Aurora Beacon-News
June 3, 2006
• Landowners lose: Supreme Court justices say outerbelt route selection not unlawful
By Matthew DeFour
Staff writer
SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Friday against a
group of landowners challenging the state's decision in 2002 to site a
protected corridor for the proposed Prairie Parkway.
In a unanimous opinion, the seven justices upheld two lower court
rulings that rejected a request by more than 40 land owners to rule the
state's ability to record the corridor as unconstitutional.
The landowners contended that the 36-mile, 400-foot-wide corridor
depressed property values and interfered with their ability to develop
their property.
Under the corridor-siting statute, landowners who wish to make
improvements to their property must inform the Illinois Department of
Transportation, which has the option to then purchase the property or
acquire it under eminent domain laws.
Rebutting the argument, Justice Mary Ann McMorrow wrote that IDOT's
argument that the statute "places no economic restriction on any
landowners' property is incorrect."
"However," she wrote, "it has been held that such a restriction does not amount to a regulatory taking (of the property)."
IDOT Chief Counsel Ellen Schanzle-Haskins said the department was "very satisfied with the decision."
"We feel that the right-of-way map is designed to provide landowners
with advanced and explicit notice that we may be acquiring their
property," she said. "It's designed to inform the public and prevent
conflicting and costly land development."
St. Charles attorney Tim Dwyer, representing the landowners, said his
clients haven't decided whether to appeal the decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court. If the plaintiffs decide to pursue that last resort, a
petition would have to be filed within 30 days.
"Obviously my clients are disappointed by the results," he said. "We're just going to take it one step at a time."
Dwyer said he was disappointed that the decision did not analyze all
aspects of the state's corridor-siting statute, specifically the
indefinite amount of time that the corridor exists after it is created.
He also objected to the ruling's analysis of the corridor's negative
effect on property values, which states: "This is simply the
unavoidable consequence of the public announcement that a highway will
be built."
"In fact, everyone was going off the proposition that it may be built,"
Dwyer said, adding that his criticisms could form the basis for an
appeal.