CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art - Page 80

UPChicago · #**1581** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 3:17 PM**

Maybe the Fiends of the Parking Lot realized in order to protect the interest of the public their cause had to be congruent with said interest. Maybe their major donors put some pressure of the group in response to the overwhelming push back. Either way I'm pleased by this turn of events.

I wouldn't mind, the Lucas Museum replacing the parking lot in its original proposed location and also removing McCormick Place East from the lakefront and consolidating it on the west side of Lake Shore Drive. Increasing parkland on both the parking lot site and increase connectivity to the south lake front.

*Also I never thought if the lawsuit fully played out that the Fiends would prevail, smart of them to knock it off before they lost whatever credibility they had left. At least we still have some great activist nonprofits left. (Active Transportation Alliance)

msu2001la · #**1582** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 3:25 PM**

DNA Info reporting that it's a done deal. FOTP has dropped their lawsuit.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...awsuit-reports

XIII · #**1583** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by msu2001la

DNA Info reporting that it's a done deal. FOTP has dropped their lawsuit.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...awsuit-reports

That article cites the sun times article on the decision to "move forward".

It wouldn't be the first time dnainfo had their facts wrong. The quality of fact checking there is a little below par.

ithakas · #**1584** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII

That article cites the sun times article on the decision to "move forward".

It wouldn't be the first time dnainfo had their facts wrong. The quality of fact checking there is a little below par.

Yeah, they're not 'reporting' anything. They're regurgitating the Sun Times report with a new headline to bandwagon on the story.

Kngkyle · #**1585** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 3:39 PM**

Hopefully McCormick Place is left out of this and the original site can be negotiated. If Lucas throws some money to help fund the Last Four Miles... I hate to say it, but this could end up even better for the city thanks to FOTP.

XIII · #**1586** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:15 PM**

Well, looks like common sense was too much to ask for:

Quote:

Friends of the Parks press statement:
“Contrary to recent reports, our board remains fully united on the preservation of our lakefront and ensuring that the public trust doctrine is not ignored. We do believe that the Lucas Museum has a place in Chicago for all to enjoy, but not at the expense of one our most precious public resources. We have always said we were open to discussions. Anything else you hear is rumor and speculation. We are not dropping the lawsuit," said Friends of the Parks Board President Lauren Moltz and Executive Director Juanita Irizarry.

What a group of loonies...

k1052 · #**1587** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:24 PM**

^

I'm figuring that's more about preserving some negotiating power with the city. Reports of dissension on the FotP board significantly predate these developments yet everything is supposedly hunky dory as resources decline and acrimony against the group mounts in the face of an uncertain legal outcome.

JK47 · #**1588** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII

Well, looks like common sense was too much to ask for:

What a group of loonies...

Honestly, it seems like it's a very poorly led organization and the individuals involved are just out of their depth for an issue this big. This kind of incident should rarely happen at all and yet this is the second or third time in the last couple of months that FOTPl appears to suddenly reverse course once it appears that they're close to making a deal.

The city's assertion that they are unreliable, bordering on bad faith, negotiating partners looks like it might have some merit.

msu2001la · #**1589** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII

That article cites the sun times article on the decision to "move forward".

It wouldn't be the first time dnainfo had their facts wrong. The quality of fact checking there is a little below par.

Filed under "I told you so", FOTP denies reports, sayd they are not dropping their lawsuit.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...awsuit-reports

I'm guessing there is some distension in the ranks at FOTP.

mattshoe · #**1590** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:38 PM**

^^ Do they want the whole city to hate them? This is ridiculous

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...610-story.html

chiphile · #**1591** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The public trust doctrine only has a modest chance of being successful for FotP, as I've pointed out all along.

Sure you have. And out of curiosity, are you an attorney? Your tendency to cut and paste cases and legal jargon without much analysis leaves me confused as to whether you are or not. Nevertheless, you're correct, both FoP's lawsuit was a hail mary, and so was the city's appeal.

FoP's whole game was to test Lucas's patience and draw this out for 2-3 years in court, and get him scared about dying before then. My position all along was if Lucas isn't sick, the city should just go along with the lawsuit, bankrupt FoP in the process, and win, because it was a weak lawsuit (but not a complete joke, which is why the court allowed it to proceed). We'd get the museum in 4 years instead of 2, and there would be some favorable cases out there about public use of lakefront land.

ChiHi · #**1592** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:49 PM**

Nevermind.... These assholes apparently want to still fight.....

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...382475131.html

nomarandlee · #**1593** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:49 PM**

Even though the wording in the Sneed article concerns me that the intent of the FOPL is to play ball contingent on if the Lakeside Center is razed (way too expensive, wasteful) I can't fathom how that would work. Maybe I misread and they are ready to play ball if they get their "last 4 miles" up North. Because to have the Lakeside Center razed AND to add 4 miles of lakeshore (be it if Lucas chips in for that or not) we are talking mega-bucks to appease this one group. And an amount I'm not sure is worth it. Surely the expectation isn't that the city/state would pay for both a Lakeside Center relocation AND new fill in lakeshore?

And as much as I want to see the last 4 miles along Edgewater it is pretty evident that it is in fact that south lake shore that could use more green space and open land. Kamin has been banging that drum hard for many a year and I have to agree with him. So we make a compromise for the LMNA and yet don't direct the positive spillover towards the nearest communities it surrounds but in fact 7 miles northward? Not sure how much I like that.

Kngkyle · #**1594** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Even though the wording in the Sneed article concerns me that the intent of the FOPL is to play ball contingent on if the Lakeside Center is razed (way too expensive, wasteful) I can't fathom how that would work. Maybe I misread and they are ready to play ball if they get their "last 4 miles" up North. Because to have the Lakeside Center razed AND to add 4 miles of lakeshore (be it if Lucas chips in for that or not) we are talking mega-bucks to appease this one group. And an amount I'm not sure is worth it. Surely the expectation isn't that the city/state would pay for both a Lakeside Center relocation AND new fill in lakeshore?

And as much as I want to see the last 4 miles along Edgewater it is pretty evident that it is in fact that south lake shore that could use more green space and open land. Kamin has been banging that drum hard for many a year and I have to agree with him. So we make a compromise for the LMNA and yet don't direct the positive spillover towards the nearest communities it surrounds but in fact 7 miles northward? Not sure how much I like that.

The 'Last 4 Miles' plan isn't 4 miles on the Northside. It's 2 miles on the Northside and 2 miles on the Southside.

https://fotp.org/policy/last-4-miles/

nomarandlee · #**1595** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

The 'Last 4 Miles' plan isn't 4 miles on the Northside. It's 2 miles on the Northside and 2 miles on the Southside.

https://fotp.org/policy/last-4-miles/

Thanks for correcting me.

LouisVanDerWright · #**1596** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 6:04 PM**

Looks like I was right about the McCormick Place proposal being a ploy to get FOTPL to play ball and then make them look like fools and/or divide and conquer the group. Absolutely humiliating to have media reports of your lawyer telling you to settle and them have him go to the press and say "we have a strong case and will remain in court". I have a feeling that Rahm and friends are feeding lots of confusing rumors to the media to further muck up the situation. It sounds as if even FOTPL doesn't know what FOTPLs position is.

Mr Downtown · #**1597** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile

Sure you have.

My assessment from February of the lawsuit's chances for success.

My clarification to you a few days later regarding public purpose vs. public control.

Quote:

And out of curiosity, are you an attorney?

Not sure why it's relevant to anyone, but since you asked so graciously; yes, I am a lawyer. I am not an attorney for any party involved in this issue.

LouisVanDerWright · #**1598** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

And, of course, nothing stops the people who don't agree with that decision from now filing the exact same lawsuit.

Of course any other party would be presumably be spending their own money instead of donors money which is probably how Rahm is getting to FOTPL and creating division right now. I also suspect that FOTPL might be running low on cash given the challenges of running a lawsuit on a shrinking budget. All it takes is a few major donors spooking and FOTPL can't carry the lawsuit on because they havent the cash.

ardecila · #**1599** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Surely the expectation isn't that the city/state would pay for both a Lakeside Center relocation AND new fill in lakeshore.

I'm against any plan that does not include an extension of Lake Shore Drive (hopefully with a transit component). Or at least a busway.

Rogers Park and South Shore already have ample public access to the lakefront, in the form of neighborhood-scale parks, and they are against a massive lakefill that would bring crowding and summertime traffic to their shoreline. The only way this is a good public investment is if there is some kind of transportation aspect as well.

$450M could be much better spent in these communities, first to:

A) restoring the neighborhood lakefront parks, many of which are crumbling and then
B) literally anything else, from streetscaping to BRT to school renovations to inland park renovations.

Mr Roboto · #**1600** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Of course any other party would be presumably be spending their own money instead of donors money which is probably how Rahm is getting to FOTPL and creating division right now. I also suspect that FOTPL might be running low on cash given the challenges of running a lawsuit on a shrinking budget. All it takes is a few major donors spooking and FOTPL can't carry the lawsuit on because they havent the cash.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I wonder how much money FoTP actually has at this point to continue their lawsuit, and whether their donors will continue funding them especially with regards to this issue and how feeble and weak it all seems. This whole episode has been a public relations nightmare for them, and that can't be good for their funding prospects.