Disputations

Plaintiffs challenge Plan Commission process

05/13/2009 10:00 PM

By BEN MYERS
Contributing Reporter

No Comments - Add Your Comment


Conceptual renderings of the Children's Museum gallery in Grant Park.
Chicago Children's Museum



The court hearing Tuesday over the Chicago Children’s Museum proposal for a Grant Park facility centered on whether the Plan Commission was derelict in its approval of the museum’s controversial move.

The plaintiffs, who live across from Grant Park on Randolph Street, are seeking to overturn the Plan Commission’s decision. They say the 1973 Lakefront Protection Ordinance explicitly prohibits the museum from inhabiting Daley Bicentennial Plaza in Grant Park and that the museum moving there violates the ordinance, a law the Plan Commission is specifically charged to uphold.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Martin Agran did not immediately set a time for a decision. A separate lawsuit over the museum brought by the same plaintiffs was dismissed May 7.

One of the policies of the Lakefront Protection Ordinance states that no new above-ground building is permitted in Grant Park, and the distinction between above and below ground is a point of contention Judge Agran will have to consider.

William Aguiar, representing the city, which backed the museum’s move, argued that the museum’s main structure, replacing the existing field house, would reside entirely below the third tier of Randolph Street – and therefore below ground.

The only new above-ground building, Aguiar said, would be a 20-foot entrance pavilion just beyond the reaches of the park.

But the plaintiffs’ attorney, Pat Ruberry, said the main structure would rise about 50 feet above ground. Ruberry argued that Upper Randolph is an arbitrary designation, wrongly equating “ground” with “grade.”

“They say it’s below grade,” Ruberry argued. “Grade can be whatever you want it to be.”

Another Lakefront Protection Ordinance policy mandates public ownership and local maintenance of lakefront parks. Ruberry noted that the museum, a private institution, will control roughly two acres of a park and charge admission.

“They want to take a piece of public property and turn it into their own,” Ruberry said. “Grant Park will be considered public space in name only.”

Ruberry also highlighted that no terms of occupancy have been released by the Park District or the museum, a point which Aguiar acknowledged.

But Aguiar countered that the museum’s plans have an “overwhelming public purpose,” and that “there’s nothing in the record to show there will be a conveyance of property.”

“Daley Bi is owned by the Park District, and that will remain true,” Aguiar said.

The plaintiffs also argued that the Plan Commission violated their due process rights by failing to provide proper notice of the hearing in May 2008.

That alleged failure, Ruberry said, denied the plaintiffs a “meaningful opportunity to oppose” the museum’s plans. Aguiar replied that the Lakefront Protection Ordinance required notification only of property owners listed on tax rolls, and that the plaintiffs never claimed to be.

The court’s role is also in dispute. Aguiar argued that the court could not rule on whether the museum’s plans actually violate the Lakefront Protection Ordinance – only the Plan Commission has this authority, Aguiar said. The court, Aguiar said, can only determine whether the Plan Commission acted with sufficient evidence.

Ruberry acknowledged judicial limitations, but said the Plan Commission “totally ignored the evidence.”

“Every once in awhile, an agency or legislature get something so totally wrong it requires intervention,” Ruberry said.


No Comments - Add Your Comment