Judge dismisses five of six counts in Gordon Park lawsuit, orders trial before ruling on remaining count

A Cook County circuit court judge today dismissed five of six counts in a lawsuit seeking to block the sale of two parcels from Gordon Park, and ordered a trial for June 1 to hear arguments on the remaining count.

On the first count, Judge Leroy Martin Jr ruled that resident Orlando Coryell had no standing to challenge the park district's handling of procedures leading up to a Nov. 4 referendum, in which voters authorized the sale the two parcels, because he waited until after the referendum to file his lawsuit. Even if Coryell had taken legal action before the referendum, the judge said he would have dismissed the count because park officials, while admitting they did not comply with all procedural requirements, were in "substantial compliance."

On the second count, Martin said that it made no difference whether or not the park district had a sound basis for determining that the parkland it wants to sell is no longer useful or needed. The judge noted that in the statute governing the sale of parkland "nothing requires specificity" in making such a determination.

In dismissing counts four through six, all of which deal with aspects of the public trust doctrine, the judge said it would be unreasonable to take the position that parkland, once acquired, could never be sold or disposed of.

Addressing Coryell's specific contention in count six that the process for selling parkland set forth in the Illinois Park District Code violates the state's constitution, Martin said, "I couldn't quite frankly disagree more." He noted that the statute specifically calls for citizens to determine whether or not a parkland sale is appropriate. "The determination of voters is the greatest oversight anyone can find," the judge said.

On the third count, however, Martin said it was possible that the park district failed to provide a level playing field for all potential bidders at the public auction of the two parcels it held Jan. 8, in which developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP) was the sole bidder.

"It would seem to me that ARP would have an advantage," Martin said, noting that the La Grange village board of trustees last year adopted an ordinance approving a plan submitted by the developer, with the park district's endorsement, to redevelop the park parcels along with adjacent land ARP would acquire from the YMCA. The planned unit development and rezoning included in that ordinance did not extend to any other potential developer. In fact, they would be rescinded in the event ARP did not acquire the land.

"I'm not sure we really have a public sale here," the judge said.

Comments

[WilliamDobias]

I love the concept of "substantial compliance." Next time you are caught by a traffic camera making a right turn on the red light without a complete stop, try telling the judge that you were in "substantial compliance" because you took your foot off of the accelerator, put it on the brake pedal, slowed the car, made sure there were no pedestrians or oncoming cars and continued to dart across the intersection, even though you did not come to a complete stop. I'm sure that any reasonable judge would see the merit of "substantial compliance".

[Chris]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

It's not like the judge cooked up this doctrine over a coffee break and decided to apply it just to see what would happen.

If you think the doctrine of substantial compliance is so bad, your remedy lies with the legislature.