La Grange Today

Public to get details of Gordon Park settlement talks this week, says attorney for residents group

An attorney for La Grange Friends of the Park LGFP), a group of residents opposed to the sale of 2.82 acres from Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP), said Saturday that his group this week would issue a written copy of its latest proposal to end litigation that for two years has held up redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA site at La Grange Rd and Ogden Ave.

Tom Beyer, one of three attorneys, all La Grange residents, who represent LGFP, said that half of the groups 20-odd members met Saturday morning to consider a settlement scenario put forth by ARP.

Beyer said the group had reached a consensus on a response but wanted to circulate a written copy of their position to all members of the group for input before releasing the document to the public.

Beyer said he hoped to make the proposal available to anyone interested as early as Wednesday.

While he would not discuss details of the negotiations with ARP, Beyer indicated that LGFP and the developer are close to having an agreement in principle, but said that no final settlement was possible without the cooperation of the Park District of La Grange and village officials.

For more details on the negotiations. the legal action and what's at stake, watch the video provided below.

Park board meets tonight but without Gordon Park settlement terms it wanted from sale objectors

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 Aaronson 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," Aaronson said.

"Densifying the project doesn't make sense," Aaronson 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.

Park board looks for details of settlement proposal; Residents' attys say document was given weeks ago

The president of the Park District of La Grange board of commissioners this week said he was still waiting for details of a settlement proposal from La Grange Friends of the Park (LGFP), a residents group that filed an objection in Cook County Circuit Court to the park district's latest petition seeking approval to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP).

The news surprised LGFP's attorneys, who said they provided the park district's attorneys more than two weeks ago with a written document that contained details of the settlement proposal.

“The only information we have heard from the objectors is in court," Park Board President Tim Kelpsas told the Suburban Life newspaper in a story published in Tuesday's edition. "We have no idea what the proposal is, and we very much wish they would send it to us before the Thursday (Oct. 22 Park) Board meeting."

Bob Ashby, park board vice president, in a conversation Monday night with La Grange Today said that he, too, was waiting for some communication from LGFP.

"All I know about the proposal is what I read in The Doings," Ashby said, referring to a story published in that newspaper earlier this month.

Tom Beyer, an attorney for the residents group, said that during a court hearing held Oct. 5 in which Judge Susan Fox Gillis directed attorneys for both sides to involve ARP in settlement negotiations, park district attorneys Rob Bush and John Shapiro each were handed copies of a memo Beyer said he emailed to ARP containing details of the settlement proposal.

"It was a written summary of what we had verbally presented to Bush and Shapiro two weeks earlier during our meeting with the judge," Beyer said, referring to a closed-chamber session held Sept. 21 in which all of the attorneys met with Gillis in their initial settlement talk.

Ashby and another park commissioner, Mary Ellen Penicook, were present in the courtroom during the Oct. 5 hearing, along with Dean Bissias, the park district's executive director.

"We expected their attorneys would forward the document to them," Beyer said.

The document, a copy of which was obtained by La Grange Today and can be read by clicking here, proposes that ARP purchase development rights to the acreage from Gordon Park rather than the land itself, and then transfer the density allowance to the adjacent former Rich Port YMCA site, on which ARP has plans approved by the village to build a major mixed residential and commercial development known as La Grange Place.

La Grange Today on Tuesday emailed a copy of the document to both Kelpsas and Ashby, and asked each of them if, given their earlier statements, they had been unaware of the document's existence.

"No, you are not correct," Kelpsas said in an email response. "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."

When asked in a subsequent email how that answer reconciled with his statement to Suburban Life, Kelpsas did not respond.

Ashby did not respond at all to the email inquiry, nor to a followup phone call to his home on Tuesday night.

Richard Aaronson, president of ARP, Tuesday said that he had received the copy of the document emailed to him by Beyer, and that he had responded with a counterproposal, the details of which Aaronson would not discuss other than to say that LGFP's proposal was "not workable" because "densifying the project doesn't make sense" given the currently weak real estate market.

"We are looking to reduce the scope and cost of the project," Aaronson said.

Beyer Wednesday confirmed that he had received Aaronson's counterproposal in verbal form last week during a phone conversation the two men had. Beyer also would not divulge its details, but said he had received nothing in writing concerning the counterproposal.

Beyer said he informed Shapiro of his conversation with Aaronson during a court hearing held this past Monday. Shapiro appeared surprised to learn about the existence of a counterproposal, Beyer said.

At that hearing Monday, Shapiro told Judge Gillis that a settlement with LGFP was not likely. He urged her to proceed with a hearing on the merits of the park district's petition.

Beyer said Aaronson made no mention in their conversation of having talked with park commissioners or their attorneys about the counterproposal. But Beyer said that Aaronson did say he had been in talks with Village Manager Bob Pilipiszyn and Patrick Benjamin, the village's director of community development.

Beyer also said that ARP's attorney, Brad Block, had contacted him earlier to ask if the developer could discuss the contents of LGFP's proposal with representatives of the YMCA.

Jim Palermo, a village trustee credited by Beyer with suggesting the idea of having ARP purchase the development rights, said Monday he has had no communication with any park district officials regarding settlement talks.

Village President Elizabeth Asperger Monday said she had only an informal conversation regarding the matter with Penicook, whom Asperger said initiated the discussion.

The park board has not met in any formal session since Sept. 17, four days before the initial closed-session settlement talks. Its next scheduled meeting is tonight at 7:30 p.m. at the recreation center, located at 536 East Ave.

ARP offers counterproposal in Gordon Park talks

The president of Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP) today said that his company had offered an alternative scenario to a settlement proposal made by La Grange Friends of the Park (LGFP), a residents group that opposes plans by the park District of La Grange to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to the developer.

Richard Aaronson would not reveal the specifics of the counterproposal but said the scenario offered by LGFP, in which ARP would purchase only the development rights to the park acreage, not the land itself, and transfer the density allowance to the adjacent former Rich Port YMCA site is "not workable."

"Densifying the project doesn't make sense," Aaronson said. 

Under a plan for the project, known as La Grange Place, approved by village trustees in April 2008, ARP would construct 284 mid-rise apartment units situated mostly on the Y site and partly on the adjoining park acreage. Twenty-three two-story townhomes would be built on parkland north of the Y site. Some 30,000 square feet of commercial space would be built solely on the Y site.

Under a scenario involving purchase and transfer of development rights, the density allowance for both the Y site and parkland conceivably could be combined on the Y site, possibly resulting in an increased number of apartment units. The townhomes would not be built under that scenario.

Increasing the density on the Y site does not appeal to ARP given the downturn in the economy since the project was approved more than two years ago, Aaronson said.

"We are looking to reduce the scope and cost of the project," he said, given the currently weak real estate market.

Aaronson said that his counterproposal is contingent on a number of issues being resolved between the developer, the park district, the residents group and the village.

Tom Beyer, an attorney for LGFP and Tim Kelpsas, president of the park board, were not immediately available for comment regarding ARP's counterproposal.

LGFP formally objected in Cook County Circuit Court to a petition filed earlier this year by the park district asking judge Susan Fox Gillis to directly approve the sale of the 2.82 acres to ARP. The settlement talks were initiated by Gillis in hopes of avoiding a lengthy and costly trial.

An attorney for the park district Monday told Gillis that a settlement was not likely and asked her schedule a hearing on the merits of the petition.

PDLG attorney asks judge to proceed with hearing on Gordon Park sale without discovery or testimony

Attorneys for the Park District of La Grange Monday told Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis they did not believe a settlement likely would be reached with a residents group that opposes the sale of 2.82 acres of Gordon Park and asked the judge to proceed with plans for a hearing on the Park District's petition to the land to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP).

The request surprised attorneys for the residents group, La Grange Friends of the Park LGFP, who said the Park District had not responded to a written settlement proposal they gave to its attorneys two weeks ago.

John Shapiro, an attorney for the Park District, also asked Gillis to deny requests for discovery under which the Park District would have to provide LGPF attorneys with documents and testimony related to the determination made by park commissioners that the parkland it wants to sell is no longer needed or useful for park purposes.

Tom Beyer, an attorney for LGFP, called Shapiro's position absurd. How could Judge Gillis make an informed and competent ruling based on a finding of fact if certain relevant facts could not be obtained and presented, he asked.

Shapiro told the judge he based his argument on an interpretation of a statute in the Park District Code governing a petition sale involving fewer than three acres of parkland, as is the case at hand. He said the language in the statute requires only that the judge consider the petition and listen to objectors before making a ruling in the public interest. Court rules that apply in the case of a standard lawsuit, which allow for discovery and expert testimony, do not apply in such a hearing, Shapiro argued.

Beyer responded that civil procedures should not be waived in any hearing. If the Park District claims that the parkland it wants to sell is a magnet for drug activity, and the objectors claim it is not, expert testimony from the chief of police is necessary to determine the facts, Beyer argued.

Gillis said she wanted to give the matter further consideration and directed attorneys for each side to submit written briefs within two weeks detailing their positions. She said she would hold a hearing specific to the court procedures on Nov. 19.

ARP willing to explore 'viable alternatives' to end Gordon Park lawsuit and allow Y site redevelopment

Atlantic Realty Partners President Richard Aaronson today said he was willing to explore "viable alternatives" that could end two years of litigation over the proposed sale of acreage from Gordon Park and allow his Georgia-based company to proceed with redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA site.

Aaronson's willingness to participate complies with a wish expressed Monday by Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis, who said she hoped the developer's involvement would help forge a settlement between the Park District of La Grange, which has petitioned the judge to approve the sale to ARP of 2.82 of acres of Gordon Park, and La Grange Friends of the Park, a group of some two dozen residents who oppose the sale.

If progress towards an agreement is not evident by Oct. 19, Gillis said she will schedule the matter for trial.

Gillis' attempt to push the park district and its opponents into negotiations began Sept. 14 when bickering between their respective attorneys prompted her to order them to attend a pre-trial conference in her chambers the following week.

At that closed meeting, held Sept. 21, attorneys for the residents group put forth a proposal that would have ARP purchase only the development rights to the park acreage instead of taking ownership of the land. Conceivably, the developer could then transfer the development rights to the adjacent Y parcel, on which the village has approved plans to build a 284 unit apartment/condominium complex, along with some 30,000 square feet of commercial space. The project would be called La Grange Place.

Under the residents' scenario, ARP would abandon its plans to build 26 townhomes on the park acreage, but it also likely would pay the park district less than the $4.5 million in cash called for in its contract to buy the land outright.

Any plan involving the purchase and transfer of development rights would require approval of the village, which so far has not been formally invited to participate in the settlement negotiations.

Aaronson said that he would not comment on the residents' proposal until he had time to fully comprehend it. But he said his company would respond in time for the judge's Oct. 19 hearing.

Attorneys for the park district declined comment following the Sept. 21 pre-trial conference but reportedly were not receptive to the residents' proposal. Instead, they pushed for sale of the land to proceed as contracted. But they also said the park district would create a fund for future purchases of parkland if and when it becomes available.

Following the pre-trial conference, Gillis directed attorneys for both sides to have discussions with their respective clients and report back to her at a hearing held this past Monday, Oct. 5. 

At Monday's hearing, Tom Beyer, an attorney for the residents group, told the judge they had made an initial contact with ARP's local attorney, Brad Block, who told them no response would be forthcoming until the Yom Kippur holiday had passed.

Beyer also reported that he had a discussion with Jim Palermo, a village trustee, whom he said indicated that he and some other trustees might support a scenario involving the purchase and transfer of development rights.

However, John Shapiro, an attorney for the park district, told the judge that he did not believe a settlement was possible and that she should proceed with plans for a trial.

Beyer then told the judge the park district attorneys apparently had ignored her directive to hold further discussions with park commissioners following the Sept. 14 pre-trial conference as such a meeting, even if closed, would require public notice and no such notice had been issued.

Dean Bissias, park district executive director, confirmed that the park board has not met since its regular scheduled session on Sept. 18, three days before the pre-trial conference.

The judge again met with attorneys for both sides separately on Monday and then emerged to express her wish that ARP be involved in the discussions. ARP is not a party to the lawsuit itself.

Tim Kelpsas, president of the park board, in a story published this week by The Doings newspaper, appeared not to be headed in the direction of a settlement, saying that board members felt obligated to sell the park acreage outright to ARP as authorized by voters in a public referendum held last November.

An attempt to reach Kelpsas today for comment following Aaronson's announced decision to join the settlement talks was unsuccessful.

A public auction required by the referendum and held last January, at which ARP was the sole and successful bidder, was voided June 22 by another circuit court judge, Leroy Martin Jr, who ruled that favorable treatment granted ARP by the park district and village gave the developer an unfair advantage over other potential bidders.

Judge Gillis is being asked to approve the sale directly in response to a petition filed by the park district under an Illinois statute separate from the one governing the referendum and auction.

Gillis in June of last year dismissed an earlier and similar petition to sell the same 2.82 acres to ARP when she ruled that the land described in the sales contract included additional acreage comprising a vacated portion of Shawmut Ave that would be restored as a roadway to provide a western entrance from La Grange Rd into the development and Gordon Park. Thus, the total acreage was more than the three acres the court could approve for sale under that statute.

That trial lasted nine months and never addressed the actual merits of the sale itself.

Aaronson and ARP also were involved in settlement talks regarding that lawsuit. While they successfully reached an agreement with William Dobias, one of two residents who opposed the first petition, an agreement could not be reached with Orlando Coryell, who ultimately prevailed.

Neither Dobias or Coryell is a party in the hearing of the second petition.

The park district says the vacated roadway is no longer an issue because it was given to the village in exchange for a similar-sized strip of land, consisting of a parking lot along Locust Ave, adjacent to the park.

But because the roadway still benefits the development, the residents group contends that the Shawmut Ave land should still be counted as part of the total transaction.

If settlement talks fail and the matter goes to trial, the question of whether or not the court now has jurisdiction to approve the sale likely will be the first battle in what could once again prove to be a long, drawn out contest.

Judge wants developer to join talks seeking to settle lawsuit over petition to sell Gordon Park parcels

The judge overseeing settlement negotiations between the Park District of La Grange and a group of residents who oppose the sale of 2.82 acres of Gordon Park wants the prospective buyer, Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP), to join the talks.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis today said she was not ordering ARP to participate in the negotiations. The developer is not a party to Gillis' hearing on the park district's latest petition requesting court approval of the sale. But all parties seem to agree that any settlement would have to be blessed by ARP, which wants to include the park acreage in a redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA parcel, known as La Grange Place.

"I would suggest all of you sit down and talk with ARP and see if there is an arrangement acceptable to them," Gillis said to the attorneys on both sides.

Tom Beyer, one of three attorneys representing La Grange Friends of the Park (LGFP), a group of some two dozen residents who filed objections to the proposed parkland sale, told Gillis that he already had been in touch last week ARP's local attorney, Brad Block.

Beyer said Block was "guardedly" receptive to his invitation to discuss the developer's participation in a settlement. 

Beyer told the judge he also had a discussion with Jim Palermo, a La Grange village trustee. Beyer said Palermo indicated he and other trustees might support a scenario put forth by LGFP in which ARP would purchase development rights to the parkland rather than the acreage itself.

Through a purchase and transfer of development rights, Beyer said, the developer could achieve the density of units it wants on the Y parcel, the park district would receive money it wants to improve Gordon Park, and the public would not lose scarce and invaluable parkland.

"It would be a win-win-win situation for all involved," Beyer said.

However, the proposal has not been embraced by park district officials, whose attorneys today told Gillis they were instead ready for a trial to decide whether the park parcels can be sold outright to ARP.

"We have no settlement proposal," John Shapiro, one of two attorneys in court today representing the park district. "Seems like we should push forward [to trial]."

If no settlement appears underway by Oct. 19, the date of the next hearing, Gillis said she will schedule a trial.

A trial easily could last for months. Hearings on a similar petition to sell the same parcels, filed by the park district in Sept. 2007, lasted nine months until Judge Gillis dismissed the petition on the grounds that the sales contract and title insurance policy described not 2.82 acres of parkland but 3.5 acres, more than the court is authorized to approve.

During those nine months, the trial never progressed to the point that the actual merits of the sale were addressed by the court.

Settlement talks begin in Gordon Park lawsuit

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis, who is hearing the latest petition from the Park District of La Grange to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners, met privately Monday with attorneys for both the park district and a group of residents who oppose the sale in an effort to reach a settlement and avoid a lengthy trial.

“We certainly did not come to any resolution but we tossed out some ideas,” Gillis said afterward in her Daley Center courtroom, where officials from the Park District of La Grange (PDLG) and members of La Grange Friends of the Park (LGFP) had waited during the closed conference, which lasted more than an hour.

Gillis said she asked the attorneys to hold further discussions with their clients and meet with her again on Oct. 5 in hopes of reaching “a resolution that would make everyone somewhat happy.”

If that effort fails, Gillis said she would schedule a trial to determine whether or not sale of the parkland is in the public interest. 

ARP wants to include the land in a major redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA site at La Grange Rd and Ogden Ave, known as La Grange Place. The park district said it would use some of the proceeds of the sale to improve facilities in the remaining 13 acres of Gordon Park.

Tom Beyer, one of three attorneys representing LGFP, said that two proposals were presented on behalf of the group in Monday's meeting. Neither would allow the park district to sell any parkland.

But in one scenario, ARP would purchase the development rights for the two park parcels, as well as a .67-acre strip of land between them consisting of vacated Shawmut Ave. Conceivably, ARP could then transfer those rights to the YMCA parcel, allowing it to develop that parcel more densely than currently allowed.

"This way, the developer gets his project, the taxing bodies get their revenue, the park district gets the money it needs to improve Gordon Park, and our community retains and enjoys parkland and open space that simply cannot be replaced," Beyer said. "Everybody wins."

Beyer acknowledged that such an arrangement would require a round of public hearings before the village plan commission. But this time the park district and the developer would have the full backing of the LGFP.

PDLG attorneys declined to comment on today's meeting, but Mark Wohlberg, one of LGFP's other attorneys, said the park district's counsel was not receptive to the proposal.

Wohlberg said the PDLG attorneys were even less supportive of an alternate scenario offered up by LGFP, in which the park district would purchase the YMCA parcel, except for the highway frontage, and actually enlarge Gordon Park. 

When asked where the park district would find the money to purchase the YMCA parcel, LGFP members present in the courtroom Monday said they would actively support an effort sell bonds, obtain grants, and even "hold bake sales" if necessary.

According to Wohlberg, PDLG attorneys said their client was not interested in expanding Gordon Park, but was willing to set aside an undisclosed amount of money each year towards the purchase at some future date of new parkland to replace that which would be lost if the Gordon Park sale is approved.

Wohlberg said that scenario plan was not realistic because no large undeveloped tracts of land remain within the park district boundaries.

"At best, we would end up with a couple of tot lots," he said.

If a settlement can be worked out between the PDLG and LGFP, Beyer said, it also is likely will bring an end to a second lawsuit—separate but related— between the park district and Orlando Coryell, a resident who sued following a Nov. 2008 referendum in which district voters authorized sale of the same two Gordon Park parcels.

The two lawsuits are separate because they involve two distinct statutes under which parkland can be sold. A park district can always seek approval for a land sale through a public referendum but, if the amount of land involved is less than three acres, it can petition the circuit court to directly approve the sale.

When the Park District of La Grange chose the latter course in Sept. 2007, it filed its initial petition with the circuit court. Judge Gillis also presided over that case, and in June 2008 denied the petition after determining that the amount of land described in the contract amounted to 3.5 acres, more than the court could approve, because it included—mistakenly, park officials now say—the parcel comprising vacated Shawmut Ave. Coryell was an objector in that case but is not a party in the latest petition hearing.

Following Judge Gillis' denial last summer of its initial petition, the park district did not appeal her ruling. Instead, it changed tactics and sought approval of the sale in the November referendum, in which voters supported the sale by a margin of 55 to 45 percent. Coryell filed his lawsuit shortly after the referendum.

As required by the statute governing parkland sales approved by referendum, a public auction was held in January of this year. ARP was the sole and successful bidder.

Among the six complaints in Coryell's lawsuit was one contending that ARP enjoyed an unfair advantage over other potential bidders because the Shawmut Ave land swap, along with rezoning of parkland granted by the village, applied only to ARP.

On June 22, Judge Martin agreed with Coryell and voided the auction.

This past Friday, Martin denied a motion from the park district asking him to reconsider his ruling.

Rob Bush, attorney for the park district, said Monday that no decision has been made on whether to appeal Martin's ruling. Nor has the park district asked the village to rework the land swap and rezoning of the park parcels to apply to any and all potential bidders, thereby creating the level playing field required by the statute.

Meanwhile, Coryell is appealing Judge Martin's dismissal of the other five counts in his lawsuit. The appeal easily could drag on for a year or more, according his attorneys, Beyer and Wohlberg.

But a settlement between the park district and their other client, LGFP, could persuade Coryell to settle his lawsuit as well, Beyer said.

---

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story errantly reported that one of the proposals made by the La Grange Friends of the Park would allow the park district to sell the smaller of two parcels of parkland to Atlantic Realty Partners, thereby enabling the developer to "square off" the northeast corner of the YMCA property. While this scenario has been discussed by group members and is supported by some of them, it was not among the scenarios proposed on Monday. We regret the error.

Judge orders pre-trial conference to "flush out the issues" in hearing of petition to sell park parcels

The Cook County judge who is conducting a hearing on the latest petition from the Park District of La Grange seeking approval to sell a portion of Gordon Park to a developer today ordered lawyers for both the park district and a group of residents who oppose the sale to meet with her next Monday in a pre-trial conference behind closed doors.

Judge Susan Fox Gillis ordered the conference after bickering erupted between lawyers from both sides as the judge considered a discovery request presented by attorneys for La Grange Friends of the Park, a group of some two dozen park district residents who have asked the court to deny the land-sale petition.

Tom Beyer, one of three attorneys representing the residents, argued that the discovery request was necessary in order to obtain documents from the park district that would either support or refute its contention that two parcels of Gordon Park totaling 2.82 acres are no longer useful or necessary as park land and that the public would benefit from the sale of the parcels to Atlantic Realty Partners, who want to include the land in a major residential and commercial redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA parcel. The project is known as La Grange Place.

John Shapiro, one of several attorneys from two law firms that are representing the park district, argued that all pertinent documents already had been provided to opponents in two earlier lawsuits brought against the sale by other residents.

Shapiro accused Beyer and his co-counsels, Joan Johnson and Mark Wohlberg, of attempting to drag out the court proceedings in hopes of winning "by nothing else if not delay." He told the judge that he believed the arguments outlined in the filings already made by both sides were sufficient for the judge to hold a hearing under the terms of the Illinois Park District Code and make a ruling.

Beyer countered that the court proceedings should be conducted "like any other lawsuit," with a ruling derived from a finding of facts based on evidence presented in a trial. Discovery is required in order to obtain that evidence, he said.

Shapiro argued that a lengthy trial would unnecessarily waste additional park district money.

Beyer said that the $425,000 in legal fees budgeted by the park district were exorbitant, noting that he and his co-counsels were representing the residents pro bono, or without charge.

"It seems disingenuous for the park district to say we are wasting their money when actually they are wasting our money," Beyer said. "We are the taxpayers."

At that point, Gillis ordered the pre-trial conference, stating it was her hope that a "meaningful discussion [would] flush out what the issues are."

"I don't think anyone in the park district wants to run up the costs," Gillis said. "Certainly, the citizens don't."

Gillis scheduled the hearing for Monday, Sept. 21 at 1:00 p.m. in Rm. 1702. While the conference itself will be held in chambers out of public view, Gillis said she did not want to discourage interested residents from being present in the courtroom, promising to address them after closed meeting to reveal whatever details she deems appropriate.

Gillis also granted the discovery request but said the 28-day period allotted to the park district for its response would not begin until after next Monday's conference.

UPDATE: Settlement talks begin in Gordon Park lawsuit

Judge denies motion to dismiss park district's latest petition to sell Gordon Park parcels to developer

A Cook County judge Thursday refused to dismiss a second petition filed by the Park District of La Grange seeking court approval to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners (ARP).

Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis denied a motion filed by a group of residents, La Grange Friends of the Park, who oppose the sale of the parkland.

The group's attorney, Joan Johnson, argued that the petition was nearly identical to a petition presented by the park district in 2007 that was dismissed by Gillis in June of last year.

In that earlier petition, the park district sought to sell the same 2.82 acres to ARP for inclusion in the redevelopment of the former Rich Port YMCA parcel, a mixed residential and commercial project known as La Grange Place.

However, Gillis in that case ruled that the legal description in the sales contract and a related title insurance policy included an adjoining vacated portion of Shawmut Ave, thereby bringing the total amount of land involved to 3.5 acres, exceeding the three-acre maximum the court can directly approve under state law.

Gillis Thursday, however, agreed with John Shapiro, an attorney for the park district, who argued that the current petition represents "a new and distinct deal" to sell the same 2.82 acres.

Shapiro said the vacated portion of Shawmut Ave, which had been "unwittingly" included in the 2007 legal description, no longer was at issue because the park district subsequently gave that land to the Village of La Grange in exchange for two village-owned parcels, consisting mainly of parking spaces for motorists, that abut Gordon Park.

Shapiro also noted that Mark Daniel, the attorney who represented resident Orlando Coryell in successfully blocking the earlier petition, had said in court at the time that the park district likely could resubmit its petition if the reference to vacated Shawmut Ave was removed from the contract's legal description.

"I thought that Daniels words might come back to haunt us," Mark Wohlberg, who is representing Coryell in a separate but related lawsuit opposing the park district's concurrent attempt to sell the 2.82 acres via a voter referendum and public auction, told the court.

Wohlberg and Tom Beyer, another attorney representing Coryell in his lawsuit, both filed appearances with Gillis' court, effectively joining Johnson as co-counsels representing the La Grange Friends of the Park. Coryell, however, is not a member of that group nor a party in the hearing of the current petition.

Shapiro is a partner with the law firm of Freeborn Peters, which has joined Ancel Glink, the park district's corporate counsel, in arguing the latest petition before Gillis.

The proliferation of attorneys joining the case, six of whom were present Thursday, prompted Gillis to quip, "We're going to have more lawyers here than the park district has residents."

Two residents representing the La Grange Friends of the Park, Kevin Shields and Harlan Hirt, were in court Thursday. When Shapiro said that he was unable to verify that the authenticity or standing of the group through a web search on the Internet, Gillis asked both Shields and Hirt to approach the bench and swear under oath that they were residents of the park district and indeed opposed the sale of the parkland. Both men did, apparently satisfying Shapiro's concerns.

After the hearing, Shields produced a list of 18 residents whom he said had signed the  group's charter document. He also said the group was seeking to enlist more residents.

Gillis in court commended all the residents for coming forth to have their concerns heard.

While many residents have joined together in opposing the petition, their individual objections may vary, Gillis said. She said she would hear without bias both the petitioners and all objectors, noting that her denial of Johnson's motion should not be construed as suggesting what her ultimate ruling on the case might be.

Her action Thursday dealt with "a procedural issue that does not address the merits of the case in any way," Gillis said.

She also expressed hope of reaching a settlement agreement between all parties that would avoid a lengthy and costly trial.

"I would very much like to pre-try this case and see if we can come up with some sort of settlement," Gillis said. "But if not, let's forge ahead."

She scheduled the next status hearing for Sept. 14 at 2:15 p.m. in Rm. 1704 of the Daley Center courthouse in downtown Chicago.

Attorneys for the La Grange Friends of the Park are expected to have submitted their full objections in writing to the court before then.