Updated: 1 p.m., July 29
Chicago Breaking News reports that the Illinois Appellate Court has upheld Woodridge’s right to purchase for $14.2 million a parcel of land owned by D99.
The district issued this statement on Thursday:
Community High School District 99 was notified July 28 that the Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed two earlier lower court rulings in the eminent domain case regarding the 45-acre site in Woodridge.
The Appellate Court affirmed a 2007 ruling that the Village of Woodridge had the authority to purchase the vacant property through eminent domain. The Appellate Court also affirmed a 2008 ruling setting the value of the land at $14.2 million. District 99 had appealed both earlier rulings.
District 99 is in the process of studying the ruling and will hold a Board of Education meeting shortly to determine its response.
D99 had appealed a 2008 court ruling that Woodridge had the legal authority to obtain the land through eminent domain proceedings. The 45-acre parcel, once considered as a site for a third high school, had been used by the village since it was purchased by the district in 1967, the site reports.
More information about the history of the parcel, which has sparked contention between the two governmental bodies in recent years, can be found on the Village of Woodridge website. A search of the D99 website, where stories pertaining to the court case have previously been posted, proved unsuccessful
Here is what I would do, if I were either side. District 99 thinks the property is worth roughly $21 million. Woodridge thinks it’s worth roughly $14 million.
Split the difference at $17.5 and start preparing the closing documents.
If the District appeals to the Supreme Court, that could take months before it gets to oral argument and a written opinion.
If the District wins the appeal, the case will probably be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.
So even if the District wins, the real estate market has gone down since the original trial. I don’t know if the trial court would enter judgment for what the District valued the property back at trial, of if another proceeding must determine the current value. My thinking is that the District won’t get a judgment for $21 million, based on the current market.
If the two sides split the difference, District 99 winds up getting what I would expect to be market value. Woodridge gets the property for less than what District 99 thought it was worth. And both sides stop wasting the taxpayers money on legal fees.
Well I guess that is the legacy of this board. Couldn’t close the deal. Oh well…Time for a change!!!
ckfred- not sure why the village would pay more than the 14.2 million verdict. In the trial court, Dist 99 thought the parcel was worth 21 million, and had evidence of such admitted in the trial court. The village, I believe had testimony that it was worth 7 million. Hence, the jury split the baby.
There is no reason for the village to “split the difference” between the verdict and the Districts appraisal. I have written on this site many times that the appeal was a waste of time and money and unwinnable. Take the money, the interes, and let the village have the property. Capital projects are needed now. The $550,000 in interest can go to the general budget, which needs it and stop wasting taxpayer money on appeals.
Read the opinion, it is very interesting. This Board did not understand the Law and really testified in a way that made the Villages case. A link to it is found on the Village website.
And does anyone know, how much has our school board spent in legal fees on this folly? Money that would have been better spent on EDUCATION!
John,
I’m actually glad that the District spent the money fighting this. It bugs me for one government entity to use eminant domain to take another government entity’s property.
What is the Village of Woodridge going to do with the land? If they plan to turn it into park land, then shouldn’t have the Woodridge Park District filed the suit, rather than the Village?
I know that Woodridge was upset that District 99 was talking to developers who wanted to build multi-unit residences. So, wouldn’t it have been easier to rezone the property for single-family, detached dwellings? That would have reduced the value of the land in an instant.
dan,
Why would the Village pay more than $14.2 million? First, because I know that a well-reasoned appellate opinion can get reversed. There is nothing certain in litigation, and lawyers will tell you about losing the case that was a clear winner.
If the Supreme Court reverses the appellate court and the trial court, then $17.5 million could be cheap compared to $21 million.
Second, because I think both sides would like to be done with this. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case and affirms the appellate court, that will still cost a fair amount of time and money to both sides.
But here is the burning question. What does Woodridge plan to do with the land?
“The Village and Woodridge Park District, as full partners in purchasing the property, will preserve the property for public use.” – the village website
Of the money placed in escrow to purcase the land, I think some came from the village and some from the park district, so they are co-owners. I can’t recall the exact percentage but I think that is public record.
Why do you think this is such a burning question? Do you suspect something?
CKfred- not to argue with you but, have you read the opinion? The supreme court takes very few cases and I don’t see why they would take this one just to uphold a statute that is clear on its face. You may have an objection to this type of eminent domain, it seems a little overkill, but this statute was in effect since 2004 and I assume the District knew about it.
The chance of cert. being granted is 0%.
Also, you continue to claim the land is worth 21 million. Not sure where that is coming from. Read the opinion. It is true that each side had appraisers testify. In fact, the dist wanted to put on evidence that the land was only worth 19.6 million. We know how these thing work. Each side gets an “expert” appraiser to low ball the price or over estimate the price. The Jury sets the price. The land was worth 14.2, that is the verdict.
One last point. This land is no longer worth 14.2 or 21 million, or 19.6 million. Commercial property values have tanked. Property sold for residential development has tanked. On the off chance that a further appeal were successful, the value would be much less now. The District would then be stuck with a piece of land that would take years to increase to the 14.2 million dollar value.
Although you may want to know what the village wants to do with the land, as the decision states, its irrelevant except that it will be for the public good. After it is bought, a park could go in, public works facilities could go in or, the village may sell some of it off at a later time. Maybe we wouldn’t like that but, to late.
All this shows is that my original posting two years ago was correct. There is no real winner here. Both sides have spent over 1 million in attorneys fees, the school lost control of the ability to sell the land as it saw fit, the village has now probably overpaid for the parcel. This should have and could have been worked out, behind closed doors, better than it was. It is my impression that egos got in the way and as usual, taxpayers paid in the end. If the village wanted some of this land maybe they could have reached a deal to sell them some of it while retaining a portion to sell to a developer. We will never know but, now is the time to end it once and for all.
dan
There is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the use of eminent domain for government uses. Governments can no longer use eminent domain for economic development with the argument that creating jobs, building residences, or putting up shopping malls enhances government revenues.
If the Village turns around and tries to sell the land to a developer, then it could be opening itself to a law suit.
But here’s another question. What do Woodridge residents think about this? As District 99 taxpayers, they probably have mixed emotions. $14 million is nice and will come in handy, but the District could have gotten a higher price.
As a Woodridge taxpayer, $14 million would could have been used for a lot of other things, like pay for a longer fireworks show.
If the Village was concerned about the potential of multi-family dwelling, couldn’t it just zone the land for single-family, detached dwellings? That would have limited what the District could have done in terms of development without spending $14 million plus legal fees.
And here is how both Woodridge and District 99 lose. If the Village and/or Park District holds onto the land, that means it won’t be generating any property tax revenue.
If the Village was concerned about the potential of multi-family dwelling, couldn’t it just zone the land for single-family, detached dwellings?
No.
From the Reporter:
“Newcastle Advisors, a Chicago-based commercial real estate advisory and development firm, is handling the disposition of the property through a sealed bid offering. A brochure marketing the parcel on Newcastle’s Web site lists the land as an “ideal location and size for higher-density single-family or townhouse development” and that it is “zoned residential; designated for ‘intensive development’ use.”
The land was zoned R-1 for residential use in 1978, a classification it still holds, said Amy Boiselle, public relations coordinator for Woodridge. Under R-1 zoning, a developer could build 37 homes on the site. A high-density development would require a change in the land’s zoning, a change the village likely would not approve.”
So was it false advertising? Or did they know that they could legally change the zoning, based on “best use” despite the village’s wishes? I think it was the latter. You need to understand that in order to understand the village’s actions.
Ckfred- The supreme court case does not apply. It dealt with public taking of private land. This situation is public v public and is controled by a state statute. Sorry. Also, you are not suggesting that after the sell takes place, and the village owns the property as the court has found, that the dist. could file a lawsuit stopping certain uses are you? Wow, and I thought people hated lawyers and litigation. Can’t happen. Again, read the decision and the statute, I think it is very clear.
I said in my post that all sides lost here because they would not work together. Too bad. Its now over.
if the Supreme court case applied Im sure the Districts lawyers would have raised it, dont you think? Waiver applies now. Maybe the Board will waste more money trying to sue them for malpractice. Thats the problem, they have already wasted time and money!
CKfred- I believe the case you are citing is Kelo v New London. Actually, the court held in a 5-4 decision that Taking land for ecomonic developmnet was in the publics best interest. Therefore further diluting your argument. I should have read the case before my earlier post. Again, this is a done deal. Get the money and begin some capital projects.
Biz for All 99:
You are kidding me, right? – False advertising by an interested developer? If you walk around the area, the streets and all infrastructure is already built to manage such density. Take a look around the land – what do you see?
The Village’s wishes? Well, from legal sources who have read the transcripts, they never had to tell during the trial. Wasn’t allowed, yet D99′s was put to the test.
We already heard from the mayor on that topic on many occasions – not in my back yard! Short the other taxpayers of Dist 99, continue to isolate Woodridge from D99. Nice outcome for all, wouldn’t you say, Biz for All 99!
When will Woodridge pay it’s fair share of the District’s educational costs anyway? Lower per household market value of homes, leads to lower tax contribution and now the taking of land that the District will need for the future.
I read the transcripts of both the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court decisions. It’s a ridiculous law-suit right out of the gate, so no surprise D99 lost on appeal.
65 ILCS 5/11.61.2
You can read the Appellate Court of Illinois Second District opinion here.
Another reason the Gang of Five (welcome back Allyn Barnett!) need to be shown the door: willful ignorance of the law, and the hubris to spend unlimited amounts of taxpayer dollars on a half-baked legal defense of pursuits beyond their fiscal charter of educating our children.
Especially nice is Board member Megan Schroeder’s incoherent verbal reply to questioning:
see page 11 of the court opinion.
To their credit then-Superintendent Eblen and current Budget Director Staehlin knew the deal and kept to the facts: D99 didn’t use the property, didn’t need it now, won’t need it in the future.
The final laugher?
That help from former Board member Greenwood was worth every penny they paid for the free advice.
Mark- the best part of all of the testimony cited by the appellate court was the fact that both Beckman and Schroeder testified that there was no more suitable land in Dist 99 to build a third School. Yet, Allyn Barnett not only testified that there was land available but, also gave an exact location.
Were these people prepared to testify by lawyers or not. I hope they were not because if they were, they certainly were either prepared poorly or cannot remember what they were told.
Most people work from ‘Tell the truth then you don’t have to remember what you said.’ The Gang of Five must’ve never heard that one.
Any legal scholars out there know what “***” might mean in a quotation contained in the written record of a court opinion?
This is my favorite part:
Remember that the D99 Board offered the land for sale and posted reasons for selling it. When the threat of eminent domain arose they did a complete flip-flop and tried to come up for reasons that they needed the land. They passed a resolution to that effect.
From the court record of Meagan Schroeder’s testimony we learn that she “voted for the resolution regarding the district’s need for the property, because she believed that it would be detrimental for the village to take it.”
From the court record of Allyn Barnett’s testimony, we learn that Barnett voted for the resolution regarding the district’s need for the property “because he did not wish the village to take the property through an eminent domain
action.”
They voted, according to their own testimony, for a resolution stating that D99 needed the land, for reasons other than the fact that D99 needed the land.
Mark:
We enjoy your commentary and appreciate your point regarding Greenwood providing the school board “pro bono legal advice and ….litigation involving the board.”
This has to be outside the legal boundaries of any elected official’s role. Is there any evidence that the school board actively solicited such free advice and acted on it? If yes, just wow.
Would you say that the Village also receives “pro bono legal advice” from our Mayor, or any other current or past elected official that is also an attorney by profession?
I would hate to think that any of our elected officials rely on another elected official’s legal advice when they act. Maybe a play on words, but our experience is clear that practicing attorney’s are clear when they are offering legal advice, or just passing on their experience to friends and family.
What is your experience?
Mark,
As to your question on the use of “***” in the opinion, it looks to me like it’s being used instead of the more typical ” . . . “. The Court uses the *** in both a quotation from testimony and from a statute. I don’t have the trial transcript but I did look up the statute and there is a gap between the quoted portion before the *** and after the *** that isn’t pertinent to the opinion, which suggests that it’s being used as a substitute for an ellipsis.