Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Surprise! Another Conflict of Interest for Obama's 'Urban Czar'

We noted last week how Barack Obama's new 'urban czar' has lined his pockets with campaign donations from city developers, a story that was greeted with stifled yawns by most of the media, who were too busy obsessing on a radio talk show host to notice yet another corrupt Obama official.

Well, Mr. Carrion is back in the news today. Let's see if any of the Washington press corps notices.
President Obama's new urban czar renovated his Bronx home with help from the architect on a major development that needed his approval, a Daily News investigation has found.

Adolfo Carrión, who last week left his job as Bronx borough president to be director of the White House Office on Urban Policy, hired the architect to design a renovation of his Victorian two-family on City Island.

Weeks after the architect's work on Carrión's house was complete, Carrión approved the architect's project.

Carrión would not say how much he paid the architect, if anything. He also refused to provide copies of checks for the work.

"I hired an architect on an arm's-length commercial basis to draw up plans for a renovation, as required by city law," he said. "That was completely unrelated to my professional activities and entirely proper."

The White House declined to comment.

The possible conflict of interest surfaced Nov. 13, 2006, when, records show, Hugo Subotovsky was listed as architect of record overseeing the addition of a porch and installation of a second-floor balcony. Total job cost was estimated at $32,000.

At the time, records show, Carrión had at least $15,000 in credit card debt, was paying off two mortgages worth more than $500,000 and had $5,000 in revolving credit from Chase bank.
I guess Obama's vaunted vetting team missed all this.

I distinctly recall a former governor of Connecticut who had contractors do some renovations done at his cottage. He wound up forced from office and in prison.

Why is there a double standard when it comes to corrupt Democrats?

No comments: