Downtown Oak Park developer goes bankrupt

1120 Club LLC has $5.9 million in unpaid debt, owed to 50 different parties

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print
Show/Hide Gallery

By Marty Stempniak

Staff Reporter

The developer of a high-profile condo building in downtown Oak Park recently filed for bankruptcy, faced with $5.9 million in unpaid bills.

Richard Curto built the 44-unit condo building at 1120 Lake St. in 2007. And since then, the project has been mired in controversy, including numerous lawsuits, one from the building's condo association alleging shoddy construction.

Another chapter was written in the 1120 Club's book last month, as Curto, on behalf of the limited liability corporation, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which usually results in liquidation of a developer's assets. In the filing, Curto lists $5.9 million in debt, owed to about 50 different parties.

Those debts include a $1 million mortgage to buy the historic Dreschler building just east of the development, and a $1.7 million mortgage to buy five condos, four of which are currently being rented. Curto owes money to everyone from Trapani Construction ($1.2 million) to the Barnes & Thornburg law firm ($148,000), according to court documents.

The total amount of debt is likely to grow, as Curto plugged in several "unknowns" in the filing because of ongoing lawsuits and yet-to-be received tax bills.

Curto — who is the founder and chief of RSC &Associates, the management company for 1120 Club LLC — did not return phone calls and emails on Monday seeking comment.

RSC & Associates was faced with a series of lawsuits in the past four years, all related to the 1120 Club. Parties taking the Oak Park-based developer to court included the building's condo association, village hall and an investor that almost bought the retail portion of the development.

The condo association complained of shoddy construction on the seventh floor, which caused sections of concrete to "warp or fail," allowing water to flood into the building, according to the original complaint.

That lawsuit, first filed in May 2009, is yet to be settled, according to Mike Salvati, treasurer of the condo association. The suit is also against Trapani Construction and 1120 Retail LLC (a California investor that bought the retail space in the building), and is seeking $750,000.

The association was forced to take out a loan and levy a special assessment to condo owners in order to make repairs, which Salvati estimates could cost more than $1.5 million, and should be done by the end of the summer.

"If I have a wall that totally breaks down where I have water coming 2, 3 feet into my unit every time it rains, I have to do something about it," he said. "Even though it might have been his (Curto's) responsibility, in my opinion, we just couldn't wait."

Village hall also sued RSC & Associates in 2009 over poor construction, hoping to get the developer to fix issues with the property. Part of the project was built on village-owned land, so Oak Park entered into a legally binding redevelopment agreement in March 2004, requiring RSC to meet certain guidelines. Oak Park gave the property to RSC, and reimbursed the developer for demolition and remediation costs at the site.

That case, too, has yet to be settled. Village Attorney Ray Heise said Oak Park will continue pursuing the lawsuit, both in and out of bankruptcy court.

And Heise was expecting to testify this week in yet another lawsuit related to the 1120 Club. Brandenburg Family Associates sued RSC & Associates in August 2007. The California-based company had put down $1.5 million in earnest money, looking to buy the building's retail space for $16.2 million. But the group backed out of the deal and never got its money back.

A different California investor, calling itself 1120 Retail LLC, ended up paying $15.8 million for the space, which is occupied by a fitness club, bar, bagel shop and plus-size women's store. Salvati said an arbitrator ruled last month that the retail owner needs to pay some $240,000 in shared operating expenses that haven't been paid in years.

Lawyer Catherine Steege has been appointed as "trustee" in the bankruptcy case. Steege said she'll be charged with sorting through the developer's assets, figuring out which ones can be turned into cash to help pay off the creditors.

Those assets include five condos in the 1120 Club, part of the Dreschler Building and 12 parking spaces. Curto also lists "counterclaims" in court against village hall, the construction company and the condo association as possible assets.

Steege said bankruptcy laws will determine which of the 50 or so creditors will be first in line to get paid when the assets are sold. A meeting of creditors is scheduled for June 26.

Village Trustee Ray Johnson was on the village board that first green-lighted an agreement with RSC in 2004. He said the developer seemed reputable at the time, having completed several other successful projects.

Johnson speculated that the economy was partly to blame with some of the 1120 Club's issues. He thinks village hall should be stronger in its oversight in the future to avoid similar situations, and said the retail portion was successful.

"I acknowledge that there are issues, but it still has brought an awful lot of vitality to downtown," he said.

Reader Comments

72 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 5:38 PM

Thank J-Oak. This is a great wall.

j.oak park  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 4:42 PM

Thank you Mr. Murtagh and Mr. Couphlin for yor contribution to this post and to oakpark.com over all. Best Regards and keep up the good commentary.

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 4:31 PM

As usual Truth (OP, etc.), you don't answer the questions you don't want to answer - or those that are hard - and continue to accuse. You are consistently welcomed to have real discourse and you never engage. You stay in the "yay village everyone else get the heck out" space regardless of the topic. So at least for me (but probably also for the silent majority) you have no credibility.

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 3:24 PM

I'm not convinced you want to actively participate in a meaningful manner. I think you like the current way in which you can just sound off and have no consequences. Scary.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 3:12 PM

The Truth Hurts - I am open to any ideas on how I can take a more active role in OP Government. As an active member of the community, I am certain that you know better than most where a resident can be used most effectively. Maybe a list of the organizations you are involved in will give me some direction. Thanks

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 2:40 PM

Its one thing to "participate" in govt which Murtagh did & then resigned as chairperson for a commission. Now its just throwing water into the wind. If you want real change & think its viable, then you have to P-A-R-T-I-C-I-P-A-T-E! Not sit at home on your computer and throw baseless facts and your opinions in a comment section of a local newspaper. If you think that is how OP is governed or should be. Shame on you.Just becasue a Trustee doesn chime in here doesnt mean they dont care. Come on

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:32 PM

Come on, Truth! Accept John Murtagh's challenge. Prove your case.

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:27 PM

Imagine that. Oak Park has enjoyable qualities. Yikes. Even after all these bad decisions have been made . %uFFFDAy, caramba!

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 11:55 AM

Why move? Oak Park is still a livable place, and it is known for standing strong for people participating in government and expressing their viewpoints. The WJ's reporting the news and providing an opportunity to allow the public to express their opinions has made our government stronger. Without question, WJ's Comments has made OP a more open and transparent place to live. That's a good reason to stay; not move. It will take a while for some people to adjust. That's the way change works.

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 9:58 AM

If people dislike our government decisions, why live here?

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 2:05 AM

Hey truth. Why not identify the posters that you see has "a group?" After that why not tell us how you came up with 85% opposition by "a group." Seems to me that you're little group of posters probably, all pseudonyms, vote 100% on board issues. Doesn't that make "a group" more objective than your group? While you are doing your little groupie thing, maybe you can identify for us the posters that regularly agree with you.

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 10:20 PM

Lots of harm...lots of fouls ACCORDING TO MOST ON HERE. How can people( mostly the same group) be upset over every single story that is written about here? Its soo old and tired. Say one nice thing about the Village every once in a while. I cant understand why people would live in a community and not like 85% or more of the decisions this board, past board's and I'm sure future boards make! If life is that terrible- MOVE. Choice is ours.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 9:57 PM

To tell the truth, Truth. I don't see anything wrong with people posting comments on this forum questioning the policies and procedures of our government and elected officials. The vast majority of folks have been respectful and thoughtful. You're welcome to be a cheerleader but don't tag people who have questions regarding the process as "naysayers". Accept them as concerned citizens expressing valid concerns and requesting additional information. No harm. No foul.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 9:30 PM

YEA for Ray and The Truth Hurts

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 9:22 PM

What are all you naysayers getting at? What's your point?

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 8:42 PM

I appreciate Ray Johnson taking the time to answer questions and address issues on this forum. He is the only trustee who regularly posts and willingly engages in the discussion. Trustees Salzman and Tucker were active prior to their election but have since been very quiet. Their input would be most welcome. Perhaps they would be willing to address the effectiveness of the Retail Grant/Rehab programs.

Enuf is Enuf from Oak Park  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 5:26 PM

The village purchased the property for $3.2M, and then sold it to RSC at a discounted price of $1.6M, a reduction of $1.6M. RSC was also allowed to use 200 parking spaces at the Holley Court Public Garage to meet the parking req'd. for their health club, at no cost. RSC was selected by the village before a promised meeting was held for public input. It is indeed troubling that Trustee Johnson, who voted yes for RSC in 2004, does not understand the fundamental meaning of 'financial incentive'.

What do you mean by "it"  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 2:39 PM

And the answer is to Mr. Donohue is that Ray Johnson was just manipulating the meaning of the word direct. At least he wasn't lying. Maybe Mr. Johnson can also tell us how many ways the VOP can give an indirect financial incentive to a developer that involves writing a check with taxpayer money directly to a developer. I guess Mr. Johnson's answer should be expected coming from someone who works for a bank.

Please...spare us  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 2:22 PM

Truth, does it hurt to suck up so intensely?

The Truth Hurts  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 1:55 PM

Why to answer all these "doubters" Trustee Johnson. They are all the same people who doubt everything the Village does and has NO confidence in anything. Why they live here- I'll never understand. Yea For Ray!!

Rh@attorneyrichardholland.com  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 1:38 PM

I assume those types of payments and expenses for dem/remediation/a new coat of paint/ garden gnomes or whatever were topics of discussion in the nnegotiation process. Obviously paying for that is a concession, the property could have been sold "as-is". So I guess this all comes down to semantics. I do think the cash contribution def is goofily narrow. That would imply tax incentives and other enticements aren't worthy of scrutiny.

Ray Johnson from Oak Park  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 1:10 PM

@ Mr. Donohue - I was asked if the Village provided a "financial incentive" to the developer. I take that to mean direct cash contribution. Remediation and demolotion on VOP owned property may be viewed by some as a "financial incentive" to the developer, but I don't view it that way. Owners are generally required to transfer "clean property", so its really the responsibility of the VOP to ensure that happens, per EPA rules.

Jon Donohue  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 12:55 PM

Someone is lying; either the WJ or Ray Johnson. The article states that "Oak Park...reimbursed the developer for demolition and remediation costs at the site" and Johnson states that there was "no direct cash distribution from the VOP." Johnson generally has a poor recollection of unfavorable facts. Was this an innocent oversight by Johnson, was he intentionally lying, or is he just manipulating the meaning of the word "direct?" I think most intelligent people already know the answer.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 12:36 PM

Direct Cash Distribution DCD - I am beginning to understand village finance terminology. If you give a developer land and pay for its demolition and remediation, then it not DCD. If you pay for the demolition of the building, it is not DCD. I think DCD is giving someone an envelope filled with cash in a dark parking lot.

Ray Johnson from Oak Park  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 8:29 AM

I have confirmed there were no retail or rehab grants for the commercial space at 1120 Lake. I see some other comments here questioning other aspects of the redevelopment agreement and I do recall a land write-down for the project, but no direct cash distribution from the VOP.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 12th, 2011 11:05 PM

Enuf, I trust Ray Johnson will get back to us.

OP  

Posted: June 12th, 2011 3:53 PM

Which property did the village own? The furrier building ?

Enuf is Enuf from Oak Park  

Posted: June 12th, 2011 2:28 PM

I will allow Trustee Johnson a second chance to prove his competency as a village trustee by providing a full and accurate account of developer incentives from the village for this project. He has the entire village staff to rely upon for this information. If not forthcoming, I will be glad to do his job and provide a full and substantiated accounting of the incentives myself.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 8:31 PM

Thanks, John. I hope Ray Johnson will follow up and provide additional details. What was the appraised value of the donated parcel? Demolition & remediation must have been a significant expenditure. VOP staff should be able to produce status reports on retail/rehab grants. That could tell us how much has been spent over this recent ten year period & what percentage of those businesses are still open. Obviously, these programs have aided local enterprises but ROI/ROA needs to be examined.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 7:56 PM

Jim C - article above stated "Oak Park gave the property to RSC, and reimbursed the developer for demolition and remediation costs at the site." THIS IS A VILLAGE SUBSIDY, ANYWAY YOU CUT IT I guess Ray overlooked this, but more likely he responded only to information you SPECIFICALLY requested. When the village replies, and frequently they don't,they always supply exactly is requested even if it is misleading. Re researching ROI/ROA on projects - EASY if the Vill. was paperless, its not!

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 3:58 PM

Thanks for your prompt response, Trustee Johnson. Do you know if a status report has ever been prepared regarding retail grants? It would be interesting to see how our efforts to support local businesses has fared over the years.

Ray Johnson from Oak Park  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 3:30 PM

@ Mr. Coughlin - There was no development incentive for RSC and Associates to build 1120 Lake St. I don't recall any retail/rehab grants being reviewed/approved for the tenants, but as its been a few years I need to double check that point.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 2:07 PM

John, I hoping Trustee Johnson would be able to answer my question whether this developer received any financial assistance from VOP, including retail grants. Do you have any idea if he was provided with taxpayers funds? I also think it would be interesting to see a status report on the businesses that have received retail grants and/or any financial assistance from VOP. What has been the total amount spent over the past ten years and how many are still operating as a viable enterprise.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 12:44 PM

I can't buy that the deficiencies in the building can be written off as a learning experience. When the contractor had a carpentry error during the renovation of our house, the village told them to rip it out and do it correctly. The contractor was upset -- so what. I agreed totally with the village - follow the rules. Clearly the same inspections rigors did not occur on this development. I don't think we need to change inspection practices. Even on a rush project -- do the job right!

O P Rez  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 12:27 AM

dooper, too bad your just so silly. Silly like a clown. The election was in April and the people have spoken. Next.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 10th, 2011 12:20 AM

Thanks for your response,Trustee Johnson. The statement attributed to you in the report seemed more focused on the financial aspects. I trust Village staff will be able to advise you of the costs and level of expertise needed to conduct enhanced inspections. My only concern would be that this might add to the perception that local businesses have a difficult time working with Village Hall. Did the developer receiving any type of financial assistance from VOP? Retail grants?

epic lulz  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 11:31 PM

"Where does the buck stop at Village Hall?" In someone's pocket, I'd imagine.

Dooper  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 11:13 PM

O P Rez, are you referring to democracy and freedom of speech? It does exist in Oak Park. Fortunately the "peanut gallery" will continue to speak out. You are very confident that the few thousand people who bother to vote in local elections will continue to be in control. One day you may be surprised and the many thousands who don't take the time to vote may come out strong and put you in your place.

O P Rez  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 9:24 AM

I find it funny that Trapani Construction is owed monies by the developer for their work that is being considered shotty. It seems like the developer did the right thing by not paying them if its proven that the construction was shotty.

Ray Johnson from Oak Park  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 7:40 AM

@ Mr. Coughlin: Clearly there isn't much the Village can do about an outside bankrupcty, but as for construction processes and techniques I have asked for a root-cause analysis to determine where in the process we may have an opportunity to enhance inspections and/or do we need additional expertise for major project like this in the future. Learning from an experience like this will enhance processes go forward.

Darcy  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 7:29 AM

Hey, OP Rez--get over yourself. I neither have nor thought about running for VOP Board. Even if we can all agree that the Board has "tried to make good decisions", the fact is they have not actually made good decisions. Get your head out of the Board's #%* and you may see it differently (or are you one of the VOP gendarme committed to defense of them regardless of outcome and hoping to be the next in line for the Board)

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 9th, 2011 12:53 AM

Would Ray Johnson please provide details on how Village Hall should be stronger in its oversight? What exactly is he proposing and how will these changes apply to future developments? What measures could have been utilized to avert this bankruptcy? I agree that economic conditions were a contributing factor and perhaps mismanagement but cannot figure out what role local government should have in making sure that a project is able to met it's obligations.

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:47 PM

Pardon typos. Getting used to touchscreen typing

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:45 PM

OP, you really want to play that game again. M"e? Femal? Blahg blah blah. Bo-ring. So much time you have. Even though yop post under many names it's still more or less you...well and Ray Johnson...defending the Village here. You can't claim the silent majority for every issue. LOL

O P Rez  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:27 PM

john murtagh is perfect. Silliest is not far behind. Who said i am a male?

O P Rez  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:23 PM

I think the vast majority of the comments that disagree with Village Board and Manager are a handful of people. They just chime in the most and yes i do consider them a peanut gallery. They will oppose anything the board does just becasue they can.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:23 PM

From the dancing fingers of OP Rez, "The Village isn't perfect......." First damn sensible thing he ever wrote.

Dooper  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 9:55 PM

O P Rez said it all. The people who disagree with the Village Board and Manager are "the peanut gallery". I guess I am too stupid to be insulted by arrogance.

O P Rez  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 9:49 PM

It happens everywhere. Have you every seen the HOLE by the lake that was to be the next best thing in skyscrapers called the Spire?

Another OP resident  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 9:43 PM

Ha. Ha. Ha. This scenario couldn't happen in sophisticated Oak Park.... or could it? It did. Shouldn't we be blaming the lawyers whose job it was to protect the parties and reduce risk? WTF!

O P Rez  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 9:28 PM

These developments faults are NOT the VOP's. Lets make that clear. The man doesnt know how to balance his check book. The SoHo project had to do with the bank going under that was funding the project. The peanut gallery must consist of all the unsuccessful folks that have run for trustee or have wanted to and have lost. Bitter and more bitter. The Village isn't perfect but always trying to make good, sound decisions for the community as a whole. I believe that and the peanut gallery doesn't.

Bob from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 8:07 PM

Was Ray Johnson also involved in the failed SoHo project (South & Home)? When is he & the rest of the VMA board going to be overcome with embarrassment & resign?

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 3:27 PM

Every discussion of whether a development is a success, failure or someplace in-between results in a torrent of opinions, all expressed in words. Rather than using words, maybe we should be using numbers. In the development process the village calculates the anticipated tax revenue and added expense to the village. That creates a "Net Tax Income" target for the forthcoming years. It should not be too difficult to report current tax revenue versus the anticipated tax revenue from the devel.

Jay Hoppie from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 1:48 PM

So what does this mean for the businesses in this building?

OP  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 11:48 AM

Ray, I can see that you are trying to put a positive spin on the issue by bring up successes in OP, but THOSE developments hardly reflect the challenges the Comcast project faces. Apples and oranges!

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 11:37 AM

Worst case scenario needs to be part of any board discussion.

Enuf is Enuf from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 11:29 AM

What Johnson, Pope, Lueck, et al fail to realize, again and again, is that any proposed development is presented to them in the most favorable light. The underlying assumptions are biased toward best case scenarios. The board fails to account for the risk and uncertainty that is inherent development, especially when they publicly subsidize and/or partner with developers. Instead of asking 'what if' questions as public stewards during the approval process, they have acted as developer advocates.

Violet Aura  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:16 AM

((facepalm)) And what about the condos that are next to the Trader Joe's and Border's? Were they always supposed to be apt. because now they are renting them. What really pisses me off is the phony sense of urgency, as in the case of tearing down the Certified/31 Flavors, et. al. Now there is an empty lot on that corner and it looks like a hot ghetto mess up in there!

Mary Ellen Eads from Oark Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 10:02 AM

The bankruptcy of Mr. Curto's company is unfortunate, but at least it appears that the project remains viable. However, the unsold condos in the building reflect the weak state of the Oak Park housing market, which should remain a concern for Oak Park residents. This is especially true given the high level of property taxes here, taxes which will increase for many as a result of the recent reassessment and the results of the Dist 97 referendum.

R. S. from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 9:44 AM

Add this to the list of pathetic development failures for Oak Park. Can't wait to see the disaster awaiting S. Marion and that development where the Original Pancake House used to be. Yes, Oak Park clearly needs to continue to erode its historic character to gradually become Schaumburg. If only we could squeeze in a few more chain stores and restaurants!

Enuf is Enuf from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 9:33 AM

Ray Johnson's response is the typical Village Hall mantra ... blame all poor Village Hall decisions on the recession, and take credit for everything else. Most exemplar projects are non-Village Hall related, most poor performing projects involve Village Hall. In addition, the village never substantiates its claim on past performance projects. Saying it is so, does not make it so. The Village Hall is over-matched and under-qualified to engage in any kind of public-private partnership.

Resident from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 8:30 AM

I had no idea this bldg had problems. I feel sorry for the condo owners. Isn't the Village supposed to inspect construction?

OP  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 7:43 AM

The developer clearly robbed peter to pay paul. Successful commercial/retail and all units sold. The peanut gallery continues.

Ray Johnson from Oak Park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 7:27 AM

During the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the entire country has been impacted and indeed, some local developers. The successes in Oak Park far outweigh the challenges: The Shops of Downtown; The Avenue; Trader Joe's/Oak Park Apartments; Marion Street Cheese Market/Opera Club; Volvo; Rush/OP Hospital Office Complex, to name a few. Several of these successful projects were the most controversial in recent memory, yet enhance our quality of life.

TRM  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 7:00 AM

Past performance of indicators or methodology are not necessarily indicative of future results.

Tom  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 5:16 AM

Hmmm...Ray Johnson thought the developer was reputable at the time? Is there any developer that Ray Johnson does not think is reputable? Johnson seems to green light most developments in Oak Park that require approval from the Board. All those developers are probably reputable until they file for bankruptcy and end up in the papers. Talk about shortsightedness.

OP  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 12:44 AM

murtagh, Oak Park didnt make him fail. He failed all on his own. The building is a success.

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 12:39 AM

WJ quote re Ray Johnson's view "He said the developer seemed reputable at the time, having completed several other successful projects." Doesn't Ray understand that all the developers the village has selected had other successful projects, but many failed in OP? Is that a coincidence?

OP  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 12:22 AM

I hope O'Shea does not run for office.

Patricia O'Shea  

Posted: June 8th, 2011 12:17 AM

Yes, the Ray Johnson who chided residents for daring to fear something village staffers and leaders deemed a good idea. (Note: Not admitting any fear. I'm against poor or ignoring previdus planning/housing strategy, not afraid.)

OP  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 11:17 PM

IS this the same Ray Johnson that just helped pass the Comcast project? I wonder what the apology will be when that one also tanks?

OP Resident  

Posted: June 7th, 2011 10:20 PM

That's a pretty weak apology from Ray Johnson. Where does the buck stop at Village Hall?

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassified
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad