SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87889)

STR Mar 14, 2006 10:07 PM

If Walsh wasn't even able to lowball in, then I'm afraid the city estimates are the numbers that are off.

STR Mar 28, 2006 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy
Maybe they're starting to wisen up a bit and realize that the war is over for them and in the future they could benefit too.

Dude, I don't think you're completely aware of what's going to happen. If everything goes through there might not be enough left of Bensenville to make a viable village. There's been talk of disolving Bensenville and splitting it between Wood Dale, Elk Grove and a couple others. There is no benefit for Bensenville. It's too far in and the western access will be too far north. They're going to keep fighting, long after SOC gives in, because it's they're fighting for their life.

Chicago Shawn Mar 28, 2006 9:04 PM

^Totaly disagree. The western Access at Thorndale Avenue will run along the northern fringe of town, yes much of it will lie in Elk Grove Village and Woodlale, but Bensiville still can rezone the north fringes for office and hotel uses. Just becuase it is losing area, does not mean it can't be a viable community. Just look at Roosemont, that place is a cash cow benifitting from the fact that it sits at O'Hare's front door. It has a very small area, much of it covered by unihabbited expressway interchanges, but it does VERY well on its own through commercial and industrial revenue spurred by its access to the airport.

Of coarse, if that doesn't work out, Bensinville can and should annex into Chicago. I guarentee those properties will be highly saught after if opened to city of Chicago employees. The northwest side is seeing property appreciation accelerating upward very quickly.

STR Mar 28, 2006 9:31 PM

Never said I agreed with the thought either. I'm just reporting the mindset of Bensenville leadership. They're not going to be bought out. And while they' talking (nothing remotely official) about dissolution, they'd never, ever, ever, ever annex into Chicago. Giles is Da Mayor in da miniature, do you see Daley swallowing his pride like that?

STR Mar 28, 2006 10:13 PM

*shakes head* How can you keep missing the point? They're (by they, I mean Giles, as everyone else is a yes-man) not being rational. It's ego and emotion. Ceasar doesn't like Carthage messing around in his turf and will stop at nothing to get rid of the threat because accomidation is out of the question.

spyguy Mar 30, 2006 3:04 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

City bids on cemetery in way of O'Hare deal

By Virginia Groark

Tribune staff reporter
Published March 30, 2006

The City of Chicago on Wednesday offered $630,000 for a 157-year-old cemetery in the path of the O'Hare International Airport expansion plan, even though a federal court has barred the city from acquiring the land until it rules on a pending case.

The city initiated the proceedings to acquire St. Johannes Cemetery from St. John's United Church of Christ in Bensenville. The figure does not include the cost of moving the approximately 1,300 graves in the burial ground. The city would pay for that separately, officials said.

If the church does not respond within 30 days, the city said it could start condemnation proceedings.

But a lawyer for the relatives of people buried in the cemetery said the offer and threat of condemnation is nothing more than an attempt to scare his clients because a federal court has temporarily barred the city from acquiring the land.

"It's an attempt to intimidate," attorney Joseph Karaganis said. "It's kind of a cruel pressure because these are elderly people," he said. "And every time Chicago does one of these things, it creates an atmosphere of fear and hostility."

Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Program, acknowledged that the city could not acquire the property until the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on an anti-expansion court case backed by Bensenville and Elk Grove Village. But she said the city initiated the offer to keep its program moving.

Though Chicago can't condemn the property unless the court rules in its favor, that process can be lengthy and is not something "that can be resolved in a day or two."

"We have a program to build," Andolino said. "And what we have to constantly work against is budget and schedule, and we need to make sure we keep this program moving ahead."

Even if the city is eventually allowed to acquire the land, it has pledged not to remove the graves until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia finishes its review of the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of the expansion plan. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for May 5.

Located in DuPage County at the edge of the existing airfield, St. Johannes lies in the path of one of the proposed runways in the $15 billion O'Hare expansion plan.

It also is the key to the legal battle being waged by the plan's opponents, who argue that it would be unconstitutional to move the cemetery to make way for the expansion.

Specifically, they say that moving the graves would violate the church's 1st Amendment rights to exercise its religious beliefs.

Opponents also argue that state legislators discriminated against the church when they passed the O'Hare Modernization Act in 2003, excluding the cemetery from another state law that prohibits government from putting "a substantial burden" on religious practice.

While some opponents argue plans can be changed to save the graveyard, Andolino said the FAA could not find a way to route the runway away from the cemetery, though it did spare nearby Rest Haven cemetery.

"St. Johannes is in the footprint of the expansion, and there's nothing else we could do to try to change that," she said.

spyguy Mar 31, 2006 3:51 PM

Land at O'Hare will house city workers
March 31, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter


Military land at O'Hare Airport, acquired more than a decade ago for development that has yet to happen, will become the new home for 600 city employees in a $22.5 million move designed to free up lucrative airport space for concessions.

Aviation Department employees will be united with workers assigned to the O'Hare Modernization Project at a vacant military building near Zemke and Bessie Coleman Drive. In recent months, the building has been used to train air marshals.

The 165,000-square foot structure known as "Building Four" is being converted to office space at a cost of $22.5 million in preparation for a move sometime this fall. General airport revenue bonds retired by airline revenues will finance the move, officials said.

Roughly 2,000 Aviation Department employees are currently scattered around O'Hare in Terminals 1, 2, 3 and 5. They're located on the landside as well as the airside beyond security checkpoints.

The decision to relocate 600 employees not directly involved in airport operations is designed to free up 500,000 square feet of terminal space for revenue-generating concessions. The average O'Hare concession takes up 700-square feet of space.

"The airline industry has been hit hard. Our partner airlines are incredibly important to the viability of the airport," said Aviation Department spokesperson Wendy Abrams. "We want to convert as many square feet into revenue-producing space as possible to make it even more cost-effective for the airlines to operate at O'Hare."

Continued:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-hare31.html

Chicago Shawn Apr 6, 2006 4:53 PM

HELL YEAH! This project can now really move full steam ahead. LET THE BULLDOZERS ROLL! The only thing left to sort out is the cemmitary issue.

Chicago Shawn Apr 11, 2006 4:12 AM

^Its delayed because of the opponents. This would have gotten underway much earlier if the retarded leaders of Bensinville and Elk Grove Village were not so fucking self-centered. Plans for expansion have been proposed for years and should have gotte underway a long time ago. It was these towns and the suburban GOP which led the way in making sure O'Hare expansion wouldn't take off and pushed to build a new airport in Peotone, which had the support of former governers Jim Edgar, and Geoge Ryan, the latter of which change his stance in exchange for keeping Meigs Field open. A deal that was supposed to be cemented in place was killed by our former senator Peter I hate the Daley Machine Fitzgerald, and allowed an opening for the runway at Meiges to be torn up. The continued delay caused by those two shithole suburbs has only added to he problem as everyone else concedded to the city of Chicago winning this long battle. And durring the time this battle has been waged, the cost of construction materials has risen substaintialy because of China's building binge.

Of course there might be much more to it, but I think this is the root of the problem.

VivaLFuego Apr 11, 2006 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
^Its delayed because of the opponents. This would have gotten underway much earlier if the retarded leaders of Bensinville and Elk Grove Village were not so fucking self-centered. Plans for expansion have been proposed for years and should have gotte underway a long time ago. It was these towns and the suburban GOP which led the way in making sure O'Hare expansion wouldn't take off and pushed to build a new airport in Peotone, which had the support of former governers Jim Edgar, and Geoge Ryan, the latter of which change his stance in exchange for keeping Meigs Field open. A deal that was supposed to be cemented in place was killed by our former senator Peter I hate the Daley Machine Fitzgerald, and allowed an opening for the runway at Meiges to be torn up. The continued delay caused by those two shithole suburbs has only added to he problem as everyone else concedded to the city of Chicago winning this long battle. And durring the time this battle has been waged, the cost of construction materials has risen substaintialy because of China's building binge.

Of course there might be much more to it, but I think this is the root of the problem.

The Chicago skyscraper advocacy group should adopt a "Bulldoze Bensenville" stance in the official party platform.

spyguy Apr 18, 2006 8:29 PM

So are they building another control tower? I remember seeing a really cool design for one on airport-tech.com under the O'Hare project...

Chicago Shawn Apr 20, 2006 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

Bensenville Village President John Geils said he thinks any deal should be delayed until various lawsuits over Chicago’s acquisition of land in Bensenville are settled “because we’re going to prevail.”

Good lord, give it up already. This mayor continues to act like a 5 year old that doesn't understand he is not the center of the universe. He should take a cue from the forest preserve district and stop wasting tax payer money. Enough with the delays already, this should have been underway a long time ago.

JV_325i Apr 20, 2006 5:01 AM

"because we're going to prevail."

Yeah dude, that is completely the right attitude. You go man, don't let those assholes get in your way. After all, you are a third-world country with a peaceful society facing oppresion from a ruthless military dictatorship. Oh wait, you are really some shit-ass westside suburb? Oh man, I'm sorry. This makes even more sense now.

But not really. Seriously what is wrong with this guy? Last time I was at O'Hare I was delayed for eight hours on some random weekday that should have been no problem. It is getting rediculous there. Don't these people realize that?

STR Apr 20, 2006 5:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
Good lord, give it up already. This mayor continues to act like a 5 year old that doesn't understand he is not the center of the universe. He should take a cue from the forest preserve district and stop wasting tax payer money. Enough with the delays already, this should have been underway a long time ago.

Geils thinks he's Ceasar, he will fight for ever inch of territory.

BVictor1 Apr 20, 2006 5:06 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...l=chi-news-hed

Bill reins in land grabs
State deal would aid private owners, allow O'Hare expansion

By Christi Parsons
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 20, 2006


SPRINGFIELD -- In a move that could make it much more difficult for the government to seize private property, the Illinois House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a compromise measure that has tacit consent from wary municipal leaders.

Key to the agreement is a guarantee that Chicago city officials can continue their expansion of O'Hare International Airport under the current laws, which give them sweeping powers to condemn private property in suburban communities bordering the airfield. Nearly 1,000 special redevelopment districts now active around the state could also continue operating under the old rules.

But the vast majority of private property owners in Illinois would get stronger protections in cases where government officials want to take their land for use by the community. The bill would put a greater burden on government officials to show why they want to condemn a piece of property. It also would increase the amount of money they have to pay if they succeed.

"The pendulum is swinging in favor of the private property owner in Illinois," said Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), a Downstate lawyer and sponsor who negotiated the agreement. "These are substantial wins for the private landowner, but it's also something that the municipalities can live with."

The measure passed the House by a vote of 85-6 and now heads to the Senate, which easily passed an earlier version of the bill last month. Gov. Rod Blagojevich has yet to weigh in on the issue and aides said Wednesday that they would study the complex legislation.

The bill is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial decision last year that said public bodies can take privately held land even for the purpose of giving it to another private owner for economic development. The decision ignited a public furor, and lawmakers in many states moved to protect--and reassure--private property owners.

The Illinois legislation would put the burden on public officials to justify in court the need to condemn private property. Current law generally puts the responsibility on the private property owner to prove that the government's condemnation plan is unjustified. The legislation would raise the bar even higher in some cases where local officials want to take private land for private development. In those instances, the bill would also require that government officials meet the civil court system's standard of "clear and convincing" evidence that the condemnation is necessary.

If the condemnation were needed to clean up blight, however, the higher standard wouldn't apply, even in cases where the land was being seized for private development.

And in all condemnation cases, the condemning authority would have to pay the owner not only the fair market value of the property but also some relocation expenses, attorneys' fees and other costs.

"Now, people will know exactly what their rights are," said state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest), the Senate sponsor. "This lays out how condemning authorities and private property owners are to work together to get a fair solution."

Though lawmakers of both parties say they like the idea of standing up for private property owners, the proposal ran into trouble because of concerns from municipal officials all over the state. They were afraid that raising the legal standards would make it too hard to continue current cleanups of blighted areas and other public projects.

"The costs will be greater as a result," said Roger Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League, which represents more than 1,100 municipalities in the state. "It increases the litigation expense for condemnation and the costs of relocation."

In Chicago, officials were worried that the proposal could bog down redevelopment efforts in about 150 special improvement districts around the city. On a grander scale, they feared the changes could seriously hamper plans to expand and modernize O'Hare.

But in recent weeks opponents worked out an agreement with lawmakers that exempts the O'Hareproject, as well as the hundreds of existing tax increment financing districts in the state, from the new rules.

The city and the municipal league aren't thrilled about the impact of the tougher proposals on future projects, but their lawyers say they are relieved by the compromise provisions.

"They're basically intended to protect development that are already under way, where there have been large expenditures on the assumptions that they'd be able to be completed," said Steve Holler, a lawyer for the city. Holler said the new bill would "tilt the playing field" in favor of private property owners, and echoed concerns that the change will make future projects more expensive.

Lawmakers say the trade-off is worth it.

"One of the major reasons this country was formed was on the basis of private ownership of property," said Rep. Terry Parke (R-Hoffman Estates). "People want the ability to negotiate in good faith for their property that they own, and that they have, for themselves and the future of their families."

Bradley, the House sponsor, agreed.

"If you're going to take someone's property," Bradley said, "you should have to justify what you're doing."

----------

cparsons@tribune.com


Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Norsider Apr 21, 2006 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JV_325i
"because we're going to prevail."

Yeah dude, that is completely the right attitude. You go man, don't let those assholes get in your way. After all, you are a third-world country with a peaceful society facing oppresion from a ruthless military dictatorship. Oh wait, you are really some shit-ass westside suburb? Oh man, I'm sorry. This makes even more sense now.

But not really. Seriously what is wrong with this guy? Last time I was at O'Hare I was delayed for eight hours on some random weekday that should have been no problem. It is getting rediculous there. Don't these people realize that?

I agree, JV. I have no problem whatsoever with dismissing out of hand ANY opponents of this project. There is absolutely not a single issue that they could raise that would rise to even close to the same importance as expanding Chicago's air transport capabilities. These morons can continue to complain about the fact that they bought real estate right next to an airport that was nearing capacity, but I simply do not care.

nomarandlee Apr 26, 2006 2:34 AM

Does anyone else that it is possible that after full expansion another carrier would set up a hub/focus point at O'Hare?

spyguy Apr 26, 2006 3:29 AM

Maybe, or AA and UA will just continue to dominate O'Hare. I'd make that call once something substantial comes out of the Western Terminal proposal.

Rail Claimore Apr 26, 2006 7:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Does anyone else that it is possible that after full expansion another carrier would set up a hub/focus point at O'Hare?

Highly unlikely.

VivaLFuego Apr 26, 2006 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Does anyone else that it is possible that after full expansion another carrier would set up a hub/focus point at O'Hare?

Yeah seems unlikely. More likely that UA and AA just continue expanding and other airlines increase service.

Which raises an interesting argument for a 3rd airport, since Midway is basically owned by Southwest at this point with no further expansion anywhere on the horizon.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.