Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

The commission denied ICS's request for a demolition permit and irs reapplication based on an economic hardship exception in the landmarks ordinance. ICS sought judicial review in Cook County circuit co.urt under the Illinois Administrative Review Law, claiming the landmarks ordinance and the landmark district ordinance effected a taking without just compensation, and that the c' mmission's proceedings violated due process under both the Ii,inois and U.S. constitutions. The dry then removed the case to federal court on the grounds that ICS's challenges are based at least partly on the federal constitution, giving the federal courts jurisdiction. When the district court granted summary judgment for the city on grounds that the ordinances and the landmark commission proceedings did not violate the federal or state constitutions, ICS appealed. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the state court on grounds that the federal courts had no jurisdiction. Looking to previous Supreme Court and federal appeals court cases, it found that when a party to an action to review a local administrative decision moves to remove the case to federal court, if the standard of review is de novo, the removal is proper. But if the standard is deferential, the proceeding is not an original civil case but an appeal and thui outside a U.S. District Court's original jurisdiction to hear civil actions. ~' found the standard in the Illinois law deferential because the court must accept the findings from the admin~.'trative p.'oceeding and cannot hear new evidence. Thc city then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certio '~ri, which was granted on the question of whether a complaint for review ora state or local administrative proceeding on the basis of both federal and state claims, in which the review must be based on the record, is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. district courts. The Supreme Court's 7-2 opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, pointed "..ut tha'. the Court had faced the issue of when cases arising in state c' 't can be removed to a federal court. The clear rule is this: If :he feder,_l court had jurisdiction so that the case could have been filed there originally, the case may be removed to thl federal court from the state court. O'Connor reiterated that the ICS complaint included challenges to the city ordinances and commission proceedings on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, even if those challenges were made in a proceeding under state law, and that if the state law issues in the case require resolution of the federal issues, the exiztence of state law issues does not negate the federal issues. The Court found that because the state and federal challenges raised thc same issues o~takings and due process, the state claims did not supersede the Fact that the case had ZoninglVews is a monthly new~le~ter published by dac American Planning Association. 5ubscdptioru are available for $50 (U.S.) mad S65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Exeoudve Director;, ~',iliam IL Klein, Director of~. ZonlngNeun is p~xMuoed at APA. Jim Sch,~eab and Mike David*on, F..Sitom C. hris Burke, Fay Dolnick. Gina Jackson, Sanjay Jeer, Meg'an Lewh. Mav/a Morris, Bedd Retdaff, Mar~in Roupe. Jason Wittenberg. Reportem C)mthhx Che~kl, fixslstant Editon Li~ Barton, Dmign tnd Production. Copyrigh~ C1998 by American Planning Association. 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago. IL 60603. The American Planning Association h~ headquarters offices at 1776 Mua. achuseets Ave., N.W.. Washln~on, DC 20036. Ail rights reserved. No pan of this public, don may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by an)' means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, of by an)' information storage and retrieval ri'stem, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Prin~ed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. ~ foundations in federal law. This is reinforced by a statute (28 U.S.C. ~1367) which provides that ifa case has federal and state claims, and the state claims are "so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy," then the federal trial court can hear the entire case. As to ICS's contention that a deferential, on-the-record review is not a civil action at all and is thus outside the district court's jurisdiction, O'Connor stated that that court's jurisdiction stems from the federal claims under the Constitution, not the deferential state review claims. According to the opinion, the fact that the federal constitutional claims are not bound by thc record of thc adminlstrafive proceeding makes them civil actions. The stat~ law claims are supplementary to the federal claims, and, because ~the whole point of supplementary jurisdiction is to allow the district courts to exercise pendent jurisdiction over claims as to which original jurisdiction is lacking," whether state claims are civil actions is irrelevant as long as the federal claims have proper jurisdiction. The dissent by Justice Ginsburg, with Justice Stevens joining, admits that th~ literal words of the federal law jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction statutes (28 U.S.C. ~§1331 and 1367) tend to support the majority interpretation. But they oppose federal court jgrisdiction over on-the-record reviews oflocal and state administrative decisions, arguing that there is no statutory language explicitly authorizing it, and that it will open the federal courts to frequent reviews of administrative decisions. The dissent also cited a series of federal appeals cases finding that district courts either did not have jurisdiction, or should not exercise it, over on-the-record reviews of stare and local administrative actions. Most of these regard such a cause of action as an appeal rather than an original civil action, and thus beyond what federal district courts should be handling. John Bredin t ,Rgports Fortress America: Gated Communities in the UnEted States Imtit~te Press, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 1997. 209pp. Gated communities are not exclusive to the super rich anymore. Middle and upper-middle class individuals represent the majority of today's gated . population. Although these enclaves are most popular in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, Houston, New York, and Miami, the trend is growing in smaller cities and suburbs around the country. Authors Blakely and Snyder study the three main types of gated communities: lifestyle for the retirees, prestige for the wealthy, and security zones for those fearful of crime. They examine the social, political, and governance implications associated with this type of residential living and consider whether these developments actually meet their intended purpose.