If Congress is going to support energy conservation they would most commonly fund research, grants, subsidies, etc as some of the possible examples of methods of financial support. Wrong example.

So let's see. You think I'm too literal. You conveniently want to use figurative usage because literal usage hits too close to home and comfort for you; yet you can't come up with a valid example of your desired figurative use.

All the while all we are discussing the correct definition of one silly, age old, commonly used idiom. So this is the best argument you can bring to the table? And you have the guts and arrogance to call me or anyone else an idiot? If I and everyone else you have called an idiot really are idiots... what does that make you?

And you actually think you possess even one of the skills that are required for others to regard you as a serious debater. Go figure. I'll bet you even carry a picture of yourself around in your own wallet.

It doesn't matter. This thread is dead. No one cares about Rasches or his silly idea. No one cares about your idioms much less your silly definitions of them. Continue to write to yourself if it makes you feel good because there were only you and I left and I just quit. So now you are left to carry on your argument with only yourself as an audience. Finally, an argument you can't loose. But knowing you there is always that possibility....

Well, Anonymouse, since you are once again implying I am a liar, I will give you the link. By the way, I think you may have linked to material once in all our discussions, and it was off topic.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+money+where+mouth+is

As I stated before, this is the first entry that google pulled up, so there was no desperate search to find something that backed me up. Of course, I understand that idioms are not meant to be taken literally, something you seem unwilling to admit.

I notice you conveniently left out the first part of the definition, as it did not fit your interpretation. Funny how someone who thinks he is skilled debater cannot see the gaps in his own arguments. Whether discussing idioms,fables, or even Confucius's sayings, anyone with any bit of intelligence would consider both the literal and figurative meanings.

I am sure you know this, but it did not fit your agenda, so you conveniently ignored that bit of common knowledge. Of course, I may be given you too much credit with that thought, but unlike you, I like to give fellow bloggers the benefit of the doubt.

I hadn't seen this link before nor quoted from it personally so it wasn't possible for me to leave anything out of or ignore part of the definition. If you weren't in such a rush to jump to conclusions all the time and spent less time accusing other posters of all sorts of things wrongly you would have a lot less damage control to deal with. And trust me on this one... you aren't sure of much of anything... much less what I or anyone else knows.

Regardless, using your own quoted definition... even it clearly states that you have to do something... and you haven't done anything... and you have clearly stated that you took no action... so your usage of this idiom is still incorrect. Wrong example. Feel free to try again. Google is a big place. Keep trying. Maybe you will find something.

I'm done with this line of thought, Anoymouse. I have explained it so well a simpleton could understand it, yet you can't. Enough said.

Ken,

Well at least you "put your money where your mouth was" in your attempt to provide an explanation, even if your explanation was all wrong. Yeah, you actually do get credit for doing "something" even when the "something" is wrong. It is kind of ironic that it ends up being I who has to point out a correct use of your own idiom to you.

Yep, enough said.

It is even more ironic, anonymouse, that your magnanimous statement of you pointing out that I have used the idiom correctly backs up what I was saying the whole time.

And you actually applied what line of logic to that statement?