HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #921  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 3:32 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiphile View Post
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.
^worth repeating on this page

Mr. D: 1)Apparently Montgomery Ward thought it important to make an exception to his rule for a particular institution... hmmm.

2)How do all of the privately run harbors for the 1% and the exclusive accompanying parking lots not come under protest from FotPL?
     
     
  #922  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 3:36 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
I suspect Lucas has some motivation to either fish or cut bait
     
     
  #923  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 4:00 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,054
Maybe all it would have taken was a modest donation(bribe) to FOPL by Lucas...Their feelings were hurt because they were not included
     
     
  #924  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 4:57 PM
chiphile's Avatar
chiphile chiphile is offline
yes
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: chicago
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
^worth repeating on this page

Mr. D: 1)Apparently Montgomery Ward thought it important to make an exception to his rule for a particular institution... hmmm.

2)How do all of the privately run harbors for the 1% and the exclusive accompanying parking lots not come under protest from FotPL?
Thanks. A more concise version of my legal analysis is this:

The public trust doctrine says you can't build directly on top of the lake. FOPL's case says any land that used to be the lake is still considered the lake, so the museum is being built on top of the lake (i.e. this is a total BS hail mary). The more I read into this the more I think they'll be laughed out of court. I think the entire lawsuit was meant to get Lucas frustrated and leave the city before trial. Mix it in with the ivory tower egg heads at the Tribune and Kamin himself, and you create enough noise to annoy Lucas. I just hope his lawyers can convince him to be a little more patient, because this is a win for the city.

If FOPL wins, the precedent would mean that any land that used to be the lake, including the south works development, can't be developed. Such a precedent would make a lot of land useless, and the judge would be aware of that and not let that happen.

Some responses to Mr. Downtown:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
No. The key issue is public or private purpose, not control. Purpose is what will be decided in court (if the court even entertains the public trust issue and deems the location to be the same as building on top of the lake).

The city's legal argument is this: Your honor, the public trust doctrine doesn't apply, this isn't the lake. But if you do think it's the lake, we still win, because the direct and dominating purpose of the museum is for the public benefit, and any private interest is merely incidental.

SkyscraperPage, this is a win. The only way the museum doesn't get built is if Lucas gets frustrated and cancels. Just let it play out, you'll see construction cranes soon.

Last edited by chiphile; Feb 27, 2016 at 5:15 PM.
     
     
  #925  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 5:21 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
^ Thanks Chipile. If your interpretation is correct, then it is indeed a Hail Mary. I was thinking the same thing yesterday about the lawyers. Assuming Lucas has good lawyers (and why wouldn't he? Billionaire who really, really wants a museum to be built somewhere), they've probably already done the work like you've done and convinced him to hold off on moving his plans to another city.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
     
     
  #926  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 5:51 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,054
So what was their end game if they have little chance?? I do realize they did get alot of publicity from it, but most was not good....Maybe some tree hugging types living in a mostly cement and steel city will support them to fight the good fight in their minds??
     
     
  #927  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 6:06 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1 Tommy View Post
So what was their end game if they have little chance?? I do realize they did get alot of publicity from it, but most was not good....Maybe some tree hugging types living in a mostly cement and steel city will support them to fight the good fight in their minds??
Because "there's a chance". I don't think many people here disagree that the lakefront being public is a good idea. It's a great idea, but we also have museums on there which have served the city VERY well for a long time and elevated it. There is no reason why LMNA can't do that either given what it is (I wish more people would read more about it instead of just assuming it's a Star Wars Museum and/or a shrine to George Lucas).
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
     
     
  #928  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 10:57 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1 Tommy View Post
So what was their end game if they have little chance??
It's not about parks. The group's motives are anti-Emanuel.
     
     
  #929  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 11:17 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Please link us to the article or articles which shows the attempts to negotiate between FOTP and Lucas.
Read for comprehension, please. To this point, there's been no opportunity for negotiation. LMNA says "this is the site we were offered." The city says "we can do what we want; fuck off."

Chiphile, I hope you’re not relying too much on hornbook subject headings or AmJur in opining that reclaimed land isn’t covered by the public trust doctrine. “[S]ubmerged lands reclaimed are impressed with a trust in the public interest.” Fairbank v. Stratton, 152 N.E.2d 569 (Ill. 1958) I can find no case that suggests the public trust is somehow extinguished once the land dries out.

I agree with you that the lawsuit is a Hail Mary pass, but for different reasons. The rulings that allowed McCormick Place and Soldier Field on public trust land suggest that FotP will lose. On the other hand, the decision denying Loyola University public trust property suggests that a mere public purpose or generous public use policy isn’t enough to overcome the doctrine, and that control is as important as purpose. See Lake Mich. Fed. v. US Army Corps of Engineers, 742 F. Supp. 441 (N.D. Ill. 1990)

Last edited by Mr Downtown; Feb 27, 2016 at 11:31 PM.
     
     
  #930  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 12:03 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Read for comprehension, please. To this point, there's been no opportunity for negotiation. LMNA says "this is the site we were offered." The city says "we can do what we want; fuck off."
I'm pretty sure the city didn't say those words. I'm just asking for a link, that is all. We can sit here all we want with the "they said this" BS, but I'd like to read it from a source.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
     
     
  #931  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 1:48 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Read for comprehension, please. To this point, there's been no opportunity for negotiation. LMNA says "this is the site we were offered." The city says "we can do what we want; fuck off."
I think the point that is trying to be made is that just like the Bears negotiated very favorable changes to their benefit, FotPL could have done the same, but, naturally without the "fuck off LMNA, go find another site" of course...

(BTW, I hope you were reading in your rare "comprehension" mode)
     
     
  #932  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 3:11 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
But at what time was FotP ever given any opportunity to negotiate?

Have you forgotten the infamous October 2014 Museum Campus Framework Plan meeting at Spertus?

So long as the mayor's office is convinced they will win the lawsuit, no one will even talk with FotP or other civic groups.
     
     
  #933  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 3:14 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
But at what time was FotP ever given any opportunity to negotiate?

Have you forgotten the infamous October 2014 Museum Campus Framework Plan meeting at Spertus?

So long as the mayor's office is convinced they will win the lawsuit, no one will even talk with FotP or other civic groups.
ok, put your 'comprehension' cap on again... FotPL NEVER negotiated from any position other than "get the fuck off the lake and Museum Campus"
     
     
  #934  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 3:27 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Ahhh, the Trump supporters' view of how negotiation works.

You have to be allowed in the room in order to negotiate. The other side has to want something from you.
     
     
  #935  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 3:35 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
you are talking silly semantics... what did FotPL ever state to suggest that they were ever willing to negotiate construction on the parking lot in return for other FotPL goals?

(again, please find your apparently lost 'comprehension' beanie)
     
     
  #936  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 4:06 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Maybe Lucas can be convinced to add a giant wing to the Art Institute called the George Lucas Wing of Narrative Art?
     
     
  #937  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 4:35 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
you are talking silly semantics... what did FotPL ever state to suggest that they were ever willing to negotiate construction on the parking lot in return for other FotPL goals?

(again, please find your apparently lost 'comprehension' beanie)
That's pretty much my point. I just want to read about what FOTP has done to work with Lucas, and I'd especially love to read about Lucas telling LMNA that he doesn't want to talk about anything. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other - just want to read about it from a source that's not on a message board.

Also, I can't believe someone brought up Trump. Ew. Let's not resort to throwing out insults to people who are just curious as to what is happening. This is not "Trumpian" at all - this is how things are done in the real world everday. People and companies actually sometimes talk to one another and try and work it out before they result to legal action.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing

Last edited by marothisu; Feb 28, 2016 at 5:59 PM.
     
     
  #938  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 6:15 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Sometimes, you're forced to file a lawsuit when the other side won't return your calls, or even acknowledge that your point of view exists.

FotP has always begun every statement by saying "we want the Lucas Museum to come to Chicago." They have suggested a number of alternative sites. They sent their members to attend a meeting the Park District convened to talk about the future of Burnham Park, a meeting the Park District opened by saying they wouldn't be talking about the Lucas Museum. When the Better Government Association held a forum regarding the subject in Nov. 2014, the Park District and the city declined to participate.

Until the Feb. 4 memorandum opinion, the city didn't think FotP had a ghost of a chance, and therefore didn't think they had anything to trade in a negotiation. When you ask why FotP didn't offer conditions up front that would make the Burnham Park site acceptable, you're describing what's often called "negotiating with yourself." Montgomery Ward could have begged for a water fountain on the side of the armory or post office or whatever obliterated the last blade of grass in Grant Park. We're glad he didn't.
     
     
  #939  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 6:23 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Sometimes, you're forced to file a lawsuit when the other side won't return your calls, or even acknowledge that your point of view exists.
Source?

Quote:
FotP has always begun every statement by saying "we want the Lucas Museum to come to Chicago." They have suggested a number of alternative sites. They sent their members to attend a meeting the Park District convened to talk about the future of Burnham Park, a meeting the Park District opened by saying they wouldn't be talking about the Lucas Museum. When the Better Government Association held a forum regarding the subject in Nov. 2014, the Park District and the city declined to participate.
I was talking about negotiating more than just saying "Don't build on this parking lot here." Is this negotiation actually in person, or is it done through the media?
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
     
     
  #940  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 6:54 PM
JK47 JK47 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
FotP has always begun every statement by saying "we want the Lucas Museum to come to Chicago." They have suggested a number of alternative sites.

Those sites being the Reese Hospital site or the McCormick Place Marshalling Yard. The latter doesn't even seem feasible since it's a narrow site between LSD and the Metra Electric with limited access. Decking over the Yard and/or the Metra Electric would be absurdly expensive (which also makes building it on a deck west of LSD unlikely as well) and likely a non-starter. Not to mention that the Yard is also an important part of McCormick Place's infrastructure. The Reese Hospital site doesn't even fit the criteria of the proposal (e.g. adjacent to water). Though oddly enough maybe FoPl isn't aware of that since Cassandra Francis said that building the LMNA on the Reese site would "allow the Museum Campus to be expanded to the south." Which is strange since there is space in the Museum Campus for a Museum.
Why would we need to expand the Museum Campus at all in that case?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:48 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.