What it has been reported for sure is that the owner of the house wanted 1.9 for the *house alone* and that he did not want to sell the two lots separately but together in a single sale.

Now, it is preposterous to believe that when they purchased the house (at the height of the housing market) they could bid 1.6 for a 1.9 asking price and get it. In Chicago and most certainly Boston and other urban cities at that time and until recently properties were sold AT or ABOVE the asking price (heavy bidding). That he got the property for 300K BELOW market and/or asking price in 2005 is very fishy.

What it has been reported for sure is that the owner of the house wanted 1.9 for the *house alone* and that he did not wanted to sell the two lots separately but together in a single sale.

Now, it is preposterous to believe that when they purchased the house (at the height of the housing market) they could bid 1.6 for a 1.9 asking price and get it. In Chicago and most certainly Boston and other urban cities at that time and until recently properties were sold AT or ABOVE the asking price (heavy bidding). That he got the property for 300K BELOW market and/or asking price in 2005 is very fishy.

As I understand the Obama house narrative,
the sellers wanted $2.2 for BOTH properties. The sellers got $1.6m for the House and 625K for the lot(total 2.225m). Okay. Now, was it always the case that there were TWO lots? I mean when you look at the picture it looks like a house with a side yard, NO?

I guess I am asking is this “two lot” deal something that Obama and Rezko cooked up so Obama could afford to get his wife the house she wanted/demand? Maybe a look through the Chicago land records would show when/if the property had been subdivided. Someone needs to look into it.