La Grange Today

Attorney for residents opposing Gordon Park sale will present their case, answer questions at Weds forum

If you have been wondering why various residents have spent nearly three years in a legal battle with the Park District of La Grange over efforts to sell a portion of Gordon Park to a developer, you may find some answers Wednesday night at a forum hosted by the La Grange Citizens Council.

Tom Beyer, a La Grange resident and one of three attorneys representing the Friends of La Grange Parks, a group of some 20 residents who oppose the park district's latest petition to have a Cook County Circuit Court judge approve the sale, will make a presentation and answer questions.

Mary Ellen Penicook, the newly appointed president of the park district's board of commissioners, declined an invitation to participate and share the park district's perspective, Katie Justak, chairperson of the citizens council, said.

An attempt to reach Penicook for comment was unsuccessful.

The forum will be held in the Village Hall auditorium as part of the council's regular monthly meeting, which begins at 7:30 p.m.

The meeting will also be an opportunity for residents to join the citizens council in order to participate in its endorsement later this year of candidates seeking election to the village board of trustees, park district board of commissioners and library board.

Park sale objectors respond to commissioner criticism

The Friends of La Grange Parks, a group of residents who filed formal objections to the Park District of La Grange's latest petition seeking court permission to sell a portion of Gordon Park, yesterday issued a written response to harsh comments recently and publicly directed at the group by Park Board President Tim Kelpsas and Vice President Bob Ashby.

Here is the complete text of the residents' response:

At the August 12, 2010 meeting of the Park District of La Grange, two members of the Board made some unprofessional and disparaging remarks about the La Grange Friends of the Park (Friends). They also stated that they did not know what the Friends wanted.

The Friends have always been very clear as to what they wanted: STOP the sale of the park land so that the park land/open space can be preserved for future generations. It is as simple as that. The Friends are not trying to delay the sale of the precious park land, the Friends are trying to prevent it. The frustration exhibited by the Board is a result of the Park District’s ignorance of the process the statute under which they are proceeding provides.

What the Park District needs to understand is that Illinois law does not provide Park Districts with any inherent authority to sell park land. The statute under which the Park District of La Grange is proceeding in this case requires the Park District to ASK PERMISSION from the court for the authority to sell the land. This statute, 70 ILCS 1235, specifically provides that the court hear the objections to the sale.

What the Park District also needs to understand is that although this law was written in 1887, this is a case of "First Impression." In a case of first impression, the particular law has never been interpreted. Usually, a court may look to other cases to see how to interpret the law at issue, but in a case of first impression, the court cannot rely on any precedent. Therefore, the Park District's expectations as to how this case should proceed and how long it should take are only based on speculation, not fact.

We should realize the inherent wisdom of our founding fathers in establishing the court system as the arbiter. Each of us may find ourselves in disagreement with a government entity at some time and should be able to enjoy the protections afforded to us as we try to resolve our dispute. Citizens should not have to be subject to name calling and intimidation by the public officials and/or their representatives for standing on principle.

The statement that the trial should be over by now is simply not true. There are many reasons that the trial has not yet occurred—one reason is that the Park District has asked for many extensions. The latest postponement was due to the Judge’s conflicts. To place the blame on the Friends is wrong.

It is not clear exactly how much money the Park District has spent trying to sell the park land, but the amount is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is clear is that the Park District Board chose to squander taxpayers’ money on legal fees instead of negotiating and compromising. Many months ago, the Friends offered to drop their objection to the sale of one of the parcels in the interest of settling this dispute. The Park District refused this offer. If the Park District had accepted that offer, this dispute could have been settled.

The text above was provided by Joan Johnson, one of three attorneys representing the group.

Read related story:

• Ashby steams over park sale objectors: "They stink"

Ashby steams over park sale objectors: "They stink"

Bob Ashby, vice president of the Park District of La Grange board of commissioners, rarely has lashed out in public at the residents with whom the district has been embroiled in a nearly three-year legal battle over its efforts to sell a portion of Gordon Park to a developer Atlantic Realty Partners.

Likely it was the frustration of spending more than an hour last Thursday night working with his fellow park commissioners in an attempt to find an alternative way to finance the park's renovation that caused him to blow steam in the objectors' direction.

These were Ashby's remarks, made during the portion at the end of Thursday's board meeting reserved for open comment from the commissioners:

The people who have objected and stymied the sale of property in Gordon Park—they stink.  I don't know if it's for the press or for whomever but, man, you guys are killing me everyday.

We can't even do Gordon Park half as well as we would like right now, and it is directly attributed to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been spent on litigation and the six point some million dollars that we could have gotten, and that we don't stand a chance of getting now.

I hope that you guys are getting something that you want because... I don't know what they want. I wish I did.

Board President Tim Kelpsas, never one to exhibit restraint in his disdain for the objectors, followed up with these remarks:

I think that the objectors' [lack of] respect for the tax dollars is unconscionable.

This [court] trial was supposed to be over by this meeting, and it is not. The reason it is not is because the objectors continue to file delay after delay after delay. That costs a lot of money. If you put all that money together... if you put the $6.5 million that we could have had a few years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation today trying to squeeze out barely half of Gordon Park.

Maybe the objectors, Bob, are having a lot of parties out there [in the park] with the ducks. That frustrates me a lot too.

Kevin Shields, the only resident objector present at the meeting and a former park commissioner, did not respond to either commissioner's remarks. When approached by this reporter shortly after the meeting, Shields said he supported the renovation of Gordon Park.

"I just don't believe in selling off parkland to pay for it," he said.

Read related stories:

• Gordon Park renovation plans proceed cautiously as park commissioners wrestle with funding concerns
• Park sale supporter caps tirade aimed at objectors with vulgar taunts at a former park commissioner

Gordon Park renovation plans proceed cautiously as park commissioners wrestle with funding concerns

Commissioners for the Park District of La Grange last Thursday authorized the solicitation of bids for the construction of the first phase of its long-promised renovation of Gordon Park.

But commissioners tabled a vote to approve a $2.2 million construction budget for the first-phase work, relenting to concerns expressed by Bob Ashby, the park board's vice president, that the district has not secured adequate funding for the project.

"No way, shape or form do we have $2.2 million," Ashby said, who chairs the board's finance committee.

Dean Bissias, the park district's executive director, agreed, telling the board that $1.5 million might be available.

"I think $1.5 million is pretty far out there," Ashby responded.

"It's going to stretch the funds, no doubt about it," Bissias said.

Money these days apparently is tight for the park district, at least more so than in Nov. 2008, when commissioners initially approved a renovation budget for Gordon Park totaling more than $4.5 million.

At the time, they were counting on receiving some $6.5 million in cash and in-kind services from Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP) in exchange for selling the developer 2.82 acres of Gordon Park adjoining the former Rich Port YMCA site. ARP planned to redevelop both parcels with a major residential and commercial project, known as La Grange Place.

Both ARP's project and the renovation plans for Gordon Park appeared to have a distinct green light as district voters that November authorized the parkland sale in a public referendum by a margin of 55 to 45 percent.

But the park district also was embroiled in series of lawsuits brought by various residents who opposed selling any parkland. The legal battle still continues today, going on nearly three years.

In the meantime, the collapse of the real estate market forced ARP to dramatically scale back its plans for La Grange Place, and the price it would pay for the parkland, once and if the park district prevails in court.

The park district's claim that it has spent approximately $400,000 in legal costs battling the residents was raised on more than one occasion as commissioners wrestled with figures Thursday night.

Tim Kelpsas, president of the park board, said he had hoped the lawsuits would be resolved by that night's meeting. A trial in the hearing of the park district's latest petition had appeared likely to occur last month before Cook County Circuit Judge Susan Fox Gillis.

"The reason it [did] not is because the objectors continue to file delay after delay after delay," Kelpsas said.

In fact, while attorneys for the park district have often accused the residents' attorneys of delay tactics, the court has never acted on those complaints.

More important, the residents won the first two rounds in court.

In the current third round, a trial anticipated last month was postponed when the residents' attorneys filed a motion asking Judge Gillis to clarify the legal standards she would use in conducting the trial.  Instead of objecting to the motion, the park district's attorneys actually supported it.

A hearing scheduled for Aug. 4, at which Gillis was expected to respond to that motion, was postponed until Aug. 27 at the judge's request. In the meantime, the lead attorneys for both sides are out of town on vacation.

Despite the uncertain outcome of their legal situation, the commissioners said they are compelled to move forward with the renovation plans for the west side of Gordon Park.

Earlier this year, the park district was awarded a $400,000 grant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources through its Open Space Land Acquisition & Development program—called OSLAD for short.

The grant money can be used only for the specific reasons it was requested: recreational amenities that are integral to the first-phase renovation of Gordon Park. These include a fenced and lighted soccer field, a splash pad, skating spot, butterfly garden and fitness stations along a walking path.

OSLAD only awards matching grants paid as reimbursements, so the park district must spend at least $800,000 before it can claim the $400,000 grant.

"Is it worth spending $1.3 million to get $400,000?" Ashby asked his fellow commissioners.

Combined, those two figures equal $1.7 million, significantly short of the $2.2 million budget the board was considering. But from among the many figures flying around the room that night, a consensus appeared to form around $1.7 million, give or take a little, as the project's low-end cost.

Achieving that goal could include trimming back some the planned amenities, said Dave Olson, co-president of W.B. Olson & Co of Northbrook, the firm that will manage the renovation construction. But nothing specifically mentioned in the OSLAD grant can be eliminated entirely.

Among the possible cuts already suggested in the budget document provided to commissioners was eliminating the water heater and recirculation system for the splash pad.

That would deliver an upfront savings of $108,000, said Jeff Braun, president of Cody Braun, the firm hired to handle the renovation planning and design.

But there also are backside costs in such a move, he said, and not just because children would have to play in chilly water. Not recirculating the water means the splash pad would use an estimated 500,000 gallons a month from municipal supplies at an approximate cost of $12,000 a year. 

Any significant reduction in the renovation costs are likely to come from the competitive bidding process, Olson said. Sub-contractors, anxious to secure good projects in a bad economy are likely to submit bids lower than usual.

"We are seeing 10 percent [reductions]," Olson said.

"How good are you at negotiating those bids?" Kelpsas asked.

Olson explained to Kelpsas that negotiation is not allowed in a competitive bidding scenario.

Was it OK to solicit bids without first approving a construction budget? one commissioner asked. That way the board could get better handle on the costs before committing to a budget.

"It wouldn't be the first time," Braun assured them.

Bissias said he would explore opportunities to obtain funding through additional grants, perhaps even a second one from OSLAD.

At one point, Kelpsas looked out at the audience members, who had sat patiently during the discussion, which lasted more than hour.

"Don't think we don't want to do this," he told them. "We really do. We've just got to find the money."

Read related story:

• Ashby steams over park sale objectors: "They stink"

Court hearing in Gordon Park sale effort postponed

A court  hearing scheduled for this afternoon on the Park District of La Grange's latest petition effort to sell a portion of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty partners was postponed until Aug. 27 at the request of Judge Susan Fox Gillis, who presides over the case.

Gillis gave no specific reason  for the postponement, Tom Beyer, an attorney for Friends of La Grange Parks, a group of residents who oppose the sale.

The judge today was expected to clarify for both sides the legal standards she intends to apply when the case goes to trial, likely in September, Beyer said.

Rich Port YMCA walls start coming down Tuesday

UPDATE, July 27: Demolition of the exterior structure of the Rich Port YMCA kept to its post-strike schedule as the bricks started falling Tuesday. If you were hoping the building would meet its demise by imploding into a cloud of smoke, you will be disappointed. YMCA officials chose the more cost-effective method of literally tearing it down. The process should be completed within a week.

---

Demolition of the exterior structure of the vacant Rich Port YMCA is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, Chris Ganschow, a spokesman for the Metropolitan YMCA of Chicago, said today.

Rich Port YMCA demolition progresses,
Aug. 14, 2010
Click photo for larger image

While removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials from the 62-year-old was completed last month, Ganschow said, a June 1 strike by heavy equipment operators from the Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 brought work at the site to a halt.

Following settlement of the strike this week, Chicago-based Heneghan Wrecking & Excavating Co. resumed its removal of some additional interior elements from the five-story structure.

The building's disappearance no doubt will be met with applause by residents and village officials, who have viewed the structure as an eyesore since the YMCA vacated it early in 2008.

Future use of the site is still uncertain, Ganschow said.

YMCA officials had a contract to sell the parcel to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP), which planned to build a major residential and commercial development on the site, a project known as La Grange Place. But that deal was dependent on the developer purchasing an adjoining 2.82-acre portion of Gordon Park from the Park District of La Grange.

Opposition to the sale of the parkland by various residents has tied up the Park District in Cook County Circuit Court for nearly three years.

Also, the collapse of the real estate market forced ARP to significantly downsize its plans for La Grange Place. Last November, when the developer attempted to forge a settlement that would end the legal battle, ARP President Richard Aaronson told YMCA officials that he would only complete purchase of the Rich Port parcel if the price were substantially reduced.

YMCA officials then walked away from the deal, saying that the revised offer would not provide sufficient funds to allow the organization to acquire property elsewhere in the area for a new facility.

The YMCA is now exploring all options for the future of the site, Ganschow said.

Freeborn Peters law firm withdraws as co-counsel for Park District in Gordon Park legal battle

One of the two law firms representing the Park District of La Grange in its legal efforts to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP) withdrew its services today.

John Shapiro, an attorney for the Freeborn Peters law firm, made the announcement this morning at a hearing before Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis, who is considering the Park District's latest petition seeking court approval of the sale.

Shapiro said the decision was made "reluctantly" but cited the Park District's need to curb its mounting legal costs. Park District officials said they have spent more than $400,000 attempting to overcome objections raised in court by residents opposed to sale of the parkland.

The Park District will continue to be represented in court by its general counsel, Rob Bush, of the law firm, Ancel Glink.  

The legal battle over the proposed sale has been ongoing for nearly three years.

Freeborn Peters was brought in two years ago after Judge Gillis rejected the Park District's initial petition.

The firm did not participate in defending the Park District in a second lawsuit brought by La Grange resident Orlando Coryell that challenged a  Nov. 2008 public referendum in which voters approved sale of the parkland by a margin of 55 to 45 percent, and a public auction that followed in Jan. 2009.

The auction was voided by another Circuit Court judge, Leroy Martin Jr., who ruled that ARP, the sole bidder was granted an unfair advantage over other potential bidders. That case currently is on appeal.

Freeborn Peters served as co-counsel in the Park District's second petition effort to obtain approval of the sale from Judge Gillis.

A trial regarding that petition scheduled to begin today was postponed when attorneys for residents opposing the sale were granted a hearing by Judge Gillis on their motion for clarification of the legal standards involved.

Gordon Park sale trial postponed as opposition seeks clarification from judge on legal standards at issue

A trial that was scheduled to begin Friday morning in Cook County Circuit Court to determine whether or not the Park District of La Grange can sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP) today was postponed after attorneys for La Grange Friends of the Park, a group of residents who oppose the sale, filed a motion asking Judge Susan Fox Gillis to clarify what legal standards she will apply in evaluating the Park District's latest sale application.

Gillis said she will consider the motion at a hearing she scheduled for Aug. 4, by which time attorneys for the Park District are expected to have filed a response.

A new trial date then likely will be set, although not before late August because some of the attorneys on both sides told the judge that they will be out of town on vacations during the two weeks following the next hearing.

The 15-page motion presented today does not present arguments in support of the Friends' stance against sale of the parkland, but rather attempts "to objectively provide the relevant law for this matter, state the current posture, and request that the Court give guidance on how [it] intends to proceed," according to the text of the document.

In an unusual display of agreement during this otherwise contentious legal battle over the proposed sale, which has played out for nearly three years, Rob Bush, general counsel for the Park District, told Gillis he supported the Friends' clarification motion.

"They got it right," Bush said, citing specifically a conclusion in the motion that puts the burden on the Friends' attorneys to show that park commissioners have no rational basis for determining that the 2.87 acres was no longer useful or needed as parkland, as required by the Illinois Park District Code.

The proposed shift in the burden of proof is at odds with a stance taken by Judge Gillis at a previous hearing held June 28, in which she said it was incumbent upon the Park District to prove that its determination was neither "arbitrary or capricious."

Tom Beyer, one of three attorneys representing the Friends, welcomed Bush's support of the motion but cautioned against his opponent's enthusiasm.

Beyer noted that the conclusions contained in the motion also expressed belief that the provision of the Park District Code directing the court to determine whether or not the sale of parkland was in the public interest, and further directing the court to set the terms and conditions of the sale, was unconstitutional because courts are expressly prohibited from engaging in what are considered to be legislative duties reserved for municipalities and other local entities such as park districts.

That conclusion also runs counter to a ruling Gillis made, also at the June 28 hearing, rejecting a motion from the Friends specifically asking her to find the statute unconstitutional.

Beyer said he hoped the clarification motion would provide the judge with additional analysis and insight.

"It's the responsibility of every attorney to provide a judge with all the available information needed to render a sound decision," Beyer said. "You can't assume a judge already knows everything."

Gillis denies judgment motions from both sides in dispute over proposal to sell Gordon Park acreage

A Cook County judge this afternoon denied motions for opposing summary judgment filed by attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over efforts by the Park District of La Grange to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to a developer.

La Grange Friends of the Parks, a group of residents who oppose the sale of parkland, raised objections when the Park District filed its latest sale petition with the court last year.

The rulings by Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis set the stage for a full trial to determine whether sale of the parkland is in the public interest, as required by the Illinois Park District Code.

Gillis did agree with Park District attorneys that the trial should focus on whether or not the reasons cited by its board of commissioners in determining that the 2.82 acres was "no longer needed or useful as parkland" were factually based or "arbitrary and capricious."

The judge also scheduled a hearing for June 10 at which she will discuss how the trial will proceed. The trial itself likely will be held later this month or in early July.

Check back later for a more complete report.

Judge 'cuts the guts out' of Gordon Park affidavits

UPDATE - June 1: The hearing scheduled for today was rescheduled for Friday, June 4, at the judge's request.

A Cook County judge last Friday struck from the record significant portions of testimony contained in 30 affidavits submitted by the Park District of La Grange in support of its latest petition to obtain court approval to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP).

Going over every affidavit paragraph by paragraph, and in some cases line by line, Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis removed almost every statement citing the anticipated benefits the sale would have, both in funding improvements to the remaining 14 acres of the park, and to the community as a whole.

In taking her action, Gillis referenced an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that was cited in a motion to dismiss the affidavits filed by attorneys for La Grange Friends of the Parks, a group of residents who are asking the court not to approve the Park District's sale petition.

Gillis said she agreed with the Friends' contention that “the affidavits boil down to general statements of support for the Park District’s case which are not evidentiary and should not be considered." Typically, a judge will not consider opinions unless they are offered by individuals whose expertise on a topic has been documented to her satisfaction.

In addition to affidavits prepared by Park District officials, the documents affected include those submitted by officials for the Village of La Grange, former La Grange Business Association President Michael LaPidus and other local businesspersons and residents, as well as those filed on behalf of the Illinois Park District Association, ARP President Richard Aaronson, and two landscape architects hired by the Park District.

But Judge Gillis did not stop there.

Although attorneys for the Park District did not formally request her to strike any of the eight affidavits submitted by the Friends, Gillis seized upon a footnote that the Park District included in one of its filings that reserves the right to make a similar motion at a later date.

The judge then proceeded to apply a red pen to the Friends affidavits, again striking almost all statements and, in some cases, single adjectives and adverbs, that Gillis said were opinions not facts, or in some cases too vague.

Left untouched by Gillis were two resolutions submitted by the village board of trustees and the District 102 school board, both of which support the sale and include many of the same subjective statements the judge struck from other affidavits.

Gillis said she would not edit the resolutions of those legislative bodies, but added that their statements may not be supported by facts.

"Personal knowledge is key, not personal conclusions," Gillis said.

Exactly where Gillis' action leaves the Park District in its effort to convince her of the merits of its petition is uncertain. When attorneys for the Park District subsequently asked Gillis what standards she would now apply in deciding the matter, the judge did not provide clear instruction.

"I’m cutting the guts out in most cases for both sides," the judge noted, suggesting that, in the event she sets a hearing for oral arguments, the parties' respective attorneys will face the burden of preparing strong, fact-based presentations on why—or why not—sale of the parkland is in the "public interest," the standard established in the Illinois Park District Code .

However, a full hearing may never take place should Gillis grant either of two opposing motions for summary judgment, one filed by each side last month. A decision on those motions is expected June 1.

If Gillis sides with the Friends, she may rule, as she did in June 2008 on an earlier sale petition submitted by the Park District, that the parkland in question exceeds three acres and is therefore outside the court's jurisdiction.

Park officials say the problem with the first petition—a vacated portion of Shawmut Ave, amounting to three-quarters of an acre, was included in the legal description, increasing the amount of parkland being sold to 3.5 acres—has been remedied by swapping the vacated roadway to the village in exchange for a parking lot on Locust Ave adjacent to Gordon Park.

But the Friends contend that the vacated roadway is still part of the deal because the swap only stays in place if the 2.82 acres of parkland is sold to ARP.

If Gillis buys that argument, the Park District may be forced to fall back on its alternative plan to sell the parkland under the authority of a public referendum held in November of that year.

Park District voters approved the sale referendum by a margin of 55 to 45 percent, but a subsequent auction in which developer ARP was the sole and successful bidder was voided by another Cook County judge, Leroy Martin Jr, who ruled in June 2009 that a level playing field did not exist because ARP had been granted favorable zoning by the village that did not apply to other potential bidders.

That ruling is currently being reviewed by the state appellate court.

A full hearing also may not be required if Gillis grants the Park District's motion for summary judgment and agrees with its contention that another Illinois Supreme Court ruling, Fields Jeep-Eagle v. Chrysler, bars the court from second-guessing a legislative body's reasons for determining what is in the "public interest."

If Gillis agrees with the Park District, however, Tom Beyer, one of three attorneys for the Friends, said they would ask the court to find unconstitutional the statute under which the Park District's petition was submitted, a result that occurred in the Fields case, but that Beyer said the Park District's attorneys have "conveniently ignored."

Beyer raised the issue of constitutionality in a motion filed with the court earlier this month, but Gillis declined to consider it at that time.

Even if the Park District is ultimately successful in obtaining court approval of its latest petition, there remains the question of whether ARP is still interested in purchasing the parkland.

ARP's Aaronson last November said that the currently distressed real estate  market will not support his company's plans for La Grange Place, its major residential and commercial redevelopment of the former YMCA Rich Port site and the adjoining park acreage, which was approved by village trustees in April 2008.

An effort by ARP to renegotiate its purchase price for the Rich Port parcel were rebuffed by YMCA officials, who in December said they would explore alternate plans for the site.

Last week, the YMCA announced it would demolish the five-story building on the site, which has sat vacant for the past three years, and is generally viewed as an eyesore.