HUD housing and urban development

illegal aliens are here, on your taxes...

2009-10-01T05:43:00.000-07:00

people in america are you aware illegal aliens can come to america, never work a day in this country and still get
social security, get their rent paid by u.s. tax payers through hud. yes, mexicans and koreans live here in los angeles.
the thing is we are paying over a $1,000.00 per person per month for seniors who never worked a day in america to
retire and live in federally funded housing... problem is hud claims they do not rent units to "illegal aliens" which is an
outright lie... hud is doing this all over america. if there is a chapter in your city... it's over-run with corruption you
can count on that.

now, i am a former HUD employee so before you talk smack be careful i have documents from hud regarding rentals and
other documentation i've retained while working for them. before you start defending people who are using the government to rip us off and rob us blind you better remember it's your money too. we are allowing illegal aliens to come here illegally, rip off our social services and violate our rights all while demanding they be given amnesty.

downtown los angeles is mostly hispanic and asian. seniors from KOREA who are getting our tax dollars... non of these people
are entitled to the money they are stealing from us as democrats sweep it all under the rug. we are being lied to, we are being robbed, we are being invaded... communists have taken hold of the white house...

i am strongly requesting an investigation into hud, acorn and any government agencies where criminal activities can take place or money can be misappropriated. hud is dirty. and i think if we dig we will find some amazing theft of our taxes and not only
from illegal aliens but also from hud employees.
theft of our tax dollars. hud also has many other problems. they hire drug addicts, substance abusers to maintain these housing units

hud is trash, nothing but garbage.

2009-10-01T05:40:00.000-07:00

Here’s a scheme that has sprouted from the avalanche in bank-owned, aka REO (real estate owned) market. It should outrage every honest, hard-working person who plays by the rules and doesn’t want to subsidize those who don’t.
The City of Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD), under its Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), declares that every property within its boundaries that contains a tenant is subject to the RSO when that property’s title reverts back to an institutional lender, usually meaning a bank. Under the doctrine that it is not the tenants’ fault that the former property owner defaulted on their loan (neither is it the bank’s), the LAHD requires banks to pay crushing relocation fees to the tenants before the banks can move those tenants out in order to market and resell the property. In contrast, once the property is sold to a new owner, the new owner must merely give the tenants 60 days notice; no relocation fees required if the new owner moves in. And if the tenants qualify as “low income” under federal HUD (Housing and Urban Development) poverty guidelines, the banks are forced to pay the tenants even more – almost $18,000. Contrast this sum with the $3,000 or less that the former homeowners are likely to receive from the lender for vacating the property without damaging it (“cash for keys”).
These generous pay-outs established by the cash-strapped, almost-bankrupt City of L.A., besides putting a damper on business, have created a cottage industry in fraud by some renters and pretend-renters. Here’s how their Let’s-get-some-free-money scheme works:
The former owners, having lost their home to foreclosure, get a cooperative real estate agent to write an offer on the property for new “buyers”, claiming that the buyers are “tenants” living on the foreclosed property. The buyers/tenants are usually either friends or relatives of the former owners, but with a different surname. If the buyers succeed in fooling the bank’s listing agent and the bank’s asset managers, they purchase the property and join their relatives there. They might even transfer title back to the former owners in a year or so once they believe no one is looking.
If the “tenants” fail in their quest to purchase the property, they then demand the generous location fees as set forth by the LAHD, again sums that can total close to $18,000. Maybe these con artists will even produce a phony lease agreement between themselves and the former owners to “prove” that they are tenants.
Sometimes, the former homeowners don’t bother with setting up a buyer for their foreclosed property. Instead, they collude with friends or relatives, installing the latter as “tenants” in order to “qualify” for the LAHD relocation assistance fees.
And of course there are a number of attorneys and tenants’ “rights” groups swarming, ready to save the renters, or would-be renters, from the evil banks.
My beef is not with our legal system protecting the disabled or elderly persons, which it should; it is against overly rewarding able-bodied working persons to the extent where it creates incentives to be dishonest and no downside if the dishonesty is discovered. Why should low-income renters be paid to move when middle-class renters get nothing? Why are some cities paying teenage girls not to get pregnant? Doesn’t anybody think this system of entitlement is nuts and is creating a nation of sloths?
How does the honest consumer fit into this equation? Very simply: all businesses pass on their costs in the form of higher fees; banks are no different. Having to pay $18,000 to get tenants out of a $200,000 or $300,000 property creates more losses on the banks’ balance sheets, again, stifling business. And because banks are now required, courtesy the LAHD, to lay out large sums of money to either real or make-believe tenants, the banks are much less likely to pay to repair their REOs for a new, legitimate buyer.
It’s not that I’m defending banks wholesale; what I’m concerned with is the LAHD creating a hostile environment for businesses to operate and no defined penalties to discourage renters from fraudulently milking the system. There are very few municipalities in the U.S. that are as generous with other people’s money as the City of Los Angeles Housing Department, so my question to the LAHD is, what do they know that the other municipalities in this country don’t?

hud will take everything from you...

2009-10-01T05:32:00.000-07:00

We had a FHA home loan that was serviced by GMAC Mortgage. They first filed an illegal foreclosure in 2001. I notified HUD to file a complaint and provided HUD proof that GMAC was in violation of HUD guidelines. GMAC was forced to drop the foreclosure and we reinstated our mortgage. However, with my very next mortgage payment after reinstated the mortgage was not credited to my account. I wrote to GMAC but got no response.

I then sent to them two mortgage payments in guaranteed funds and mailed them by UPS so I would have proof. Again they did not credit the account and again filed foreclosure. I filed bankruptcy in order to stop the foreclosure. Before confirming the bankruptcy I contacted HUD again and explained the situation. HUD told me the bankruptcy would have to be dropped and then GMAC would work with us. I contacted GMAC and told them I was dropping the bankruptcy and as soon as they received verification by the court the bankruptcy was dropped to send the the paperwork for us to refinance and reinstate the loan. Instead of doing that they went ahead with the foreclosure without notifying us.

I contacted HUD and they were investigating. HUD requires you stay in the home in order for them to assist homeowners. While awaiting a response from HUD the sheriff came and said they would return in 48 hrs to lock up our home.

I then frantically faxed HUD and called leaving messages telling them what happened. HUD didn't stop the sheriff however so the sheriff came kicked us out of the home with only the clothes on our backs. HUD then refused to help us because we were no longer in the home. GMAC would not let us get our property out of the home so we lost everything we owned. I don't have pictures of my children growing up, nothing. Everything but what we were wearing was taken. GMAC and HUD destroyed our lives.

Teresa
Midwest City, Oklahoma
U.S.A.

Democrats still fund this rogue operation.

2009-10-01T05:30:00.000-07:00

ACORN!

In the last few days, the Census Bureau has severed ties with the advocacy group Acorn, and the Senate has voted to deny it access to federal housing funds. That's the good news. The not-so-good news is that it took this long and hidden-camera video footage of Acorn workers apparently advising others to commit crimes before federal officials would act.

Allegations of fraud have dogged Acorn for years, sometimes resulting in convictions. Last week in Florida, authorities arrested 11 Acorn workers and charged them with submitting fake voter registration papers. Two months ago, GOP Representative Darrell Issa of California issued a 88-page staff report on the organization's activities.

"The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud," begins the report. "Both structurally and operationally, Acorn hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American public."

Mr. Issa is the ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the report goes on to note that "since 1994, more than $53 million in federal funds have been pumped into Acorn, and under the Obama Administration, Acorn stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in stimulus funds." Acorn's chief organizer, Bertha Lewis, replied at the time that "an initial review indicates that the document is a recycled and repackaged partisan attack job on Acorn's good work."

The videos, which were made by self-described conservative activists, show Acorn employees exhibiting disdain for the law. In one, a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp are given advice on how to open a brothel and launder the ill-gotten earnings. The couple, which is seeking help to obtain a housing loan, is instructed by Acorn workers on the video first to set up a company to prove they have enough income to buy a house that would serve as a brothel and a home for child prostitutes from El Salvador. Acorn's Ms. Lewis responded that the videos had been "doctored" and she threatened legal action against Fox News Channel for showing them, but the group nevertheless fired the employees involved.

Incredibly, even after these revelations, six Democratic Senators and one liberal Independent still voted against barring the group from receiving federal housing money. (See nearby list.) Or maybe this isn't so surprising given the deep ties between Acorn and one of the Democratic Party's most reliable special interest groups, Big Labor. In some states, Acorn and the Service Employees International Union share a mailing address. Some Democrats so value Acorn's political activism that the group's unscrupulous behavior, however egregious, is apparently excusable.

Conservatives have long complained that the type of voter fraud countenanced by liberal groups like Acorn taint the integrity of the ballot. Liberals remain unpersuaded, though to date some 70 Acorn employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. The political left insists that voter identification laws suppress turnout, especially among minorities. Yet Georgia and Indiana, the states with the strictest voter ID laws, had record voter turnout including record Democratic turnout last November. Courts have repeatedly struck down attempts by Acorn activists and others to repeal these laws as discriminatory.

Yesterday, Republican Senator Richard Shelby called on Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate Acorn. That's a good start, but the videos and Congressman Issa's July report suggest that a Justice Department criminal investigation is also needed. Meanwhile, the House and the Obama Administration should follow the Senate's lead and bar Acorn from receiving any more taxpayer money.

hud investigates acorn?

2009-10-01T05:28:00.000-07:00

AND WHO'S INVESTIGATING HUD?

Yesterday, Republican Senator Richard Shelby called on Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate Acorn. That's a good start, but the videos and Congressman Issa's July report suggest that a Justice Department criminal investigation is also needed. Meanwhile, the House and the Obama Administration should follow the Senate's lead and bar Acorn from receiving any more taxpayer money. Sept. 15 09

hud cockroaches...

2009-10-01T05:26:00.000-07:00

HUD chief resigns amid ethics investigations

NEW: Bush praises HUD secretary;
Senate critic welcomes his resignation

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson to step down on April 18

Jackson is the subject of several ethics investigations
FBI looking at charges of cronyism; Jackson denies wrongdoing

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson resigned Monday, amid multiple ethics investigations and criticism from top lawmakers.

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson speaks at a news conference in December.

Jackson, who said his resignation would take effect April 18, did not mention the allegations in his brief statement Monday, saying only he needed to focus on "personal and family matters."

The resignation came after criticism from members of Congress that Jackson has refused to respond adequately to allegations of impropriety.

President Bush said in a statement, Jackson "made significant progress in transforming public housing, revitalizing and modernizing the Federal Housing Administration, increasing affordable housing, rebuilding the Gulf Coast, decreasing homelessness, and increasing minority homeownership." Watch Jackson talk about his career at HUD »

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who recently called for Jackson to resign, welcomed his decision to step down.

"I hope this change in personnel will be matched by a change in policy that brings real solutions to the housing crisis that has triggered this economic recession," Dodd said.

No names have been floated as candidates to replace Jackson, a long-time friend of President Bush from their days in Texas.

One possibility would be to promote from within the department, given the short time remaining in the president's term and the hostility he faces from the Democratic-controlled Senate, which must confirm Jackson's replacement.

Dodd and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, demanded Jackson's resignation 10 days ago, saying the ethics allegations have distracted from the secretary's ability to handle the nation's housing crisis.

"Secretary Jackson has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not in the position to provide the type of leadership that is necessary during these trying and difficult times," Dodd said in the statement. He said an inspector-general's report recently stated that Jackson had advised staffers to "take political affiliation into account in awarding contacts," and "serious allegations about his impropriety" are under investigation in three cases, although Dodd did not name them.

Dodd is chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Murray is chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Jackson has recently been accused in a lawsuit of retaliating against housing officials in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for blocking a land deal with one of Jackson's friends. The FBI has been investigating allegations that Jackson steered a federal contract to a golfing buddy based in South Carolina.

The secretary has denied wrongdoing and White House officials have said for months that the president still has confidence in Jackson. No charges have been filed against him.

Jackson has been a key player in the Bush administration's efforts to handle the national housing and mortgage crisis.

Before coming to Washington, Jackson ran Dallas' housing authority for seven years and then led a Texas power company. He also was head of the Federal Housing Administration. His announcement of his resignation comes four years to the day after he was confirmed as secretary.

Speaking to reporters at HUD headquarters in Washington on Monday, Jackson said he had devoted his career to improving housing opportunities.

"As the son of a lead smelter and nurse midwife, and the last of 12 children, never did I imagine I would serve America in such a way," Jackson said about his Cabinet post. "I am truly grateful for the opportunity."

"We have helped families keep their homes, we have transformed public housing, we have reduced chronic homelessness, and we have preserved affordable housing and increased minority homeownership," he said.

A Jackson adviser told CNN earlier that the secretary has been privately talking about resigning since late last year because he's grown weary over multiple ethics investigations and allegations that he cannot focus full time on the nation's housing crisis. E-mail to a friend

illegals get free rent...

2009-10-01T05:12:00.000-07:00

Illegal immigrants again in the budget spotlight in California

July 10, 2009 edwardprzydzial.com

As California lawmakers struggle with a budget gap that has now grown to $26.3 billion, one of the hottest topics for many taxpayers is the cost to the state of illegal immigrants, write Anna Gorman and Teresa Watanabe.

"The question of whether taxpayers should provide services to illegal residents became a major political issue in California's last deep recession, culminating in the ballot fight over Proposition 187 in 1994. That history could repeat itself in the current downturn, as activists opposed to illegal immigration have launched a campaign for an initiative that would, among other things, cut off welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Those children are eligible for welfare benefits because they are U.S. citizens.

"State welfare officials estimate that cutting off payments to illegal immigrants for their U.S.-born children could save about $640 million annually if it survives legal challenges."

The report also includes the following findings:
--California has roughly 2.7 million illegal residents, about 7% of the state’s population. State officials estimate that they add between $4 billion and $6 billion in costs, primarily for prisons and jails, schools and emergency rooms.

--Beyond those services, the undocumented population adds to the overall cost of other parts of local government, including police and fire protection, highway maintenance and libraries.

--On the other side of the ledger, undocumented residents pay taxes -- sales taxes on what they buy, gasoline taxes when they fuel their cars, property taxes if they own homes. How much those taxes come to is hotly debated, although most researchers agree that the short-term costs to state and local government are bigger than the revenues.

A new analysis of date from a 2008 report from the Pew Hispanic Center (which you can download here) found that about three-quarters (76%) of the unauthorized immigrants in the U.S are Hispanic and that the majority of undocumented immigrants (59%) are from Mexico. However, figures do suggest that that illegal immigration -- at least to California -- is slowing.

http://www.fga-net.com/

can i be a gubment leech?

2009-10-01T05:11:00.000-07:00

If you are pro-immigration, does my plan bother you?
So, I have succumbed to the liberal way of thinking. I understand their point of view and I think now is the time do act upon it.

All of my life I have worked hard. I have done the things needed to get me through life without any aid from the government or handouts from my fellow Americans. But, I have seen how those that are pro-illegal (er..pro-amnesty) want to hand tax payer dollars out to those here illegally and I think, as an American, I should take advantage of this opportunity as well.

I mean, my husband and I both work full time and I go to school full time. We pay our own health care, our own daycare during the summer, I pay for my tuition out of my pocket ($15,000.00 a year) and I also pay for my son's tuition for private school (that's another $4000.00 a year). I have served my country, 6 years active duty Navy and I am tired. I am tired of paying taxes to support those that are illegally in this country, or those that will not help themselves.

So, here it goes.

My husband and I are getting a divorce. No need for that pesky marriage getting in the way of our entitlements from the government.

I am quitting my job. Why work when I can get things handed to me from the government.

I am applying for HUD so that my rent will only be $50.00 a month. I have seen the places that take HUD and Section 8…not shabby….some are actually nicer than where we are living now.

I am going to get government medical, well since I am not working, I won't have insurance....and you KNOW that it is the taxpayers responsibility to insure my kid (even though you didn't have him)

I am going to get food stamps…got to feed that kid that I can't afford.

And to top it off…now since I am on welfare….MY SCHOOL IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Woooo hoooooo

Talk about a deal.

So thanks all of you bleeding hearts…you have helped me see that light. I now realize that personal responsibility is WAY over rated and something that I can do without.

I mean, if the illegals and their anchor babies are getting all this…why can't I?

But, of course, my husband is still going to live with me, so we will still have his income on top of what we are getting from the government. We just don't want that "marriage" thingy getting in the way of all our freebies.

Gubment cheese….yummy.

hud is full of corruption like acorn...

2009-10-01T05:05:00.000-07:00

HUD: Five Million Fraudulent Mortgages Held by Illegals

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 ~ edwardprzydzial.com

Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It's not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.

One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.

http://kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695&article=4364653

liberals are hiding social engineering rip offs...

2009-10-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

Democrats Scramble To Cover-up HUD Loans To Illegal Immigrants--Why!

By Edward Przydzial October 9, 2008

It is a sad day for America and all Americans. The massive arm of corporate and government censorship came down today in aid of keeping Americans blind to their corrupt government and the criminal complicity of the Democratic Party and its leadership.

The stories about HUD having to deal with millions of bad loans that were issued to illegal immigrants is an indisputable fact. It is also a fact that HUD is outrage that the facts were brought out and that HUD does not differentiate between those in the US legally and those in the country illegally.

HUD's position is that it does not track the legal status of those who receive loans through their programs. This is extremely disturbing. First, this official statement by HUD now helps prove that HUD's administrators are guilty of criminal negligence. One has to ask why HUD would self-indict itself and why news agencies would suddenly pull their news stories on the powerful reality?

Let's backup. HUD says it does not track the legal immigration status of those who receive their funding assistance. Yet several federal laws require them to do so.

Federal law requires that the HUD NOT issue loans to persons who are in the country illegally. Federal law makes it a felony for any loan officer or broker or agent or other to assist, aid, and abet illegal immigrants in any way, especially helping them secure homes.

When HUD and banks and others assisted millions of illegal aliens to secure federal funding on such a large scale, they fell under federal RICO laws and are now subject to federal prosecution for racketeering, among so many other criminal violations that it is just mind boggling.

Therefore, when HUD denies the federal loans that were made did not involve the screening of loan applicants as to their legal status, HUD and all its employees, agents, consultants, banks, title insurance companies, and others involved with the sale and lending of real estate under HUD programs to illegal immigrants are then admitting their guilt as to RICO and other law violations. These and other crimes committed by HUD, banks, and others are subject to prosecution and should result in serious jail time for thousands of employees, all due to what appears to be pre-mediated criminal conspiracy or criminal negligence---something the federal courts will need to decide.

One has to ask of these government and banking and real estate professionals just how could they ignore an arm's full of federal laws each time they aided and abetted illegal immigrants to buy or finance homes on deals that did or did not involve federal dollars or federal mortgage insurance--unless it was deliberate crime?

The equally dark question is, why did Democratic leaders Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all make quiet little emergency scrambles behind the scenes over the last couple of days? Where they scrambling to quash the HUD story from leaking out or spreading? Was it damage control to keep the public from finding out about Presidential candidate Barack Obama's and the Democratic Party's direct involvement with this criminal issue?

And could the press corps be tricked into cooperating with the Democrats unless they were siding with them? Why was the original HUD story pulled off radio and the key news outlets on the Net? Why did HUD make such a outrageous self-incriminating statement in an effort to desperately quash the story knowing full well that such admissions can be used against them in a court of law?

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a very sad day for America, democracy, and right of the people to know. It is a black day on America when our national press corps helps cover up the single, largest reason for the entire economic melt-down that is destroying the wealth of this nation and its people. As far as this reporter is concerned, any journalist not filing an investigative story on this issue should get out of the profession or they should by charged with conspiracy after the fact---it's a pure abomination of the the free press and the First Amendment when our press corps complies with corporate or government decries.

The American people have been swindled in the single largest crime of the century and the criminals, aided by the press, are about to get away with it.

tax payers paying rent for illegal aliens...

2009-10-01T05:02:00.000-07:00

Concern Over Illegals in Public Housing

More news stories on Immigration
AP, Jan. 1, 2009

Untold thousands of illegal immigrants live in public housing at a time when hundreds of thousands of citizens and legal residents are stuck waiting years for a spot.

Illegal immigrants make up a tiny portion of the 7.1 million people in federal housing, according to government statistics. But authorities may be unaware of thousands more, and critics say no illegal immigrant should get housing benefits.

The issue made headlines in November with news that Zeituni Onyango, an aunt of President-elect Barack Obama, was living in Boston public housing while in the country illegally.

The federal government, which funds the lion’s share of the nation’s public housing, requires only that illegal immigrants share a home with at least one family member who is in the country legally and pay their share of the rent.

While there are no hard numbers on illegal immigrants in public housing, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that 29,570 people—0.4 percent of all those in federally funded housing—are “ineligible noncitizens.” Some may be on temporary visas, such as highly educated workers or college students, but many are believed to be illegal immigrants.

{snip}

The HUD tally does not offer a full picture of how many illegal immigrants are in public housing.

It doesn’t include housing funded by state and local governments, where eligibility requirements vary. Massachusetts, where Obama’s aunt occupied one of about 50,000 state-funded units, doesn’t ask immigration status under a 1977 federal consent decree in a class-action lawsuit that prohibits the state from denying the benefit to illegal immigrants.

{snip}

Some prospective tenants and advocates of immigration restrictions are angry about U.S. citizens waiting for housing aid that some number of illegal immigrants are enjoying.

New York City has about 260,000 people in line for housing aid. Chicago recently opened its waiting list for the first time in about 10 years and collected 259,000 names in four weeks for 40,000 slots.

“As long as that waiting list includes American citizens or legal immigrants, there’s no reason an illegal alien should occupy any of that housing,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that supports curbs on immigration.

In San Diego, applicants are told they can expect to wait five to seven years.

{snip}

Onyango, the half-sister of Obama’s late father, applied for public housing in 2002 while she was in the country legally seeking asylum from her native Kenya, said Lydia Agro, spokeswoman for the Boston Housing Authority, which has a waiting list of nearly 20,000 people.

Onyango moved into federally funded housing in 2003 and stayed there after 2004, when, The Associated Press learned, an immigration judge denied her asylum application and ordered her to leave the country.

Onyango transferred to an apartment funded only by the state, which cannot ask about immigration status under the court order. In November, her attorney said she was staying with relatives in Cleveland and would fight her deportation order.

hud contacts...

2009-10-01T04:36:00.000-07:00

These are subsidized Apt. Rentals in San Diego, CA. If you want to find more go to : ( hud.gov ) and input your information of where your looking.

Falkenberg/Gilliam & Associates
Phone: 619 293 3893
carolbenninger@fga-net.com 1ST CONGREGATIONAL MEM TOWER
3541 PARK BLVD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-5256

BAY VISTA METHODIST HEIGHTS, INC.
Phone: 619 2632221
BAY VISTA METHODIST HEIGHTS
4888 LOGAN AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92113-3004

Big Sister League Residency
Phone: (619) 692-1485
BIG SISTER LEAGUE RESIDENCY
3360 4th Avenue
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-5704

FF Properties LP
Phone: (858)672-2001
dleitner@ffres.com CANYON RIM APARTMENTS
10845 Via Los Narcisos
San Diego, CA 92129-1743

S.K. Management Co., LLC
Phone: (619)287-2910
cwhite9848@aol.com CASA COLINA DEL SOL
5207 52nd Place
SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-2200

Falkenberg/Gilliam & Associates
Phone: 619 291 3883
CATHEDRAL ARMS
3911 PARK BLVD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-3546

Tarantino Property Mgmt
Phone: (951) 303-0336
CATHEDRAL PLAZA
1551 THIRD AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-3114

COMMERCIAL FACILITIES, INC.
Phone: 6192755361
CERRO PUEBLO
2835 CLAIRMONT DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117-6755

G & K Management Co., Inc.
Phone: 619 696 02 01
COLUMBIA TOWER
904 State St
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-6037

Related Management Company, L.P.
Phone: (619)423-8711
lleavitt@related.com CORONADO TERRACE I
1183 25TH ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92154-3203

Related Management Company, L.P.
Phone: (619)423-8711
lleavitt@related.com CORONADO TERRACE II
1183 25TH ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92154-3203

Cameron Apartments Ltd Partnership
Phone: (858) 279-6060
CRANDALL APTS
2154 Garston St
San Diego, CA 92111-6326
Phone: (858) 279-6060

INTERFAITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE CORP.
Phone: (619)266-8395
DELTA MANOR APARTMENTS
4245 DELTA ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92113-4134

MONFRIC, INC.
Phone: (619)276-6271
mgrady2@qwest.net EUCLID AVENUE APTS
4115 EUCLID AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-1928

GOLDEN AGE APTS SERVICE, AKA SANDRA ROBINSON
Phone: (619) 231-7833
GOLDEN AGE GARDENS APTS
740 S 36th St
SAN DIEGO, CA 92113-2750

Falkenberg/Gilliam & Associates
Phone: (619) 298-5442
GRACE TOWER
3955 PARK BLVD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-3521

Hallmark Asset Managment
Phone: (619) 298-9292
GRANT HEIGHTS PARK
2663 J ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92102-3046

Falkenberg/Gilliam & Associates
Phone: (619) 297-1601
GREEN MANOR
4041 IBIS ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-1833

Tarantino Property Mgmt
Phone: (951) 303-0336
GUADALUPE PLAZA
4142 42ND ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92105-1598

INTERFAITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE CORP.
Phone: (619)239-5171
snashall@sdihf.org HORTON HOUSE
333 G ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-693

2009-10-01T04:20:00.000-07:00

Millennium Park Rip Off!

Father Flanagan

Recently, the city of Chicago spent $475,000,000 to build it's Millennium Park. The project (which was supposed to be completed for the year 2000) wasn't completed until four years later in 2004. At a staggering cost of $475,000,000 to Chicago's citizens, the park soared $325,000,000 over the original budget of $150,000,000. How can a project cost 316% more than initially planned? Why did the project take an extra four years? One does not have to be an intellect to smell a dead rat here. I am not trying to be unkind, but there are many issues which need to be addressed (and should be).

I've lived in Chicago for all of my life. Chicago surely is a "windy city" when it comes to political smoke and mirrors and city-hall corruption. Scandal after scandal has plagued Chicago politicians for decades. Recently, the Chicago Sun-Times exposed a massive trucking scandal involving city contracts and employees under the Daley administration. As usual, politically connected families and friends were milking tax-payers dry. Every time a scandal is uncovered, the mayor declares his innocence and vows to get to the bottom of the matter. A few people are "fired" to appease the public, but they are just rehired into other cushy jobs as soon as the dust settles. The public buys it every time and the corruption continues. It's sad, but true...the average citizen calms down when someone gets fired. Unfortunately, firing a few people does nothing to return the hundreds-of-millions of dollars stolen from the public. Firing a few people does not rid the system of the big crooks at the top.

It's the perfect SCAM! Think about it. You're the top crook in the organization. You want to do illegal things to make money but don't want to get caught. So you surround yourself with well-paid fall guys to do all YOUR dirty work. If you get caught, you play dumb and blame one or more of your accomplices working under you. You may even fire them to appease the public's wrath. Then you have your buddies rehire those same fired people into other well paying jobs. Loyalty has it's payoffs. The crime continues and no one can touch you because there are several layers of accomplices under you. They take the blame, but are never punished. Clinton pardoned 200 such criminals in his last day of the Presidency. It is sickening!

What I just described is going on all across America. Leaders of corporations act so innocent (like they had no idea what was going on in their own company) and instead blame their employees. Enron is a good example. The employees take the rap in exchange for lots of money and benefits (or for fear of never having a decent job again). I see this in the government, corporations, the military, etc.

The federal government is even worse, stealing billions from the public. $59,000,000 vanished from the HUD department under the Clinton administration. The HUD kingpin in the theft was convicted in court, but Bill Clinton pardoned the criminal in his last day of the Presidency. Where's the money Mr. Clinton? What has happened to America? The saddest thing of all is that many Americans still uphold Clinton is a great guy; not in the eyes of decency.

So here we have the mega over budgeted and over scheduled Millennium Park finally finished in 2004. Where did all the money go Mr. Daley? Where did $475,000,000 go? I have seen the park and I surely don't see the value. $475,000,000??? I don't think so. It's obvious to me that we have been hood winked again as Chicagoans. While the threat of sky-rocketing property-tax increases hovers over the already burdened Chicago homeowners, hundreds-of-millions of dollars are squandered in the Millennium Park project. Common sense tells you that you don't spend more money when you're already in debt. Chicago is in debt! You pay your bills first. You buy what you NEED first. If there's anything left, then you buy the toys, parks and goodies later on. This problem is not just in Chicago, but it is definitely a big problem here. We have no business building a theme park with a sickening price tag. What was wrong with Grant Park? Chicago's tourism will not bring back the $475,000,000 lost on Millennium Park. We tax-payers ask again to the leaders of Chicago, where did that money go?

Furthermore, why should the State of Illinois be burdened with Chicago's failing public school system when we have $475,000,000 to burn? Would you give money to a financially irresponsible person? Chicago's management is irresponsible, Millennium Park alone proves that. It is sad to see such a large amount of money wasted on an unnecessary project while Chicago public schools are amongst the worst tin the country. While our neighborhood are filled with drug-dealers, we are told that the city cannot afford to hire more police officers. While our neighborhood are filled with teenagers with nothing but time on there hands to get into trouble, the city is building a nice park downtown. How sweet! So while teenagers are joining gangs and killing each other, the money that could be spent to build them thousands of community activity centers was spent on a lousy park, a park surrounded by massive traffic jams and dangerous conditions.

Where is your heart Mr. Daley? It surely is not for the people of Chicago. We don't need an inaccessible park downtown, we need local community centers where our young people can learn wood-working classes, educational projects and all sorts of constructive things. If nothing more, we drastically need more police protecting our neighborhoods at night. All that money wasted! $475,000,000 squandered away. I look at Millennium Park and I see a cheaply constructed joke. I don't see anything resembling a $475,000,000 project. I believe the money was squandered from tax-payers, but where did it all go? Did someone deliberately plan for the project to cost 316% more than it should have? Did someone deliberately plan for the project to take an extra four years? It would appear to be obvious. Isn't it coincidence that the park all of a sudden is finished a couple months after the trucking scandal was exposed and the mayor was caught with his pants down (again)? The mayor claims he'll get to the bottom of the matter. Please Mayor Daley, stop with the Bull. The problem is not at the bottom, it is at the top in your office.

The bottom line is that the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. I'm sick of hearing Mayor Daley and all the other useless politicians speak about helping the poor, yet the poor never get helped. The Chicago public school system is a joke, a total failure. All that money spent on Millennium Park could have went to the school system. What is going on? Why does Daley say one thing, but do another? He speaks of bettering Chicago's communities, but they do not get better. A few speed bumps here and there, a few trees here and there, a new road here and there...but what about the young people?

Chicago rakes in millions upon millions of dollars every year in parking tickets and fines alone. Where does all the money go? Chicago has all kinds of money, but it's going in the politicians pockets (and all their friends). Chicago aldermen each make well over $100,000 a year. That is absurd! No politician (who is supposed to be a public servant) should make that ridiculous amount of money. Do you know why they are paid so much? The answer is simply because they are bought off. They get paid very well to keep quiet...don't ask...don't tell. And the machine goes on...

Chicagoans are being ripped off big time. The Millennium Park is a big scam as far as I'm concerned. Even if city-planners can account for all the $475,000,000 (which I highly doubt), the money should not have been spent in a time of budget deficit and financial crisis. Either Mayor daily is an idiot or he's one brilliant criminal. If you or I did what he gets away with, we would go to jail. But who suffers? The children of Chicago, our communities. We are sick and tired of hearing about ghost payroll jobs, scandals, corruption and giant needless projects that rob Chicago of what it really needs...accountability. There is no accountability amongst the leaders of Chicago. They get away with wrong doing because they've learned how to manipulate public opinion. Fire a few people here and there, persecute the few troublemakers, spread a bunch of lies and Walla...no opposition.

All I see is cover-up, blame shifting and lies. I have a right to complain, I have been a citizen and a tax-payer of Chicago my entire life.

I'm also sick and tired of Mayor Daley blaming parents and Chicagoans for it's own dilemmas. I agree that parents are fully responsible for their children, but look at the ungodly disaster of a school system that these kids are going to. Did you ever imagine a day when children would have to pass through a metal detector each day to get into school? Those poor kids have their lockers broken into, are threatened with death, watch students have sex in the locker rooms, do drugs in the locker room, smoke cigarettes on school property...the teachers and security could care less. I agree that communities need to cooperate to make Chicago a better place to live, but please Mr. Mayor...STOP SPENDING our money on YOUR PROJECTS! Stop putting our money in YOUR POCKETS and the pockets of all your buddies and acquaintances. Stop stealing from us!!!

As taxes increase more and more, Daley wants to spend more and more. Are you mad? Or is it a plan to keep Chicago in debt to justify bilking home-owners for every dime you can? After Daley leaves office, another Mayor will take his spot and continue to rip off the tax-payers. It's time for people to say NO! Stop spending! No! You can't build that! No! I'd like to see each alderman get paid no more than $50,000 a year (which is far more than a PUBLIC SERVANT should make). They're not public servants, they're scavengers.

I am disgusted that $475,000,000 went for a lousy park instead of into the communities where it should have went. Furthermore, I don't even think the money went into the park. Millennium Park doesn't look like it cost more than $25,000,000 to me. I could have built it a whole lot cheaper. You can do a lot with $475,000,000! Come on Mr. Mayor, we weren't born yesterday. Where's the money? I realize that building projects are good in the sense that they create jobs, but were those jobs for Chicago's citizens or your friends in the suburbs? I think the Millennium Park is a big rip-off and a scam. I'd like to know where the money went. I'm curious what the city paid for the artists and designers of the junk on display in Millennium Park. The big mirror-egg is pathetic. Come on folks, children are failing school all over Chicago...where is the mayor's priorities? Our neighborhoods are in shambles, cars are being stolen, homes are being broken into, drug-dealers are EVERYWHERE! What is going on? Why aren't the courts prosecuting more of these street criminals? Why are so many law-breakers being set free? Why does hundreds-of-thousands of pounds of narcotics mysteriously vanish from Cook County Jail? Where did those drugs go? Evil!

The poor will stay poor because the rich don't want to help them, it's as simple as that. Unfortunately, this is the attitude of most of our elected officials as well (who are all rich). Politicians have a duty to ALL people, not just to the rich and well-to-do. Sadly, the poor are being neglected. Most abortions are in the poor neighborhoods. Most illegal-drugs are in the poor areas. Most rapes and violent crimes are in the poor areas. Poverty is a curse!!! You can't just blame the poor people Mr. Daley, they need help getting an education, decent jobs and affordable housing. All of which could have been provided for if you hadn't wasted the $475,000,000 on a stupid park. Now that's stupid! People are hurting, the park isn't going to help them. Next, I suppose your going to want to build a gambling casino downtown to morally plunder our city downhill even further.

Thank God that judgment day is coming. God will make everything right. The wicked will be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God (Psalm 9:17). I hope for your sake Mr. Daley that you're a born-again Christian, but I think not. Have you no heart? You give that "tough guy" image but you are not as tough as God, and He is the one you will have to answer to for neglecting the poor. The poor need your help, you have the power to help them. Stop wasting money on needless projects and start investing in the poor.

The Millennium Park is a rip off!

HUD ripping of social security...

2009-10-01T04:10:00.000-07:00

Confessions of a Welfare Queen

How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars...
John Stossel

Law grinds the poor, and rich men rule the law.
-- Oliver Goldsmith

Ronald Reagan memorably complained about "welfare queens," but he never told us that the biggest welfare queens are the already wealthy. Their lobbyists fawn over politicians, giving them little bits of money -- campaign contributions, plane trips, dinners, golf outings -- in exchange for huge chunks of taxpayers' money. Millionaires who own your favorite sports teams get subsidies, as do millionaire farmers, corporations, and well-connected plutocrats of every variety. Even successful, wealthy TV journalists.

That's right, I got some of your money too.

MY LIFE AS A WELFARE QUEEN
In 1980 I built a wonderful beach house. Four bedrooms -- every room with a view of the Atlantic Ocean.

It was an absurd place to build, right on the edge of the ocean. All that stood between my house and ruin was a hundred feet of sand. My father told me: "Don't do it; it's too risky. No one should build so close to an ocean."

But I built anyway.

Why? As my eager-for-the-business architect said, "Why not? If the ocean destroys your house, the government will pay for a new one."

What? Why would the government do that? Why would it encourage people to build in such risky places? That would be insane.

But the architect was right. If the ocean took my house, Uncle Sam would pay to replace it under the National Flood Insurance Program. Since private insurers weren't dumb enough to sell cheap insurance to people who built on the edges of oceans or rivers, Congress decided the government should step in and do it. So if the ocean ate what I built, I could rebuild and rebuild again and again -- there was no limit to the number of claims on the same property in the same location -- up to a maximum of $250,000 per house per flood. And you taxpayers would pay for it.

Thanks.

I did have to pay insurance premiums, but they were dirt cheap -- mine never exceeded a few hundred dollars a year.

Why does Uncle Sam offer me cheap insurance? "It saves federal dollars," replied James Lee Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), when I did a 20/20 report on this boondoggle. "If this insurance wasn't here," he said, "then people would be building in those areas anyway. Then it would cost the American taxpayers more [in relief funds] if a disaster hit."

That's government logic: Since we always mindlessly use taxpayer money to bail out every idiot who takes an expensive risk, let's get some money up front by selling them insurance first.

The insurance, of course, has encouraged more people to build on the edges of rivers and oceans. The National Flood Insurance Program is currently the biggest property insurance writer in the United States, putting taxpayers on the hook for more than $640 billion in property. Subsidized insurance goes to movie stars in Malibu, to rich people in Kennebunkport (where the Bush family has its vacation compound), to rich people in Hyannis (where the Kennedy family has its), and to all sorts of people like me who ought to be paying our own way.

When my crew was working on the 20/20 story on this indefensible insurance subsidy, producer David Sloan was shooting on the elegant Outer Banks of North Carolina. A man who saw our camera invited Sloan to videotape inside a luxurious beach mansion he was renting. Sloan accepted and was surprised to see, taped to the refrigerator, a picture of presidential hopeful (then House majority whip) Richard Gephardt.

"Why is his picture here?" Sloan asked.

"He's an owner of the house," answered the renter.

Aha, a surprise twist to our story: A Missouri congressman owns expensive beachfront property insured by taxpayers. We called Rep. Gephardt's office and asked to interview him about flood insurance. I was excited. He and I had something in common: We were both welfare queens. I thought he might say something like: "Yes, it's disgraceful -- we shouldn't get special protection because we are rich enough to build on beaches. I'm trying to end this boondoggle." But when I interviewed him, he just smiled blandly and kept saying Congress would "look into the program."

Why subsidize affluent people like Gephardt and me? Why not let us sink or swim on our own? If my house erodes away, it should be my tough luck. FEMA chief Witt at least attempted an answer: "The American people are pretty compassionate toward their neighbors."

Government flood insurance is so "compassionate" that the program didn't even raise my premiums when, just four years after I built my house, a two-day northeaster swept away my first floor. I could still use the place, since the kitchen and bedrooms were on upper floors, though some guests were unnerved when a wave sloshed through the bottom of the house. After the water receded, the government bought me a new first floor.

Federal flood insurance payments are like buying drunken drivers new cars after they wreck theirs. I never invited you taxpayers to my home. You shouldn't have to pay for my ocean view.

Actually, I don't have such a great view anymore. On New Year's Day, 1995, I got a call from a friend. "Happy New Year," he said. "Your house is gone." He'd seen it on the local news. (Or rather, he saw the houses that had been next to mine, and nothing but sand next to them.) The ocean had knocked down my government-approved flood-resistant pilings and eaten my house.

It was an upsetting loss for me, but financially I made out just fine. You paid for the house -- and its contents. I'm not proud that I took your money, but if the government is foolish enough to offer me a special deal, I'd be foolish not to take it.

I could have rebuilt the beach house and possibly ripped you taxpayers off again, but I'd had enough. I sold the land. Now someone's built an even bigger house on my old property. Bet we'll soon have to pay for that one, too.

I interviewed beachfront homeowners in New Jersey, asking why they should be entitled to this brand of welfare. They got angry:

First Homeowner: We create a lot of employment here -- look at the dishwashers and the chefs and the waitresses and the waiters.

Stossel: This is welfare for you rich people.

First Homeowner: I am not rich.

Stossel: People who are making $25,000 have to pay taxes...to protect you.

Second Homeowner: They've bailed out the S&Ls, and they help the farming people.

Stossel: So since there's welfare for all these other rich people, you should get some too?

Third Homeowner: Sound management is what it is. It's got nothing to do with welfare.

Sound management? It's never welfare if it goes to you.

FEEDING AT THE FEDERAL TROUGH
Today's biggest welfare queens are probably farmers -- once, in their glory days, the most self-sufficient of Americans.

When I make speeches about free markets at Farm Bureau conferences, farmers applaud enthusiastically. But despite their surface support for free markets, most of them operate in a market that's very expensive for all of us, receiving $200 billion in direct handouts this decade, plus another $200 billion in artificial price supports (which force us all to pay more for food).

Farm supports are as destructive as the old welfare payments to poor people were. Just as addictive, too. Subsidies are supposed to help farmers recover from low prices caused by overproduction, but the subsidies lead farmers to plant more crops, creating more overproduction, which lowers prices, making farmers even more dependent on handouts.

The programs wreck the lives of farmers in poor countries because they can't compete with subsidized American farmers (or with even more-subsidized European farmers). Hypocritical politicians blather constantly about helping the poor and demand more of your tax money for foreign aid. But they simultaneously give out farm subsidies, which rig the system so that all over the world poor farmers stay poor.

Why shovel all this money to American farmers?

Because we like farms. Farms are romantic. No one wants to lose the family farm. Of course, most handouts don't go to family farms. They end up going to big farm corporations, because the big, established companies are most skilled at using the system. Fortune 500 firms like Westvaco, Chevron, John Hancock Life Insurance, Du Pont, and Caterpillar each get hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies.

Another reason farmers get these ridiculous handouts is that they've become remarkably proficient at panhandling. Every state has a politically aggressive farm lobby, and every politician wants to stay on its good side. Watching the 2000 election's Iowa caucuses was nauseating. At Vice President Al Gore's rallies, they played country music while Gore regaled crowds with farm stories. "Every summer," said Gore, who grew up in a fancy Washington hotel, "we went back down to the farm. I was in the 4-H club."

Even so-called shrink-the-government Republicans will make government bigger for farmers. The candidate the press called the most "conservative," Alan Keyes, said farm supports are absolutely necessary: "It's a question of America's moral decency."

Oh, please. Most American farmers do just fine -- better than most other Americans. Subsidies go to corn growers who earn more than $200,000 a year, even to "farmers" like my ABC colleague Sam Donaldson, who got thousands of dollars in wool and mohair payments because he and his wife raised sheep and goats on their New Mexico ranch. Donaldson calls the payments "a horrible mess" (he's sold the livestock and no longer collects subsidies), but he compares them to the home mortgage deduction, saying, "As long as the law is on the books, it's appropriate to take advantage of it." Rich people take extra advantage: From 1996 to 2000, David Rockefeller got $352,187; Ted Turner, $176,077; basketball star Scottie Pippen, $131,575.

Farmers argue, "We need subsidies -- because the food supply is too important to be left to the uncertainties of free market competition." But farmers who grow beans, pears, and apples receive no government subsidies, and they thrive. Free markets are best at producing ample supplies of everything. Notice any shortages of unsubsidized green beans, pears, and apples? Me neither.

Yes, some farmers have a tough time. Some will go broke and lose their farms. That's sad. But it's also sad when people at Woolworth's or TWA lose their jobs. Letting businesses fail is vital for the creative destruction that allows the market to work. Those who fail move on to jobs where their skills are put to better use. In the long run, it makes life better for the majority.

When public interest groups compile lists of corporate welfare recipients, a company called Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is usually at the top of the list. You may never have heard of ADM, because its name rarely appears on consumer products, but it's huge. Its products are in most processed foods.

ADM collects welfare because of two cleverly designed special deals. The first is the government's mandated minimum price for sugar. Because of the price supports, if a soft drink maker wants to buy sugar for its soda, it has to pay 22 cents a pound -- more than twice the world price. So Coca-Cola (and almost everyone else) buys corn sweetener instead. Guess who makes corn sweetener? ADM, of course. Now guess who finances the groups that lobby to keep sugar prices high?

ADM's second federal feeding trough is the tax break on ethanol. Ethanol is a fuel additive made from corn, kind of like Hamburger Helper for gasoline, except that it's more expensive, so no one would buy it if government didn't give companies that use ethanol a special 52-cent-a-gallon tax break. That costs the treasury half a billion dollars a year. ADM produces half the ethanol made in America.

Why does ADM get these special deals? Bribery. OK, it's not technically bribery -- that would be illegal. ADM just makes "contributions." Through his business and his family, former ADM Chairman Dwayne Andreas gave millions in campaign funds to both Mondale and Reagan, Dukakis and Bush, Dole and Clinton. President Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, says Andreas himself brought $100,000 in cash to the White House. He even paid tuition for Vice President Hubert Humphrey's son. Republicans, Democrats -- it doesn't matter. ADM just gives.

It also flies people around on its corporate jets. When we contacted Andreas to ask for an interview, he arranged to fly us to ADM's Decatur, Illinois, headquarters in one of ADM's jets. I've seen private jets before, but ADM's was a step above. A flight attendant served us excellent food on gold-plated china. The camera crew and I loved it. Bet the politicians like it too.

A limo took us to Dwayne Andreas' office. Once the cameras were rolling, I brought out the questions about "corporate welfare." I foolishly thought I could get him to admit he was a rich guy milking the system. I thought he'd at least act embarrassed about it. Fuggeddaboutit. He was unfazed.

Stossel: Mother Jones [magazine] pictured you as a pig. You're a pig feeding at the welfare trough.

Andreas: Why should I care?

Stossel: It doesn't bother you?

Andreas: Not a bit.

I still wonder why he granted the interview. I asked him about his bribes -- I mean, contributions. For example, Andreas gave the Democrats a check for $100,000. A few days later, President Clinton ordered 10 percent of the country to use ethanol.

Stossel: And the purpose of this money wasn't to influence the president?

Andreas: Certainly not.

Stossel: So why give him the money?

Andreas: Because somebody asked for it.

Because they asked for it? Give me a break.

In an ABC special I made called Freeloaders, economist Walter Williams aptly noted: "A panhandler is far more moral than corporate welfare queens....The panhandler doesn't enlist anyone to force you to give him money. He's coming up to you and saying, 'Will you help me out?' The farmers, when they want subsidies, they're not asking for a voluntary transaction. They go to a congressman and say, 'Could you take his money and give it to us?' That's immoral."

Andreas' attitude is rampant in many different areas of corporate America, and it's an ugly one. But there's always some legitimate-sounding justification. The politicians need your money for national security, research, job protection, or to "protect the food supply." After spending time on the golf course with lobbyists, politicians will find a way to justify almost anything. They justify giving subsidies to prosperous companies that sell goods overseas by saying that the resulting exports will be "good for America." They will be. But does Sunkist need taxpayer help to sell oranges? McDonald's to sell McNuggets to the Third World? Let them do their own marketing. My employer -- Disney, which owns ABC -- got tax money to create better fireworks at Disney World. Really.

Politicians will hand over millions of dollars to sports teams under the pretense that it will help create jobs and economic activity -- ignoring the jobs and economic activity that would have resulted had the taxpayers been able to keep their millions to spend on what they chose. (See "If You Build It, They Will Leave," January.)

Some handouts allegedly keep certain industries alive in America -- even though we'd all be better off just buying their products from overseas if foreign producers can make them cheaper. The shipping industry, for example, gets billions in handouts. Without them, American shipbuilders say, they can't compete with low-cost shipbuilders overseas. American politicians should say: "They're more efficient overseas? Fine! We'll buy their cheaper ships." And American taxpayers would be richer. But we don't do that -- because the shipping industry has friends like former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). He makes sure Congress keeps your money close to home -- his home.

I interviewed Lott. Without moving the tripod, our camera could pan from his Mississippi home to the shipyard that got half a billion dollars of your money to build a ship the Defense Department never even requested. Lott didn't even seem ashamed of that. "Pork is in the eye of the beholder," he joked. "Where I'm from...[pork] is federal programs that go north of Memphis."

ISN'T YOUR HOME YOUR CASTLE?
Occasionally, politicians are so eager to help their rich friends that they'll take your home to do it. The legal doctrine of "eminent domain" (which means "superior ownership") allows government officials to take possession of your property if they decide they need it for the greater good. Traditionally this meant building highways, bridges, and parks, and eminent domain was used only in unusual situations.

But today government officials use eminent domain to help private companies -- Kmart, Home Depot, baseball teams, shopping malls. Hurst, Texas, condemned 127 homes that stood in the way of a developer's plan to expand a mall. Toledo, Ohio, got a $28.8 million HUD loan to forcibly relocate the owners of 83 perfectly nice homes that were condemned to make way for a Jeep factory. A county in Kansas condemned property belonging to 150 families to make way for NASCAR's Kansas International Speedway.

Sometimes citizens fight back, and when they do they can win -- even against a foe as big as Donald Trump and the Atlantic City politicians in his pocket. In the early 1990s, the billionaire already owned Trump Plaza, Trump Tower, Trump Parc, Trump International Hotel, Trump Palace, Trump World's Fair, and Trump Taj Mahal. But he wanted more. He wanted to expand one of his casinos in Atlantic City.

Vera Coking was in the way. The elderly widow had lived in a house in Atlantic City for more than 30 years, and she didn't want to move. Trump offered Coking $1 million if she'd sell. She said no.

This annoyed Trump. He told reporters her house was ugly, and it would be better if it were torn down to make room for a parking lot for limousines waiting outside his casino.

I wouldn't think that was "public use," but before you could say "corporate welfare," New Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit in 1994 to "acquire" Coking's property. It told Coking she must vacate her home within 90 days or the sheriff would forcibly remove her.

Suddenly the $1 million offer was off the table. The authority said Coking's house was worth only $251,000 -- one-fifth what Trump paid for a smaller lot nearby.

It looked to me like the government was robbing Vera Coking to pay off Donald Trump. The government officials wouldn't talk to me about it, but Trump did.

Stossel: In the old days, big developers came in with thugs with clubs. Now you use lawyers. You go to court and you force people out.

Trump: Excuse me. Other people maybe use thugs today. I don't. I've done this very nicely. If I wanted to use thugs, we wouldn't have any problems. It would have been all taken care of many years ago. I don't do business that way. We have been so nice to this woman.

Trump said Coking turned down his offer because "her lawyer wants to get rich, and everybody wants to get rich off me."

Stossel: So don't pay it. Let them stay. Basic to freedom is that if you own something, it's yours. The government doesn't just come and take it away.

Trump: Do you want to live in a city where you can't build roads or highways or have access to hospitals? Condemnation is a necessary evil.

Stossel: But we're not talking about a hospital. This is a building a rich guy finds ugly.

Trump: You're talking about at the tip of this city, lies a little group of terrible, terrible tenements -- just terrible stuff, tenement housing.

Stossel: So what?

Trump: So what?...Atlantic City does a lot less business, and senior citizens get a lot less money and a lot less taxes and a lot less this and that.

Sadly, claims that people will be deprived of "this and that" can now be used by politicians to condemn your house. It didn't seem right to Vera Coking. "This is America," she said. "My husband fought in the war and worked to make sure I would have a roof over my head, and they want to take it from me?"

Usually the Donald Trumps of the world and their partners in government get what they want. But Vera Coking was lucky enough to get media attention -- and to have a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, take her case to court. In 1998 a judge finally ruled against Trump and the government, finding that taking the property would benefit Trump, not the public. Vera Coking got to keep her home. She still lives there, surrounded by Trump's hotel.

Such victories against the awful advantages that government loves to grant to the wealthy and well-connected are possible. But to see more of them will require a great deal of diligence on the part of citizens -- and the news media. If we want to live up to the old saw that the press should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," the TV cameras need to spend more time focused on the ugly realities of welfare for the rich.