Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizzo
The term “legally” could apply to so many things. Sure they could work out some easement agreement to expand over the interstate but decades down the road,
maintenance could become an issue.
For example any structure overhead that deteriorates and damages the interstate below could hold the property owner and responsible parties for the building’s construction liable. The same the other way around for IDOT. That suspension bridge isn’t designed to look cool. It’s designed that way because it absolutely must not have any structural burden on any surrounding public infrastructure.
Not pointing at anyone here, but I’ve noticed some design professionals and urban planners often think easements are something easy when it comes to big developments. They are insanely complicated and there’s rarely consensus when it comes to maintenance. There will always be a winner or loser depending on who has the best lawyers.
While IDOT may appear old school, I certainly value their rigid position to insulate themselves against any costly maintenance or liability.
|
Thank you for this insight. How do you think IDOT's legal and liability positions would play out if the funds ever appeared for a project to cap the Kennedy between Hubbard and the Circle? Would you see them perpetually blocking this from ever happening? Or would they be more willing to allow it since it would be publicly owned infrastructure with a park on top and no private development?