justcallmetommy wrote:
Now this is a property rehabbed by Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr.
Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr proudly confirms the rehab, announcing in a 32 sq feet sign, right smack in front of the outstanding looking property. Clean, neat, nice lines, appealing, it appears Tom's 4 x 8 sign clearly announces family ready. By the way the missing College Bound Sign, if present just might help the marketing.
And OH MY GOD, is that Hammond's City Council Person Dan Spitale Broker's Sign on this property, marketing it to the general public? Now I don't know Mr. Spitale, other than his service on the Hammond City Council, but I am sure he is a competent, skilled real estate broker. If anyone knows Hammond, it would certainly be a council person who sells real estate.
Listing a property like the one depicted above, some might say is a conflict of interest, others might say it is a service to the community, even if Spitale makes a buck on it. I believe it is outstanding that Mr. Spitale found time in his many Councilman duties to market Hammond properties. [size=150] And I really, sincerely, have no problem with Mr. Spitale making a buck on selling the property. I thank you Mr. Spitale. Who else would be able to market a Hammond property as well as a Hammond resident, a Hammond Councilperson and a Hammond Real Estate Broker?
But, one question? Well, if Mr. Spitale has listed the above property, confirmed family occupancy ready by Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr's 4 x 8 sign, why hasn't Mr. Spitale listed the properties below? They were rehabbed by Mayor McDermott's people, right? The rehab is confirmed by Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr's 4 x 8 sign, right? Well, Maybe Mr. Spitale had listed these properties? Maybe someone took his sign off the property? Or if not, Maybe Tom might ask Mr. Spitale to list them.
Were they not listed by Mr. Spitale because of their location? Or was it that they were never really rehabbed, read for family occupancy, part taking of that College Bound money for a family? Or maybe someone really never intended to sell these properties?
Now it really isn't fair to put Mr. Spitale in the middle of this question, but personally, I sorta wonder why one property is good enough to list and the other two, well ....
They are in Hammond. They were rehabbed by the Redevelopment Commission, never listed? Maybe they were never listed because they never met HUD minimal occupancy standards. Realistically, do you think a real estate company would want their signs attached to these photo's?
Hammond's Redevelopment Commission purchased this on 07/08/2011 for $24,000. Someone walked away with a few dollars.
51046
Possible violation of the Hatch Act. That is what got Carlotta in trouble.