August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I merits of the owners' takings claim under the Illinois Constitution, the court ruled that the owners had failed to establish that a taking occurred under Chicago's landmark ordinance, both facially and as ap- plied. (As noted above, the court rejected identical claims raised under the Federal constitution in its initial decision.) While acknowl- edging that "the Illinois Constitu- tion provides greater protection to landowners than does the federal takings clause," in that it includes a prohibition of uncompensated "damage" to property, the court found that "roughly the same analy- sis" used in federal takings Iaw would ap- ply since ICS had not presented any evidence showing "any direct physical disturbance to their property rights." In reaching its decision, . the court determined that the owners' facial chal- lenge failed because the ordinance allows an economic hardship . exception to be granted if the per- mit denial prevents a landowner from having any viable economic use for his or her property. The court likewise concluded.that the owners' "as applied" claim failed because ICS "still ha]s] an economi- cally viable use for the Blair and Countiss houses as a corporate headquarters or museum," observ- ing that ICS "pays no property taxes on the buildings and owns them free and clear of any mortgage." Of special interest is the court's discussion regarding whether the owners could afford to maintain the buildings. According to the court, "testimony from (ICS's) own wit- nesses showed that the lack of funding for the property's upkeep is not due to the Landmarks Ordi- nance, but to plaintiff ICS's unwill- ingness to provide the money." Moreover, the court stressed that evidence that the owners could not afford to maintain the buildings 'would probably establish only that the impediment to an economically ' viable use stemmed from ICS's own particular financial situation or its strategy in maintaining the build- ings, and not from any action by the defendants under the Land- marks Ordinance." According to the court, "]o]therwise, a property owner could deliberately neglect its property, or even dam- age it, and then claim that land -use regula- tions effect a taking because the property is so far gone—for rea- sons unrelated to the. regulations—that the owner's proposed rede- velopment is the only remaining viable use." The district court also conclud- ed that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994)113 PLR1103 (June 1994)], did not change its analysis. In distinguish- ing Dolan, the court conceded that the Supreme Court in Dolan "rec- ognized that a taking can occur even if the government's confisca- tory action- leaves the owner with 'some economic use from her prop- erty.'" However, the district court found the present case distinguish- able on the basis that the Dolan Court "was speaking of a situation, not present in this case, in which The court con- cluded that the owners' "as ap- plied" takings claim failed be- cause ICS still has an "econom- ically viable use" for the pro- perties. a the government actually confiscates a portion of the property, leaving the owner with a usable remnant." Vested Rights. Next, the court determined that the owners were not entitled to relief under the Illi- nois doctrine of vested rights. The court concluded that in negotiating its 1989 contract with Robin, ICS could not have relied in good faith on the probability of permits being issued for the proposed develop- ment even though a 1988 staff re- port indicated that only features visible from a "public way" would be protected. The court.explained that a June 1988 letter from the Commission advising ICS that des- ignation was under consideration, com- bined with its prelimi- nary designation of the Seven Houses district in July 1988, "unques- tionably raised a cloud over plaintiffs' devel- opment rights" and that "representations to plaintiffs would not lead a reasonable per- son to rely on the issu- ance of the necessary demolition permits." pricious or "against the manifest weight of the evidence." Pursuant to the standard of review for eco- nomic hardship exceptions in Chi- ,--� cago's preservation ordinance, the L/ Commission had specifically found that the denial of the permits would not deprive the owners of "all reasonable and beneficial use of the Blair and Countiss houses" and that the owners "were not deprived of all reasonable and beneficial return from the property." Viable Use. In reviewing each of the Commission's individual findings, the court initially deter- mined that the evi- dence supported the Commission's determi- nation that the land- mark designation of the properties did not prevent the owners' traditional use of the property. According to the court, there was "ample evidence in the record to support the conclusion that land- mark status is not an(_SI) impediment to the continued use of the property as a headquar- ters and museum" and that "the Commission -did not err in consid- ering ICS's poor stewardship as part of that calculus." The court likewise concluded that the Commission's finding that the properties could be improved by ICS for a reasonable amount of money was not against the mani- fest weight of the evidence and that several feasible alternative uses to the property existed. Unsympathet- ic to the owners' argument that "]t]he forced sale of a property can- not possibly be'considered a reason - The court up- held the Com- mission's finding that the proper- ties could be improved at a reasonable cost, and that feasible alternative uses —including sale to a third par- ty—existed. Economic Hardship In addition to rejecting the owners' constitutional challenges to the denial of demolition permits, the court separately upheld the Commission's action under the Illinois Administrative Review Law. The court concluded that the decision of the Landmarks Com- mission to deny the owners' appli- cation for an economic hardship exception was not arbitrary or ca - 14 PLR 1092 Preservation Law Reporter May 1995 May 1995 Prese