Attorneys for La Grange Friends of the Park (LGFP) this morning said they will not provide the Park District of La Grange with a written settlement proposal on which park commissioners can act at its regular monthly meeting scheduled for tonight.
Park Board President Tim Kelpsas Tuesday told the Suburban Life newspaper he hoped LGFP would provide a document detailing a proposal presented verbally to park district attorneys in a meeting held Sept. 21 in the chambers of Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis, who convened the closed session in hopes the parties could reach a settlement and avoid a possibly lengthy trial over the park district's latest petition to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP).
Upon hearing this morning that no document was forthcoming, Kelpsas said he was "frustrated" by the news.
Tom Beyer and Mark Wohlberg, attorneys for LGFP, a group of some two dozen residents who filed objections to the parkland sale, this morning said it would serve no purpose to reiterate the group's original proposal in light of a counterproposal it received last week from ARP.
While Beyer would not elaborate on the specifics of the counterproposal, he said it contained "creative thinking" on ARP's part that could significantly alter the scenario initially proposed by the residents group.
Beyer said LGFP was awaiting the outcome of ongoing talks between ARP and village officials regarding the viability of the developer's ideas for reshaping its plans for La Grange Place, a major mixed-use redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA parcel.
Now that the settlement talks have expanded to include ARP and the village, "it's like a game of Chinese checkers," Beyer said. "ARP has presented its ideas to the village so, right now, we are waiting on the village to move its ball."
Under plans approved in April 2008 by village trustees, ARP intended to incorporate the 2.82 acres of Gordon Park adjacent to the Y site INTO the project, which as currently designed would comprise 284 mid-rise apartments, 23 townhomes and 30,000 of commercial space.
But ARP President Richard Aronson said Tuesday that his company now was looking to reduce the scope and cost of the project to reflect a retracted real estate market.
In that light, LGFP's original proposal, which would have ARP purchase the development rights to the park acreage rather than the land itself and transfer its density allowance to the Y site, was "not workable," Aronson said.
"Densifying the project doesn't make sense," Aronson said.
ARP's involvement in the settlement discussions was encouraged by Judge Gillis during a second round of talks between the judge and attorneys for both LGFP and the park district held Oct. 5.
Immediately following those talks, LGFP's attorneys gave the park district's attorneys copies of an email Beyer had sent to ARP that he said reflected the specifics of the verbal proposal made in the closed-chamber meeting two weeks earlier.
ARP at that time had not yet responded with its counterproposal. Beyer said he hoped the document would prod park district officials to more actively participate in the negotiations, as no discussions had taken place between the parties outside of court.
Kelpsas this morning said the park district did not respond to the document because it was not specifically directed to the park district and did not structure the proposal in a manner that indicated what specifically was being asked of the park district. Thus, it was not a document on which park commissioners could act, the park board president said.
Kelpsas also said that the Suburban Life story did not accurately quote a statement he made to reporter Joe Sinopoli and gives readers the mistaken impression that he and other park officials are unaware of the general substance of LGFP's proposal.
"One of our very strong board values is that each Park District of La Grange board member is fully aware of our attorney communications and any receipt of information," Kelpsas said.
With no document on which to act at tonight's meeting, Kelpsas said he was not certain if the park board would meet in closed session to discuss the settlement negotiations.
The park board held its last meeting Sept. 17, four days prior to the first round of settlement talks.
Park commissioners at this point may feel as if they are "outside looking in through a window" at the negotiations ongoing between LGFP, ARP and the village, Beyer said.
But that is a choice park officials made on their own, Wohlberg, his co-counsel said.
Park officials had ample opportunity to present their own alternative to LGFP's proposal in the month that has passed since it was verbally presented to their attorneys in Judge Gillis' chambers, Wohlberg said.
"Our proposal was met then with a brick wall and nothing appears to have changed," Wohlberg said.
At that most recent hearing this past Monday, John Shapiro, an attorney for the park district, told Judge Gillis that a settlement with LGFP was not likely. He urged her instead to proceed with a hearing on the merits of the park district's petition.
Comments