The players in the Wrigley reconstruction saga all felt that the rooftop owners would sue the Cubs to stop the team from blocking their landmarked views. Yesterday, most of the rooftop owners sued, but not the Cubs but the city.
The rooftop owners sued the city for violating several constitutionally protected property rights.
In its six count complaint, the rooftop owners allege the landmark commission violated the administrative review act and case law in the conduct of its hearings; that the commission violated its own governing ordinance; that the commission violated due process and equal protection by acting beyond its legal authority; that the city is arbitrary in its landmark designations or application; that the city under the color of law violated the owners civil rights under §1983; and that city should be enjoined from allowing permits or construction to happen at Wrigley Field because the rooftops would be irreparably harmed.
As a result, the rooftop owners will probably win because the city's landmark commission
failed to follow basic legal requirements for a zoning/administrative hearing.
In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court made it clear in Klaeren v. Village of Lisle that
zoning hearings are administrative not legislative functions. As an administrative hearing,
the principles of due process must be followed to allow anyone with a property interest at
stake to participate, give evidence, cross examine witnesses, etc. As such, the government
body must make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support zoning decisions.
As alleged in the complaint, the city's landmark commission did not allow the rooftop owners
to participate at all in the course of the Wrigley landmark review process, i.e. present
witnesses, evidence or cross-examine the Cubs witnesses. If that is the case, the landmark commission did not follow clear Illinois law and its decision can be summarily reversed.
The lawsuit also claims that the commission violated its own governing ordinance in allowing the Wrigley reconstruction, by re-writing the ordinance with legislative powers it does not have.
If the commission acted beyond its own legal authority, then its decision would be null and void.
By suing the city for violations of due process and equal protection, the rooftop owners avoid a confrontation with the Cubs over the 2004 settlement agreement language which both sides claim a different interpretation on whether any expansion can block views. The lawsuit alleges that the Cubs have received $40 million during the revenue sharing agreement, or about $4 million per season. The irony of this is that many in the advertising community believe that the Cubs would not get much more in annual revenue from the new signage. So blocking the rooftop views will not significantly increase the gross revenues to the team since the rooftop revenue would dry up.
Two things can happen in this lawsuit.
First, the judge can rule that the city violated its own ordinance and Illinois law. The approval of Wrigley construction would be declared null and void and the Cubs would be back to square one.
Second, the judge could rule that the city, through its approval process and final city council vote, met the spirit of the law and uphold the administrative ruling. Then the Cubs could go forward with the approved plans.
However, in either case, there probably will be an appeal. And appeals take years to work their way through the system. As a result, Ricketts four year time table to do all his real estate development work will be stretched out another two or three years.
Which leads to the following possible reactions by the Cubs ownership:
One, reaffirm their position that no work will be done if there is a lawsuit pending against the reconstruction. That means the Cubs will not be spending any money for improvements to the ball park (which some believe may be cover for the declining revenue and bank loan covenants that may restrict the reconstruction expenses to begin with).
Two, the Cubs move forward at their own risk with the reconstruction projects (including the non-landmarked issues like the new clubhouse or hotel-commercial projects).
Three, a move some fans come to consider now as a real possibility, that the Ricketts throw up their hands and say the situation is unworkable, and begin the search to find a new home for the team in the suburbs or out of state. If the Ricketts truly have $500 million of their own money to spend on a baseball facility, they can go and build a state-of-the-art entertainment complex with ample parking in the suburbs.
Fourth, throw up their hands and sell their interest in the team to a third party. But since the team is in a mess financially and politically, it would be doubtful that the Ricketts could recoup their entire investment in the team and surrounding real estate holdings.
One can never guarantee how a court will rule in any litigated case. But what is certain that this lawsuit will again divert attention away from the baseball team issues.
