Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003

Home

7..B. November 10, 2003 -- Page 7 Discrimination -- City attempts to dissuade apartment purchasers Potential purchaser claims he was discriminated against ILLINOIS (08/25/03) -- Shaikh outbid his competitors at a public auction and entered into a purchase a~eement to buy a foreclosed apartment building. Before the closing, the city of Chicago repeatedly attempted to persuade Shaikh to cancel the purchase. The city told Shaikh it wanted to acquire the apartments for a possible city college expansion and was considering condemn- ing the property. Shaikh withdrew after the city offered him $20,000 to recoup his out-of-pocket expenses. The seller then offered the property to the second highest bidders, two Cau- casian, non-Muslims. The city again tried to get the new buyers to withdraw. The buyers refused to do so. After the sale was completed, the city never used its powers of eminent- domain nor did it proceed with its college expansion plans. It also reneged on its offer to pay Shaikh. Shaikh sued, alleging discrimination. The court ruled in favor of the city. Shaikh appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The city was not liable for discrimination. Although the city behaved inefficiently, irrationally, and impolitely when it tried to dissuade potential purchasers, it'did so without regard to race, nation- ality, citizenship, or personality. It tried to persuade the new purchasers just as much as it tried to persuade Shaikh. The city had no power to directly affect the proposed sale of the property to. Shaikh. Consequently, it could not unconstitutionally impinge upon Shaikh's fights. The possibility the city would seek to take the apartments by eminent do- main was a risk every property owner bore, but it was a risk balanced by con- stitutional requirements to take the property only for public use and then to compensate the owner for the property's fair market value. The city only informed Shai/ch of the possibility that it would condemn the property. Shaikh basically complained he-withdrew from the sale because he envisioned the apartment purchase as a long-term investment and no longer considered the project lucrative in light of the city's statements. However, his withdrawal was simply a means to avoid a possibility any purchaser of resi- dential property that has been foreclosed upon may face. Citation: Shaikh v. City of Chicago, 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals, No: 02- 2708 (2003). The 7th District has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. see ata'o: Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000). see al,~'o: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Cou~,cil Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002). 93