CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Communiqué from FotP this afternoon:

UPDATE FROM FRIENDS OF THE PARKS


Lucas Museum Lawsuit Update

Dear friends of Friends of the Parks:

You may have seen a flurry of media coverage about the Lucas Museum in the last week or so. Here is a recap of what has happened, some of which has been reported correctly but much of which has not. So we wanted to share with you accurate information.

Per the mayor's invitation, Friends of the Parks agreed to begin negotiations regarding the Lucas Museum on the McCormick Place East. Here is the list of priority items that we put on the table for negotiation.

1. A legally enforceable agreement to protect the lakefront from development (other than park recreation-related uses) for the next 100 years.
   
2. Changes in the Lucas Museum's legal structuring to conform to that of the other public museums in Chicago, with appropriate revisions to the Ground Lease for the museum consistent with those of other museums.
3. Development of DuSable Park.
   
4. The creation of a Neighborhood Parks Fund to be held at an institution like The Chicago Community Trust and controlled by an advisory board formed by such institution, funded by contributions that represent 5% of the Lucas Museum's revenues for the life of the museum, to pay for park capital improvements-like fixing the crumbling field houses and sports fields that are in disrepair-in dis-invested neighborhoods across the city.
   
5. A Community Benefits Agreements to ensure that a significant number of temporary and permanent jobs created by the Lucas Museum/McCormick Place development and on-going operations go to low-income and minority residents of Chicago.
   
6. The conversion of the Soldier Field parking lot into a green event space (which allows for Bears tailgating) such as that proposed in the Lucas Museum Plan A design.

The city responded by calling our request "extortion." And, we found out after the fact of our meeting with the mayor that he wasn't asking Friends of the Parks to negotiate over the McCormick Place East site but over the originally-proposed lakefront site.

We were given an ultimatum to come to an agreement with the city over the originally-proposed lakefront site by Tuesday, June 21, or the Lucas Museum would leave Chicago and it would be our fault. We were told to drop the lawsuit and trust the city to work with us to address our other concerns.

Our board was not willing to accept that demand, and we notified the city late Tuesday afternoon that we are not dropping the lawsuit.

We are now waiting to see what happens next, while we await the judges' decision on the writ of mandamus.

We say a big, big, thank you to the many of you who have continued to write, call, and donate to support Friends of the Parks in our efforts to do all we can to protect our lakefront. We have been so encouraged by the recent surge in new members and donors.

Wow, defensive much? Interestingly, following the spirit of 'openness' of a typical not-for-profit, nothing on the widely reported split of the board on the support (maybe even majority suppport) of the LMNA...

"surge in new members and donors" that is too funny

BTW, I want to give a big, big thank you to all of you guys who have contributed to the surge in private messages telling me how brilliant I've been in my recent posts

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

nothing on the widely reported split of the board on the support (maybe even majority suppport) of the LMNA...

Wow, fantasize much? The split of opinion was between board members wanting to see what the city would offer and those preferring to stand pat.

Today's Tribune has an editorial pointing out the bizarre scapegoating of FotP:

•To many of us who want the museum built here, the great frustration is the intransigence of filmmaker George Lucas, who, as his agent Mayor Rahm Emanuel put it, "(has his) heart kind of set" on a lakefront site. In other words, Lucas wants to give a museum to Chicago and its children — but he doesn't want to do so badly enough that he'll consider any of many other good locations. We wonder whether Lucas appreciates the irony that he could hold his 2013 wedding on Promontory Point only because Chicago for nearly two centuries had protected that stretch of lakefront from the kind of development he now demands for himself at another lakefront site.

•The war against Friends of the Parks is based on a fallacy: that if the group would only drop its lawsuit to block the project, Emanuel could proceed to let Lucas put his museum on the lakefront under a lease renewable for 297 years. City Hall has been pushing that notion to reporters. The obvious retort: Even if Friends did cave, any citizen of Illinois could hire a lawyer and file essentially the same lawsuit, alleging that allowing this private development on the lakefront violates his or her rights under the public trust doctrine — a special protection afforded to lakefront land and all the citizens of Illinois.
***
Emanuel's lawyers surely know that a surrender by Friends would be (a) illogical, given that the group has been winning at the pretrial motion phase, and (b) no barrier to lawsuits by other plaintiffs. So why the big drama about whether Friends of the Parks will cave? ... Beating on Friends, or blaming the group for renouncing a gift that it more accurately wants to locate elsewhere in the city, won't fool Chicagoans.

So let's dismantle the PR machine aimed at a small advocacy group that is standing up for the future of Chicago's lakefront.

Let's all agree that opponents have the power only to ask the courts if this project would illicitly permit private interests to control public land.

And let's let federal judges do their jobs.

[pilsenarch]

^Huh, where exactly was it reported that "split of opinion was between board members wanting to see what the city would offer and those preferring to stand pat"? and how does that contradict support of the LMNA?

Again, no transparency...

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Wow, fantasize much? The split of opinion was between board members wanting to see what the city would offer and those preferring to stand pat.

Today's Tribune has an editorial pointing out the bizarre scapegoating of FotP:

•To many of us who want the museum built here, the great frustration is the intransigence of filmmaker George Lucas, who, as his agent Mayor Rahm Emanuel put it, "(has his) heart kind of set" on a lakefront site. In other words, Lucas wants to give a museum to Chicago and its children — but he doesn't want to do so badly enough that he'll consider any of many other good locations. We wonder whether Lucas appreciates the irony that he could hold his 2013 wedding on Promontory Point only because Chicago for nearly two centuries had protected that stretch of lakefront from the kind of development he now demands for himself at another lakefront site.

•The war against Friends of the Parks is based on a fallacy: that if the group would only drop its lawsuit to block the project, Emanuel could proceed to let Lucas put his museum on the lakefront under a lease renewable for 297 years. City Hall has been pushing that notion to reporters. The obvious retort: Even if Friends did cave, any citizen of Illinois could hire a lawyer and file essentially the same lawsuit, alleging that allowing this private development on the lakefront violates his or her rights under the public trust doctrine — a special protection afforded to lakefront land and all the citizens of Illinois.
***
Emanuel's lawyers surely know that a surrender by Friends would be (a) illogical, given that the group has been winning at the pretrial motion phase, and (b) no barrier to lawsuits by other plaintiffs. So why the big drama about whether Friends of the Parks will cave? ... Beating on Friends, or blaming the group for renouncing a gift that it more accurately wants to locate elsewhere in the city, won't fool Chicagoans.

So let's dismantle the PR machine aimed at a small advocacy group that is standing up for the future of Chicago's lakefront.

Let's all agree that opponents have the power only to ask the courts if this project would illicitly permit private interests to control public land.

And let's let federal judges do their jobs.

That's a bunch of B.S. Just because they filed a lawsuit does not mean it deserves our understanding...Anyone can file a suit for anything against the city if they feel like it and have the money. Find a judge that will listen and you can go to trial right or wrong.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Wait, did Mr. DT actually just refer to FOTPL as a "scapegoat"??? Lol, yeah the people who are single handedly jamming up this billion dollar gift are just a scapegoat. A scapegoat for what exactly?

[Mr Downtown]

Perhaps you missed the news. Back in February, the judge ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

But rather than producing the relevant documents and then making their strongest legal case in court, the city is trying to pressure FotP into withdrawing the complaint. Just like they've done for decades to anyone complaining of police misconduct.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ And what does any of that have to do with FTOPL being a scapegoat? Their lawsuit is what is jamming this up therefore they are to blame for it not happening yet.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Perhaps you missed the news. Back in February, the judge ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

But rather than producing the relevant documents and then making their strongest legal case in court, the city is trying to pressure FotP into withdrawing the complaint. Just like they've done for decades to anyone complaining of police misconduct.

What has that got to do with anything? Are you seriously conflating this lawsuit with lawsuits alleging police misconduct?

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Perhaps you missed the news. Back in February, the judge ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

But rather than producing the relevant documents and then making their strongest legal case in court, the city is trying to pressure FotP into withdrawing the complaint. Just like they've done for decades to anyone complaining of police misconduct.

Perhaps YOU missed the news:

Almost every philanthropic business leader and every civic/museum/institutional leader in this city has gone on record as supporting the LMNA for the same reasons that the significant mass majority of the public does as well.

It even appears that the majority of the FotPL board supports it also.

No, the calamity of the politically and, apparently, emotionally driven FotPL suit not only has nothing to do with how quickly the city responded to requests it also demands no reason for the city to identify 'scape'goats when there is only one goat involved here: the politically and emotionally driven Irizarry controlled FotPL.

It's laughable that you are somehow implying that if only the city produced the required documents sooner LMNA would be under construction by now...

[Mr Downtown]

Not me; the judge.

To quote Judge Darrah from the Transcript of Proceedings, March 2, 2016, pp. 11-12

back in April [2015] I put a trial date in place... . March 14th of this year . . . 12 days from now we would be going to trial on the merits of this case, which we still haven’t reached.
***
Discovery was ordered closed in September of last year... . Now, I read the proposed scheduling order submitted by the plaintiffs, and the defendants have responded that they still don’t have discovery in any meaningful sense.

If the lawsuit is as meritless as you all believe, shovels could have been in the ground last month.

[F1 Tommy]

No matter what Lucas decides I hope this case runs all the way and if the city wins (wich they probably will)they sue (along with anyone else who so desires)FOTP for the loss of the museum as they will be directly responsible.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

No matter what Lucas decides I hope this case runs all the way and if the city wins (wich they probably will)they sue (along with anyone else who so desires)FOTP for the loss of the museum as they will be directly responsible.

You can only sue if something illegal is done. Going to court (and blocking a museum) is not illegal.

However, the city can ensure it never works with FOPL again, and it can use backdoor pressure on donors to bankrupt the organization.

That said, though I detest and rarely read the Tribune, their editorial today is correct: anyone can sue and block the museum on the same legal grounds, even if FOPL drops their lawsuit, so pressuring them to drop it doesn't guarantee someone else won't massively troll the city and file their own.

That is why I thought the best course of action was for Lucas to wait a couple years and let the lawsuit run its course, because the city has a strong chance of winning the suit. It's the timing and the horrifically slow court process that is causing Lucas to look at other options. But by the time he gets anything finalized in LA or SF, it'll be 2 years anyway, so stick with it George. (And the city needs to do a better job moving the lawsuit forward, had they not been so slow, we'd be in more advanced stages headed for trial).

[rgolch]

Mr Downtown, I seriously don't understand why your on the side of Friends of the Parks.

After everything that has transpired, it's obvious that none of this has been about saving the lakefront. It's all about a near invisible organization enjoying being in the spotlight, taking on the big billionaire who won't kiss their ring and respect their demands. In short, a bunch of losers who want to exert their little shred of power. And ultimately, the city of Chicago and it's residents with be collateral damage. This will seriously be bad in the long term for Friends of the Park. There is simply no good reason for them to kill this.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Mr Downtown, I seriously don't understand why your on the side of Friends of the Parks.

After everything that has transpired, it's obvious that none of this has been about saving the lakefront. It's all about a near invisible organization enjoying being in the spotlight, taking on the big billionaire who won't kiss their ring and respect their demands. In short, a bunch of losers who want to exert their little shred of power. And ultimately, the city of Chicago and it's residents with be collateral damage. This will seriously be bad in the long term for Friends of the Park. There is simply no good reason for them to kill this.

The want to stop a precedent of museums on the lakefront. Oh wait.....

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Not me; the judge.

To quote Judge Darrah from the Transcript of Proceedings, March 2, 2016, pp. 11-12

back in April [2015] I put a trial date in place... . March 14th of this year . . . 12 days from now we would be going to trial on the merits of this case, which we still haven’t reached.
***
Discovery was ordered closed in September of last year... . Now, I read the proposed scheduling order submitted by the plaintiffs, and the defendants have responded that they still don’t have discovery in any meaningful sense.

If the lawsuit is as meritless as you all believe, shovels could have been in the ground last month.

desperate, grasping, clinging, pathetic, Mr. D... yeah, why are you supporting your member organization?

[LouisVanDerWright]

It would be so funny if the city won this and then someone else immediately showed up with another similar use for the Lakefront that was less cut and dry a total win for the parks and FOTPL was totally powerless to do anything at all about it because of their own precedence. That's the silliest part about all of this for me, this is pretty obviously a win for the lakefront with a large increase in greenspace and an attraction that would draw more people into enjoying the parks, but it could result in a free for all of construction of each and every similar use even if they are not so clearly liked by the public and beneficial to the FOTPL cause.

[pilsenarch]

LVDW, I hope you're not making the 'slippery slope' argument that has been debunked over and over on these threads...

There is no such thing as anyone or any institution having an "as of right" to develop on Chicago's lakefront. There are way too many hurdles and without public support, all those hurdles will not be cleared...

[The Pimp]

Originally Posted by JK47

Irregardless of how the city characterized their demands the fact is that it was apparent, weeks ago, that the MPE site was politically impossible due to political conditions in Springfield and higher priority items for the city (such as relief from the CPS pension issue). If they really "just now" realized that MPE is off the table then their ineptitude knows no bounds.

Irregardless=not a real word.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

LVDW, I hope you're not making the 'slippery slope' argument that has been debunked over and over on these threads...

There is no such thing as anyone or any institution having an "as of right" to develop on Chicago's lakefront. There are way too many hurdles and without public support, all those hurdles will not be cleared...

No, what I am saying is that this court case will set a legal precedent one way or the other. If the city gets a ruling in their favor then, yes, if the city decides to allow similar institutions to set up in a similar manner, then they will have carte blanche to do whatever they please. In the future this might not be as pragmatic as replacing a hideous parking lot with a museum and a bunch of new green space. The next one might be a museum that is being built on existing greenspace all because FOTPL flushed their leverage and political capital down the drain fighting what is obviously such a win for all those involved.

Personally I welcome as many museums to the Museum Campus as we can cram in there as long as they are privately funded and of high quality. It's not a slippery slope to say that a ruling in favor of the city on this basically makes FOTPL and everyone else powerless to stop any future proposed institution like this from also getting a prime lakefront spot. Let's face it, if FOTPL wins they lose because they will be blamed for the loss of this gift forevermore, if they lose they lose because they will basically cease to exist as an organization because they've blown their goodwill fighting a losing battle.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Mr. D... yeah, why are you supporting your member organization?

You're asking how—on a complex and contentious civic issue—someone could possibly hold an opinion different than yours?

I'm not sure what you mean by "your member organization." FotP is a membership organization, but I've never been a member. I did some publications work for them on Last 4 Miles back in 2009, and I'm sympathetic to their cause here, but I've primarily tried in this discussion to explain the legal underpinnings of their case. Very seldom have I offered my own opinion of whether LMNA should go on this site. (For the record, I'm troubled by the lakefront site and the process that offered it up, think it's too distant from transit and other museums, and think the building is much too tall and will be considered breath-takingly unattractive a generation from now).

LvdW, public trust cases are unique, and the role of precedent is difficult to predict. A decision that this museum's lease conditions are permissible wouldn't necessarily tell us anything about the next use of public trust land that had slightly different lease terms.