Three of four counts dismissed in park sale lawsuit

A Cook County judge this afternoon dismissed three of four counts of a lawsuit that seeks to stop the Park District of La Grange from selling 2.82 acres of Gordon Park.

Judge Leroy K. Martin Jr. told attorneys for the park district and those representing the plaintiff, Orlando Coryell, to prepare for a hearing on the remaining count, which alleges park officials failed to properly follow procedures in the Illinois Park District code as they readied a public referendum held last November in which voters authorized sale of the parkland by a margin of 55 to 45 percent.

Martin scheduled a status hearing for Jan. 26 but formal arguments are unlikely to be ready by then.

Despite the uncertainty shadowing its authority to sell the parkland, park officials intend to proceed with a public auction scheduled for Jan. 8. However, they agreed not to finalize any sale before March 1, in order to allow adequate time for a hearing on the remaining count.

Martin also said he would consider an amended complaint that Coryell's attorneys sought to file in a separate hearing held earlier in the day. The amended complaint contains two new counts, alleging that both the sale and the statute that allows it violate Article VIII, Section 1a of the Illinois Constitution, which holds that "Public ... property ... shall only be used for public purpose."

Although similar to the public trust doctrine, a common law that governs the responsibilities of government entities with respect to land held in trust for the public, the public purpose doctrine more specifically addresses public expenditures, according to attorney Mark Wohlberg who, along with attorney Tom Beyer, represents Coryell.

A contention that the park sale violated the public trust doctrine was one of three counts dismissed today by Judge Martin. He ruled that because a statute existed authorizing the park district to sell parkland under proscribed circumstances, the public trust doctrine did not apply.

A second count dismissed by the judge alleged that park commissioners did not provide an adequate basis for their finding that the 2.82 acres was no longer useful for park purposes. Robert Bush, an attorney for the park district, successfully argued that the statute did not proscribe specific criteria for making such finding and therefore the park board's finding complied with the law.

The third dismissed count alleged that the public auction scheduled by the park district was merely a "guise" through which a "private sale" of the parkland to Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP) would be conducted. Park officials have said publicly they expect no other bidders.

But Martin said that since anyone could conceivably place a bid at the auction, the statutory requirements were satisfied.

When Beyer countered that ARP had an unfair advantage over other bidders—for example, a rezoning last year by the village board of the parkland for commercial use takes effect only in the event ARP purchases the property—Martin did not disagree, but suggested that argument was not properly constructed in the complaint.

Beyer subsequently told reporters that he may take the judge's cue and revise the count in the amended complaint.

If ARP purchases the parkland, it would be included in a major redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA site, a project known as La Grange Place.

Comments

[David Slade]

Readers may be interested in knowing that the Public Trust Doctrine does apply to parkland subject to sale in New York. This is covered in the new book The Public Trust Doctrine In Motion, which can be googled to find.