Court Upheld Park District's Sale of Land
In 2009,
the Park District filed an application under the Park Commissioners Land Sale
Act (the “Act”), 70 ILCS 1235/1, to sell 2.82 acres of land the Park District
Board of Commissioners deemed, by resolution, no longer necessary or useful for
park purposes. An association known as “La Grange Friends of the Parks” (“Objector”) filed an objection under the Act, and after a trial, the circuit
court entered an order authorizing the Park District to sell the land at a price to be established by calculating the
average of three appraisals. The Objector appealed.
The court
first concluded that the Park District has the authority to pass resolutions in support of its application
under the Act. Next, the court
rejected the Objector’s contention that a separate transfer of an adjacent parcel
caused the application to exceed the 3 acre jurisdictional limitation in the
Act, finding that the Act allows the Park District to transfer more
than one parcel within one park in separate transactions. This arrangement did
not amount to impermissible “subterfuge” to get around the jurisdictional
limitation in the Act.
Next, the court upheld the constitutionality of
the Act. The Objector argued that the Act violates the Separation of Powers
clause of the Illinois Constitution because it requires the circuit court to
make a legislative determination of the public interest. However, the court
concluded the Act actually “confers the authority on the Park
District, not the trial court, to make the initial determination that park land
is no longer needed, necessary, or useful and that its sale would be for the
public interest.”
In reviewing the conduct of the trial court, the appellate court concluded that the Park District’s determination that
the land was not needed or useful, and that the selling of the land would
benefit the park, was not arbitrary and capricious. The court concluded the public trust doctrine
only applies to submerged land, and even if it did apply, the financial
benefits to private interests from the sale are incidental to public purpose of
the sale. Finally, the court recognized that the Park District presented ample
evidence that the land provided little value to the public, and
that the benefits from the sale were in the public interest. As a result, the
sale of the land bore a real and substantial relation to the general
welfare, and was a rational means to accomplish a legitimate purpose.
Post Authored by Dan Bolin, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment