CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

I read it in a column from the Tribune. Whether the columnist is correct or not is another story, I suppose.

Even if it's correct, there are no plans for it at all and there haven't been possibly in the last 30 years, and there probably won't be any time in the near future except for LMNA. There was a big fit because of the Bears already and Lucas and them already worked it out. There are no proposals and FOTP hasn't even offered up even any ideas as to what there might be there.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Even if it's correct, there are no plans for it at all and there haven't been possibly in the last 30 years, and there probably won't be any time in the near future except for LMNA. There was a big fit because of the Bears already and Lucas and them already worked it out. There are no proposals and FOTP hasn't even offered up even any ideas as to what there might be there.

Exactly.

Who's got the cash and the will to improve the lot into strictly parkland? Who else is prepared to replace the Bears parking/tailgating space? The answer is no one.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Even if it's correct, there are no plans for it at all and there haven't been possibly in the last 30 years, and there probably won't be any time in the near future except for LMNA. There was a big fit because of the Bears already and Lucas and them already worked it out. There are no proposals and FOTP hasn't even offered up even any ideas as to what there might be there.

Look, I don't agree with them, and I want the museum built, but they frankly don't need to do anything that you've listed. They don't like the idea of parkland being leased away for a century with renewal options, so all they have to prove in court is that the city is violating the law.

This is all in the court's and Lucas' hands now.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by upnorthsox

It's not a transfer of property, it's a lease.

The Feb. 4 memorandum opinion suggests that it's not dispositive whether it's a fee simple transfer or a mere lease; that the true test laid down by the Illinois Central case is exclusive control. Soldier Field can be distinguished, says the opinion, because the Bears were not given exclusive control. From the opinion:

Defendants argue that the public-trust doctrine is only implicated when public-trust property is “completely conveyed (title is entirely relinquished) to a private entity.” But in Illinois Central Railroad, the Supreme Court spoke in broader terms of control: "Such abdication is not consistent with the exercise of that trust which requires the government of the state to preserve such waters for the use of the public. The trust devolving upon the state for the public, and which can only be discharged by the management and control of property in which the public has an interest, cannot be relinquished by a transfer of the property. The control of the state for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein, or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining." (emphasis added)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein, or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining.

So how is the LMNA not promoting the interest of the public?

[Mr Downtown]

Because it's not enhancing the navigability of the lake's waters, nor offering more convenient wharfage. That's the context for the language in Illinois Central. The key word is therein.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Exactly.

Who's got the cash and the will to improve the lot into strictly parkland? Who else is prepared to replace the Bears parking/tailgating space? The answer is no one.

Exactly. We are talking about land that is used for parking cars that is surrounded by green space that is essentially never used apart from the occasional person jogging or biking along the lake front trail. God forbid we take up a free offer to build a museum get rid of the parking lot add some green space and actually activate that part of museum campus. I mean why would you want to do that when we could wait a couple hundred years hoping someone will try to destroy the parking lot and create more inactive green space?

Has it ever occurred to these people that this is most likely the best offer they are ever going to get for returning that land to it's original use? FotPl should come back to reality and be grateful that somebody is helping them out.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Because it's not enhancing the navigability of the lake's waters, nor offering more convenient wharfage. That's the context for the language in Illinois Central. The key word is therein.

Okay, can you explain how the parking lot currently enhances the navigability of the lake's waters or offers more convenient wharfage and how the proposed parking for the LMNA would change it?

[Mr Downtown]

The current parking lot is still under public ownership. The test of whether the transfer of control to a private party enhances navigation doesn't come into play.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The current parking lot is still under public ownership. The test of whether the transfer of control to a private party enhances navigation doesn't come into play.

So essentially, the lawsuit comes down to the fact that people won't be able to publicly park on a lot near/inside the park which is hardly used by the public anyway to begin with and pretty much only used by Bears fans less than 10 times per year to tailgate.

Surely this parking lot wasn't always a parking lot. Did anyone ever in history argue the reverse when this parking lot was put up that it would take away from the amount of green space the park? How utilized is the current parking lot on an average day throughout the year? I've been by here many times, and have rarely seen anybody using it. Surely the space isn't actually serving its purpose if nobody is actually using it on a normal, average day throughout the year other than a handful of other times for tailgating. As we all know, the Bears and LMNA have already reached an agreement about this.

[Mr Downtown]

The fact that it's currently a parking lot, or how much it's used, is irrelevant to the legal situation. It's under public ownership and control. If transferred to LMNA, it would not be.

[chiphile]

I don't know who is a lawyer on here and who isn't. For what it's worth, I am and I've skimmed FOPL's complaint, along with some public trust cases.

In my opinion, this is a hail mary on FOPL's part that came after the general assembly granted the land to the museum. Does it mean it's impossible to catch? No, but it is still a hail mary. The trial judge will have to be willing to stretch things out quite a bit if he/she sides with them.

My opinion below. Terms in quotes are legal terms of art open to judicial interpretation:

Previous cases looked at whether the "direct and dominating purpose" would be public or private. If there is a mix of both, the private interest would have to be "incidental" to the overall public interest.

I'm confident a reasonable, pragmatic judge will see that the direct and dominating purpose of a museum is for the public benefit, and that the private interest is only incidental--a means to an end (private money and some personal ambition used for the public good).

Moreover, the question of public or private may not even come up. Most if not all of the public trust cases involved filling in the lake, i.e., currently submerged land. Heck, even the law books have the public trust doctrine filed under Water Law. FOPL's case adds a caveat by saying the museum will be built on formerly submerged land. A judge can say that the public trust doctrine applies only to land that is currently beneath the lake and not formerly, and rule in the city's favor.

If the trial judge rules that this has nothing to do with submerged land, and thus, the public trust doctrine doesn't apply, FOPL loses. If it's just a park, Illinois courts have delegated such decisions to the legislature: "The resolution of this conflict (granting park lands) in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts." The Illinois legislator has already spoken and is fine with giving up that land for the Lucas Museum.

I say take it all the way through trial (which I can't see being more than 2 hours long). I wish I could argue this myself. George, relax, keep it here.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by chiphile

In my opinion, this is a hail mary on FOPL's part that came after the general assembly granted the land to the museum.

Here is the core issue with this whole quixotic thing. FotPL is undermining their own mission by putting all their chips on a lost cause and hoping that Lucas gets frustrated. It could cost the city the museum and it makes FotP look like a bunch of self righteous hostage takers in the public eye.

If FotPL were savvy, they would negotiate to drop the suit and support the museum in exchange for a legitimate concession other than relocation. They could push to get the city or Lucas to fund the completion of the reef on northerly island. They could get Lucas or the museum to sponsor movies in the parks for 10 years (George Lucas presents movies in the Parks), thus guaranteeing the public program and taking advantage of the Lucas museums film library. They could drop the lawsuit in exchange for the city immediately holding a design competition for the park that will replace McCormick place east.

There is so much actual opportunity that is being squandered due to FotPLs overblown egos, self-importance, and blind ideology. Any group that holds the city hostage for inflexible, misguided purposes deserves its "demonization" and the city will be better off without them.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Come on guys, everyone knows that loss of wharfage is one of the top issues facing Chicago today!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Come on guys, everyone knows that loss of wharfage is one of the top issues facing Chicago today!

Lol!

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by XIII

If FotPL were savvy, they would negotiate to drop the suit and support the museum in exchange for a legitimate concession other than relocation.

Somewhat surprised this didn't happen. Especially given the amount of detailed attention to public use given in the plan and the likelihood this is the best opportunity to enhance this particular land to benefit the general public for the foreseeable future...... and considering there must be at least 100 good alternative opportunities to enhance the parks and park programming or to acquire land for public use.

[Mr Downtown]

I must have missed the announcement that the city or LMNA was willing to negotiate.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I must have missed the announcement that the city or LMNA was willing to negotiate.

You mean like when the Bears, Lucas, and the city negotiated together after the Bears raised concerns?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...as-museum-deal

I must have missed the announcement that said the LMNA was not willing to negotiate like they already did with the Bears.

[Mr Downtown]

The Bears had something LMNA badly needed: exclusive rights to the parking lot on game days.

The city is still convinced that FotP's lawsuit will be unsuccessful (and they may well be right), so they have no motivation to sit down and negotiate on behalf of the Park District and LMNA.

I can't help but think of Montgomery Ward's offer to let the Field Museum go into the protected part of Grant Park if the South Park Commission would commit to not try to put any additional buildings there. They told him to go pound sand. You can't negotiate with bullies.

[marothisu]

Please link us to the article or articles which shows the attempts to negotiate between FOTP and Lucas.