Strauss v. City of Chicago

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim arising out of allegations that defendant-City’s reclassification of plaintiff’s building from B3-2 to B2-2 violated plaintiff-building owner’s rights. Complaint itself alleged rational basis for re-zoning ordinance, i.e., secondary effects of having concert venue at building’s location, and plaintiff did not have right to particular zoning classification. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, further found that plaintiff’s equal protection claim that defendant had improperly targeted single property owner in dense corridor of similarly-situated properties was properly dismissed, where complaint also provided rational basis for said downsizing, since new B2-2 zoning ordinance was enacted to prevent problems with plaintiff’s previous tenant. Also, plaintiff’s inverse condemnation action was properly dismissed, where, although he alleged bad-faith acts on one Alderman, he failed to allege acts of bad faith on part of defendant-City. Plaintiff further failed to show that he could not lease space in building for tenant who did not require prior B3-2 zoning. Appellate Court further noted that plaintiff’s tort claims arising out of actions taken by Alderman were immunized under section 2-201 of Tort Immunity Act. Fact that Alderman was alleged to have acted corruptly or maliciously did not require different result.