Okay, whet we have here is a good business deal in which both parties benefited... Your assertion, Jim, that Rezko got the short end of the stick is the crux of your argument is subjective...
People enter into thse kinds of land deals all the time... I did it myself a couple years ago... If a large parcial of property come on the market it is not uncommon for folks to buy it and split it... It's good business if each party gets out of the deal what they might have had to pay more for had the propert been subdivided prior to being offered and each piece being sold seperately...
If you look at housing developement accross the3 country you usually start with a large piece, which can be purchased cheaper on a per acre basis, then chop it up and each lot becomes expensive as compared to the original per acre price...
In developement it's kind the opposite of an "assmblage" where you assemble several pieces in an developed area and offer them as one. When this is done the per acre price goes up as opposed to what happens when you buy a large piece of property and subdivide...
Econ 101, pure and simple...
Now I know that folks would like to read something very sinister into what Obama did but what he did was good business... Who is to say whether or not Rezko was happy with his side of the deal at the time it was made???
Now if you, Jim, have evidence that Rezko knowingly took a loss for no other reason that gaining influence, plus evidence that Obama made decisions favorable to Rezko in exchange, then you have a story...
Right now you have a conspiracy theory that, frankly, is very weak...