CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[the urban politician]

Interesting. The Ricketts sort of pulled this move during the rooftop litigation

[the urban politician]

..

[rlw777]

Here's the main argument against the injunction

The injunction

thus threatens the very public interest it is bound to protect: The loss of the (museum) would deprive the city of a a world-class museum and all the attendant educational, cultural and economic benefits, as well as depriving the city of a more beneficial use for the museum site than the current asphalt parking lot.

[sentinel]

can the City sue FOTP?

[Mr Downtown]

^Under what possible cause of action?

Our entire legal system is premised on the idea that a wronged party, no matter how poor, can sue to have its rights vindicated. Courts take a very dim view of well-heeled defendants attempting to intimidate or silence plaintiffs.

[marothisu]

Well actually, you can pretty much sue for anything. it's up to a judge to throw out the stupid ones.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Under what possible cause of action?

Our entire legal system is premised on the idea that a wronged party, no matter how poor, can sue to have its rights vindicated. Courts take a very dim view of well-heeled defendants attempting to intimidate or silence plaintiffs.

For abandoning their mission statement. This is from their website:

"Friends of the Parks is a 40-year old non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve, protect, improve and promote the use of parks and open spaces throughout the Chicago area for the enjoyment of all residents and visitors.

We advance our programmatic, educational, and advocacy work with the support of our members, donors and volunteers and through partnerships with environmental, governmental and corporate organizations."

https://fotp.org/About

Their legal injunction flies in the face of their own intention.

IF FOTP is raising money for their legal services which flies in the face of their entire mission, and if they are classified as a 501c3 for example, then one could argue that they are not complying with the state's Principles and Best Practices guidelines.

https://myforefront.org/sites/defaul...Book%20PDF.PDF

[sentinel]

Perhaps the Illinois Attorney General's office should investigate whether or not FOTP is in violation of their intended mission. All it takes is one letter to open an investigation...

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Under what possible cause of action?

Our entire legal system is premised on the idea that a wronged party, no matter how poor, can sue to have its rights vindicated. Courts take a very dim view of well-heeled defendants attempting to intimidate or silence plaintiffs.

I just don't see how this group has any standing. If the argument is FotPL has standing due to the fact that they are tax payers and therefore have rights over that parking lot, and since we're so fond of slinging frivolous lawsuits, then couldn't another group of tax payers come along and sue FotPL for loss of revenue?

Beyond the legality of this, what a horrible turn of events. I'm sure in some twisted, delusional way FotTPL believes they are doing the right thing here, but now everyone will suffer because of their misguided crusade. Even if this parking lot were to "in the future be developed into magical parkland" what a F*@king missed opportunity. No one besides the handful of residents, you know, the ones living across the 8 train lines, a government only road and a multi-lane highway, will give a passing thought to this wholly inaccessible future park. Or to put it another way, when a potential tourist considers visiting Chicago which is more likely "I heard that city has an awesome Star Wars museum that we cannot miss" or "I heard that city has a park wedged between a stadium and a convention center that we cannot miss"? F*@king stupid, senseless waste.

[maru2501]

Kamin with a writeup today on other sites including M Reese and N Island, both apparent non-starters

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

I just don't see how this group has any standing.

"[E]ach taxpayer of Illinois has a fractional beneficial interest in the property that the state of Illinois holds in trust for them, so as to create a protectable property interest." Paepcke v. Public Bldg. Comm’n of Chicago, 263 N.E.2d 11, 18 (Ill. 1970) Further from Paepcke: "[i]f the 'public trust' doctrine is to have any meaning or vitality at all, the members of the public, at least taxpayers who are the beneficiaries of that trust, must have the right and standing to enforce it."

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

"[E]ach taxpayer of Illinois has a fractional beneficial interest in the property that the state of Illinois holds in trust for them, so as to create a protectable property interest." Paepcke v. Public Bldg. Comm’n of Chicago, 263 N.E.2d 11, 18 (Ill. 1970) Further from Paepcke: "[i]f the 'public trust' doctrine is to have any meaning or vitality at all, the members of the public, at least taxpayers who are the beneficiaries of that trust, must have the right and standing to enforce it."

Okay - so let's get it straight. Lucas will privately fund a museum and create something like 12 acres of NEW, FREE, PUBLIC green space that is mostly an asphalt parking lot currently. How is that an issue? Because of the 5 acres for the museum? I guess by that logic, none of the museums on Museum Campus, Soldier Field, nor McCormick Place which is near the lake could exist today as new institutions because you have to pay to get in even if the surrounding grounds are public and every single one of them actually benefits the public good?

if someone is going to make a point, then at least offer an alternative. As of right now, FotPL essentially is just complaining. If they were to offer an alternative like some amazing new public park on the site, then they might have more of a point. However, they are doing nothing of the sort. They want to keep it a parking lot which essentially serves almost nobody's public good in this case.

[Kngkyle]

removed

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by marothisu

How is that an issue? Because of the 5 acres for the museum?

Exactly. The ground lease is a transfer to a private party, which violates the public trust doctrine.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

"[E]ach taxpayer of Illinois has a fractional beneficial interest in the property that the state of Illinois holds in trust for them, so as to create a protectable property interest." Paepcke v. Public Bldg. Comm’n of Chicago, 263 N.E.2d 11, 18 (Ill. 1970) Further from Paepcke: "[i]f the 'public trust' doctrine is to have any meaning or vitality at all, the members of the public, at least taxpayers who are the beneficiaries of that trust, must have the right and standing to enforce it."

So other taxpayers could potentially sue other groups which are violating the public property interest...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. The ground lease is a transfer to a private party, which violates the public trust doctrine.

Okay. So apart from that, exactly how is this protecting the general good by blocking a cultural institution from being built and keeping a parking lot which serves almost nobody percentage wise?

I mean if this was some restaurant, condo/apartment building, mall/retail store that wanted to build there, I'd be completely against it. However, we're getting a cultural institution, and a big one at that with a lot of good stuff with a lot of good educational opportunities for the public good. Do you think that is a bad thing?

[Via Chicago]

Simple solution: Mr Lucas dips into his $5 billion net worth, acquires a piece of land from the free market like anyone else, and builds his museum there. And guess what, he wont have any more court battles! He has only himself (and Rahm) to blame for this outcome. But mostly himself, seeing as this is his second go-round and he should know better by now.

Originally Posted by marothisu

if someone is going to make a point, then at least offer an alternative. As of right now, FotPL essentially is just complaining. .

its not really FOTP's responsibility to find GL a suitable plot. but heres an idea: literally ANYWHERE that he can privately acquire.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Okay - so let's get it straight. Lucas will privately fund a museum and create something like 12 acres of NEW, FREE, PUBLIC green space that is mostly an asphalt parking lot currently. How is that an issue? Because of the 5 acres for the museum? I guess by that logic, none of the museums on Museum Campus, Soldier Field, nor McCormick Place which is near the lake could exist today as new institutions because you have to pay to get in even if the surrounding grounds are public and every single one of them actually benefits the public good?

if someone is going to make a point, then at least offer an alternative. As of right now, FotPL essentially is just complaining. If they were to offer an alternative like some amazing new public park on the site, then they might have more of a point. However, they are doing nothing of the sort. They want to keep it a parking lot which essentially serves almost nobody's public good in this case.

^ You're missing the point here by arguing against Mr. D this way.

You are using a practical complaint to counter a legal argument.

The legal argument is that Lucas' museum, regardless of what purpose it serves, is privatization of the lakefront.

Lucas can turn that space into a patch of lawn, for all it matters, and it's still a violation, if I'm to understand the legal argument that's being used here.

There's no point in carrying on this debate, because what really needs to happen is 1 of 4 things:

1. Fight the lawsuit and see who prevails
2. Try to remove the injunction against construction, build the thing, and after it's built have a judge (potentially) declare the museum illegal
3. Convince Lucas to build it elsewhere
4. Convince Lucas to give up ownership of the museum--thus the museum he builds with his own money gets turned into public property.

That's it. Those are the only choices, otherwise Lucas bails for some other city (if he doesn't do so anyhow).

[marothisu]

^ No, I get it, but at the same time these things aren't always as cut and dry as you think all the time. I don't disagree with Lucas finding another piece of land somewhere, but given what he wants to do, I highly doubt it's going to happen. I think the tradeoff here is that he is privately financing it and the city gets the benefits of it versus a museum the city wants to build and spending millions of tax payer dollars for it. Which one would you rather have?

[Mr Downtown]

Not all issues are balancing tests—ugly parking lot vs. popular museum.

Some issues are matters of principle. Parkland that can't be given away to a steel plant or a casino operator also can't be given away to a private museum foundation.