Foodie Rant - Properly Sauced? Try Properly Ripped Off.
Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
NYT Preps For Chicago Edition
Chicago Gets Googled
Wrigely Field, one of the many landmarks that could be affected by the recent ruling
The Appellate Court opinion [PDF, via Landmarks Illinois] doesn’t overturn the law, or even the landmark status of the two neighborhoods involved, but it could set a precedent for overturning landmark status- and that realization is sending shudders through the historic preservation community.
The key to the case is precedent, it seems. Hanna v. City of Chicago, as it stands, could be the case that developers and landmarks-owners use to escape from what they see as unfair - or unfit - property designations that hold them to more costly standards. The implementation of the ordinance can have a real effect on property value and on homeowners’ insurance, but in the long term, it seems worth it to keep the city beautiful.
City law department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle said Chicago is filing with the Illinois Supreme Court before their March 13 deadline. “We plan on filing a PLA with the Illinois Supreme Court as quickly as possible,” she said in an email. “We disagree with the appellate court's analysis and findings. As we said in our briefs and during the oral arguments, the City Council is responsible for making the final decision regarding landmarks.” Nationally, any successful challenge to the Chicago landmarks ordinance could be used as a precedent to overturn the local historic status of buildings, oftentimes the only barrier between the building’s destruction and its preservation.
Post by Kate Gardiner
Photo by The New No. 2
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The key to the case is precedent, it seems.
Um no, it seems more likely that you didn't read the opinion that you linked.
The key to the case is that the City of Chicago will rewrite the ordinance so that the 7 points aren't clouded with vague terms, and the City Council will properly delegate its authority.
The historic preservation community is worried? Well as long as they own the properties they want to preserve, they have nothing to worry about.
Ah, but city law department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle told me that they have no plans to rewrite the ordinance.
"The language and intent of the ordinance are clear," Hoyle wrote in an email last week. "They are similar (in some cases, identical) to ordinances used by cities throughout the United States to identify and designate landmarks. We believe we have very strong grounds to appeal so right now, we are planning on filing an appeal rather than amending the ordinance."
This really isn't rocket science, there's still an opportunity to appeal. If that fails, common sense dictates that the ordinance will be rewritten.
The only part of the Landmarks Ordinance that's really threatened is the provision granting automatic approval if the city council doesn't act within a year. That's the only instance in which the authority to designate a landmark is shifted from the city council to the landmarks commission. In Illinois, we give great deference to decisions made by home rule legislative bodies. Had the city council simply downzoned the district in question—reciting a general but meaningless reason—plaintiffs would have found their challenges quickly dismissed. Why should the result be any different when the city council actually has a good reason to protect the integrity of a neighborhood?
The appellate court is also surprisingly sloppy in the section of the opinion dealing with vagueness, where it discusses "whether a person of common intelligence may determine" whether his property is affected or not. "Void for vagueness" is a concept usually applied to laws such as vagrancy statutes, where a person can't determine ahead of time whether or not he's breaking the law. In the case of a landmark designation, the property will either have been named a landmark (with plenty of notice and record) or it will not have. Landmarks are not "discovered" after the fact and their owners punished for damaging them; their designation only affects events in the future.
Finally, it's interesting to note that even though the appellate court cites the 2008 Napleton case, it doesn't discuss the Napleton case's main holding: that Illinois courts must uphold zoning decisions unless the court finds that it is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. That's a very heavy burden for a plaintiff to prove. The Napleton case overturned a six-year-old Chicago case with a familiar plaintiff: Hanna v. City of Chicago, 331 Ill.App.3d 295 (1st Dist. 2002).