CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by deebirch

Who currently owns the parking lot for the proposed site?

The city - that's what the entire lawsuit is about. The fact that it's on the park land that the ordinance protects (even though at the time of the ordinance creation, the land in question was actually west of lake shore drive - and the ordinance states that anything east of lake shore drive is protected).

[Mr Downtown]

^Not the city. The Chicago Park District owns the parking lot, subject to the public trust doctrine. As public trust land, the State of Illinois could only convey it to another owner (the park district) for a proper public purpose. Parks are unquestionably such a purpose. A public convention center was ruled in the 1950s to be such a purpose. A private university campus was ruled in the 1990s to not be such a purpose.

"West of Lake Shore Drive" is a test in the toothless Lakefront Protection Ordinance, which is completely irrelevant to this challenge. All it requires is that the Plan Commission has to rubber-stamp the plan, which it did.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Not the city. The Chicago Park District owns the parking lot, subject to the public trust doctrine. As public trust land, the State of Illinois could only convey it to another owner (the park district) for a proper public purpose. Parks are unquestionably such a purpose. A public convention center was ruled in the 1950s to be such a purpose. A private university campus was ruled in the 1990s to not be such a purpose.

"West of Lake Shore Drive" is a test in the toothless Lakefront Protection Ordinance, which is completely irrelevant to this challenge. All it requires is that the Plan Commission has to rubber-stamp the plan, which it did.

Yes, that's what I meant. It is a city organization. Keep in mind that the Park District did approve the museum plans, didn't they? Of course a university isn't for the public. I would like to know your thoughts in how the LMNA is any different from any of the other museums on museum campus? They are all run not by city organizations and were largely funded in the beginning through private investment.

I know a good deal of history dealing with Ward and protecting the lakefront. We are all thankful for it greatly - no question about it. And also no question about it that if it was anything but a park or a museum being proposed for this site, we'd all be against it for this reason. However, for a world class museum and cultural institution? No way - it fits in perfectly with what Museum Campus is in my opinion, along with 4 to 5 new acres of park land being created that is not there right now. We can all say that it goes against an ordinance, but I don't think anybody in their right, sane mind would think that the other museums in the same area screwed the city up. Nobody would ever agree that the Field Museum, which still doesn't operate through the city and was privately funded especially in the beginning by a very wealthy individual, has done anything to make the city nor lakefront worse. It did the opposite - it really helped the city solidify its standing in the world as a great city. Are you ready to tell me that all of the museums along the lakefront have worsened the city?

[Mr Downtown]

Like CTA, the Chicago Park District is not "a city organization." It is a separate municipal corporation, though I believe its boundaries are coterminous with the City of Chicago. Not sure if that would automatically change if the city annexed land currently in another park district.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Like CTA, the Chicago Park District is not "a city organization." It is a separate municipal corporation, though I believe its boundaries are coterminous with the City of Chicago. Not sure if that would automatically change if the city annexed land currently in another park district.

Okay, so how about my other more important questions. Can anybody say that any of the museums on Museum Campus, even if they are on the lakefront, have done anything to worsen the city? If anything, they've enabled more people to actually visit the area and greatly enhanced the livability and culture of the city as a whole. Anybody who knows what the point of parks are for will know that it's not just about having the land and access. It's about the programming of the space too. Can you, right now, say that any of those museums have been bad for the city? Can you say that any of them have spurred development of private, non park/cultural institution development in the same area?

[the urban politician]

^ They aren't good places for circus tents. 100 years of children suffering, all due to the evil Field Museum.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Can you, right now, say that any of those museums have been bad for the city?

No, but that's not the issue before us. The issue is whether it's legal to transfer public trust property to a private entity.

Separately, I believe the lakefront location is a bad choice—primarily based on principle, but also for reasons of poor transit access.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No, but that's not the issue before us. The issue is whether it's legal to transfer public trust property to a private entity.

I understand that, but at the same time we have four museums that were all privately funded and started privately right near by. Can nothing be worked out with Lucas? It just seems like FOTP doesn't even want to do that which is ludicrous. In the real world, especially the business world, people try and work out their issues like this instead of just suing right away. It's extremely child-like to me when I see so-called professional organizations who are not able to even do that step.

[Mr Downtown]

^FotP wasn't part of the site selection process, but since this site was chosen, FotP has suggested a number of alternate locations.

In public policy, a lawsuit is not an expression of ill will. It's the primary way we clarify what the common law is, and the main way the powerless protect their rights against a tyranny of the majority.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^FotP wasn't part of the site selection process, but since this site was chosen, FotP has suggested a number of alternate locations.

In public policy, a lawsuit is not an expression of ill will. It's the primary way we clarify what the common law is, and the main way the powerless protect their rights against a tyranny of the majority.

Who cares? FOTP raised a lawsuit - if they were as professional as they think they were, they'd try and work with Lucas beforehand. Do you think that companies sue other companies without trying to talk first about it every time or something?


And I know that Lucas responded to FOTP concerns before because the FOTP cited parking being one point of concern as it allows people to access the park. So they modified the plans for more parking, and scaling back the museum to allow for even more green space that's currently a hideous parking lot. Then the Bears had their concerns, and Lucas and them worked it out too. It's not like Lucas hasn't already listened to the concerns of other groups and flat out told them to fuck off. They've already scaled back the museum's size to allow for more parking and more park land that's not even currently there.

It doesn't seem like FOTP wants to work out shit with Lucas like others have. To me, the FOTP are trying to pass off as a professional group without actually knowing how to do so fully.

[Mr Downtown]

It's LVMA who has said they won't discuss the site; that it's the site the city offered them.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's LVMA who has said they won't discuss the site; that it's the site the city offered them.

Okay, so the concerns of FOTP are because of the land ownership. I get that, but what are their concerns over it? It's a museum in Museum Campus. Are they concerned that it's going to lead to developers trying to build over there all of a sudden?

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Okay, so the concerns of FOTP are because of the land ownership. I get that, but what are their concerns over it? It's a museum in Museum Campus. Are they concerned that it's going to lead to developers trying to build over there all of a sudden?

FotP concerns aren't about land ownership. That's just what their dumb lawsuit is about.

[F1 Tommy]

To bad Lucas would not be open to having the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority run the property, and still keep ownership of everything inside. Not sure this would be the only option. We will see in a month.

[Mr Downtown]

Their concern is that Chicago parks have (again) become a mere land bank for the mayor to give away whenever something needs free land. FotP has seen this happen time and time again for schools, at Hanson and Arthur Ashe Parks; for highways (Lake Shore Drive ramps); for the Olympics; for Latin School soccer fields; for the Childrens Museum; for construction of the British School at the Roosevelt Collection; and for the Obama Library. The closed-door mayoral giveaway to Lucas was a bridge too far, and the public trust doctrine offered a way to possibly head it off.

Saying a site next to McCormick Place is the "Museum Campus" is a bit of a stretch.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rlw777

FotP concerns aren't about land ownership. That's just what their dumb lawsuit is about.

That's really my point. It just seems like they're against the museum in general and because it has to do with the park and the ordinance, they are using it to sue it to prevent it from happening.

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No, but that's not the issue before us. The issue is whether it's legal to transfer public trust property to a private entity.

Separately, I believe the lakefront location is a bad choice—primarily based on principle, but also for reasons of poor transit access.

It's not a transfer of property, it's a lease.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^FotP wasn't part of the site selection process, but since this site was chosen, FotP has suggested a number of alternate locations.

In public policy, a lawsuit is not an expression of ill will. It's the primary way we clarify what the common law is, and the main way the powerless protect their rights against a tyranny of the majority.

This is preceisely it. Suing is frankly standard procedure. Mind you, I don't agree with the FotP, but they aren't a business entity and they weren't apart of the deal.

In their mind they hope the park district will redevelop the parking lot into a public park in the future, and they want Rahm/the city and the park district to abide by the law.

I personally wish they hadn't pushed the issue this far, but there's honestly nothing shocking about their actions.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

In their mind they hope the park district will redevelop the parking lot into a public park in the future

Source? I have never seen any statement by the FOTP on this issue stating what they want it to be. They were even on record with saying that getting rid of the parking lot is a bad thing because parking gives access to people to use the park. That's why Lucas came back with more parking and more park land from the first proposal.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Source? I have never seen any statement by the FOTP on this issue stating what they want it to be. They were even on record with saying that getting rid of the parking lot is a bad thing because parking gives access to people to use the park. That's why Lucas came back with more parking and more park land from the first proposal.

I read it in a column from the Tribune. Whether the columnist is correct or not is another story, I suppose.

In short, Friends of the Parks is not — repeat, not — waging a court battle to save a parking lot. It wants to preserve the chance to turn that parking lot into parkland — not just some of it, as the Lucas plan calls for, but all of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...225-story.html