August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

individually and collectively, be- court referred to its previous deci- longed in the district. sion in which it had stated that the Relying on essentially the same Commission's position was "entire - grounds, the district court also ly justified" because under its rules, rejected the owners' claim that the demolition permits may be ap- City, through its designation ordi- proved only if the property does not nance, had violated their federal . contribute to the character of the substantive due process rights and district or the redevelopment is state constitutional rights to due approved by the Commission. process and equal protection. The Significantly, the court also court determined that disparate ruled that the Landmarks Commis - treatment of property does not in- sion's retention of two expert wit- voke a "fundamental" right for pur- nesses who testified at the demoli- poses of analyzing an equal protec- tion hearing did not "render the tion claim, and that a "rational proceeding unfair so as to deny relationship" existed between the (ICS] due process," explaining that historical significance "it is well-established of the houses and the The court also under federal and state City's actions to pre- ruled that the law that in the admin - serve them.Corrunission,s istrative setting, some Bias and Other retention of two mixture of judicial and Due Process Claims. prosecutorial function The district court simi- expert Witnesses is acceptable and does larly rejected the own- who testified at not, without more, ers' claims that their the demolition violate due process." state and federal due hearing did not The court stated that process rights had been ICS had not overcome violated by the Com render the pro- a presumption that the mission's alleged bias. ceeding unfair Commission's mem- The court determined s0 as to deny bers are persons "of that "the Commis- due process." conscience and intel- sion's knowledge of lectual discipline, capa- plaintiffs' redevelop- ble of judging a partic- ment plans does not in itself sup- ular controversy fairly on the basis port the inference that the Com- of its own circumstances," and mission or the city deliberately set noted that the owners had failed to out to destroy those plans." The present any evidence that the court also found that the evidence "Commission members, who actu- did not support the owners' allega- ally ruled on the demolition per - tion that they had failed to receive mits, themselves performed any adequate notice of the City's con- quasi -prosecutorial role." Moreover, sideration of the designation ordi- the court observed that the Com- nance, or that the Commission had mission had "allowed counsel for violated their due process rights by ICS to conduct a vigorous cross - refusing to consider evidence con- examination of one of the Commis- cerning ICS's redevelopment plans sion's witnesses, Howard Decker, at the demolition permit hearings. on the issue of bias." In addressing the latter issue, the The court similarly rejected the 14 PLR 1090 Preservation Lain Reporter May 1995 owners' argument that the Com- the district court rejected several mission had violated their due pro- "interested other state law claims, ruling, cess rights by granting : among other things, that the ordi- party" status to neighborhood orga- --.nance was not vague and did not nizations at its hearings. The court "'violate the state constitutional ruled that the Illinois Supreme provisions governing the separation Court's decision in Landmarks of powers by unlawfully delegating Preservation Council of Illinois v. legislative authority. The court also City of Chicago, 531 N.E.2d 9 concluded that the owners did not (1988)(7 PLR 20531, that two private have vested rights in the issuance preservation organizations lacked of demolition permits. standing to bring a lawsuit, did not Unlawful Delegation Claim. At support the ICS's due process and the heart of the owners' unlawful bias claims and did not "bar the delegation claim was the argument Commission from granting 'inter- that the criteria for designation and ested party'status to such organiza- review of economic hardship claims tions during public were unlawfully hearings 'as a tool to The court char- "vague." Rejecting this assist the municipality acterized the argument, the court in performing its legis Commission as characterized the Com- lative function."' mission as "a sort of a sort of expert Lastly,the e court expert panel," and con - determined that the panel," and con- cluded that the ordi- Landmarks Commis- eluded that the nance sets forth "an had sion not violated ordinance sets intelligible set of stan- due process by failing forth "an intelli- dards for the Commis - to write its own find- ings of fact as required gable Set sion to consider in of Stan- determining whether a J by the City's preserva- dards for the structure warrants tion ordinance. The Commission to landmark protection." court explained that consider. According to the court, the fact that the staff "the nature of the ordi- rather than the Com- nance's objectives and mission drafted the findings does the complexity of the problems not violate due process or the Ci- with which the ordinance is con- ty's ordinance. According to the cerned negate the need to set more court "(o)nce the Commission adop- precise standards." The court like - ted the findings, they became the wise concluded that the standard findings of the Commission." (The for the issuance of an economic court opined, however, that adop- hardship variance—that denial of tion of findings prepared by an in- the permit would deprive an appli- terested party could raise a ques- cant of "all reasonable and benefi- tion of bias.) tial use of or return from the prop- erty"— is not "subject to a myriad Remaining State Law Claims of interpretations," but rather "de- scribes a relatively technical con - In addition to the owners' equal cept in the field of land use." protection and due process claims, Takings Claim. Turning to the May 1995 Preservation Lau, Reporter 14 PLR 1091