Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280
...all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling...
|
Bravo on enumerating the
legal reasons why existing structures are allowed in Grant park.
I hope you realize, however, that legality is really a minor point in the discussion for most people here. There are plenty of laws and precedents that people on these boards disagree with, not because of legal reasons, but because of ethical, aesthetic, and civic-oriented reasons. For example:
1) Off street parking requirements.
2) The process through which buildings get approved (aldermanic prerogative).
3) The landmarking process.
4) TIFs
5) etc.
There are laws and legal precedents establishing each of these. However, most objections to these items are made on more subjective grounds: do these practices make sense? are they fair? do they benefit the city?
Similarly, when people refer to "forever free and clear," most could give two hoots about the obscure legal wrangling which was the context of the original quote. They are focused on what that phrase means to them, how they interpret it and whether, subjectively, it seems "right."
Thus, to me, "forever free and clear" means just that: the park remains a park, with no exceptions. I care not that there is legal justification for the expansion of the AIC or the building of the Pritzker pavillion. To me, they are violations even more egregious than any plan forwarded for Daley-Bi plaza.
Why should it matter to me that a judge and a civic leader from the turn of the last century thought these structures were A-OK? They are massive structures which violate the spirit of "forever free and clear," IMO, and have done much more damage to the future of the park than a tennis court-sized glass pit could ever do.
Let's be clear that I (and I suspect others) are talking about the spirit of the law and our interpretations of it. Let's also try to accurately assess the realized benefit or detriment that existing structures in Grant park have on the park from a aesthetic and land-use perspective. Forget the legal reasons, they move no soul.
Taft