For you original MTV folks
Here's the latest in a case we've been following for a while (even since before the last time it went up to the Court). See this post ("The Chicago Way: City Taking Non-Blighted Property For Economic Development Was Not Pretextual Because...Studies") and this one ("Illinois App: We Haven't Changed Our Mind - Chicago's Sketchy Redevelopment Taking Is Still For Public Use"), for example.
After the latest ruling from the Illinois Appellate Court, we guessed that we had not seen the last of the case. And it turns out that our prognostications were accurate: the property owner has filed a cert petition asking once again for the Supreme Court to take up (ha) a Public Use Clause case.
Have I got your attention now?
Five years ago, in City of Chicago v. Eychaner, 26 N.E.3d 501 (Ill. Ct. App. 2015), the court held that a redevelopment taking of Eychaner's property qualified as a public use. We summarized that one in our first post. After approving the taking, the court remanded the case for a determination of the compensation owed. On remand, the jury determined just compensation was $7.1 million. Also while the case was remanded, the city changed its redevelopment plans. (You know, the basis for the court of appeals' public use ruling.) But the court's earlier public use determination seems to have still bothered Eychaner, because he challenged it again, arguing that the taking no longer served a public use because the city's plans changed.
The trial court agreed with the city, so Eychaner appealed again. The appeals court again agreed with the city, rejecting Eychaner's claim that the circumstances changed not so much because the circumstances had not actually changed, but because Eychaner had not raised the changed circumstances by way of a motion for new trial. And, the court concluded, even if he had properly raised the issue, no deal.
The city's prior plans were not "superseded," but rather the new plans (and the old not-superseded plan) is part of a bigger plan that "together carry out the purpose of promoting the economic revitalization of the conservation area." Slip op. at 15. The city, after all, has the public purpose of "prevent[ing] future blight." Id. Yes, you read that right: take now to avoid future blight. As long as the condemnor has a study that says that (which the city did), no problem. We all know how hard it is to produce a study that shows possible future blight, right? (After all, we're all potentially blighted in the future.)
Here are the Questions Presented:
1. Is the possibility of future blight a permissible basis for a government to take property in an unblighted area and give it to a private party for private use?2. Should the Court reconsider its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)?
Read the entire petition. It is worth your time.
The city has waived response. Let's see if someone on the Court asks for more. Follow along here, or on the Court's docket.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Eychaner v. City of Chicago, No. 20-2017 (Feb. 26, 2021)
