Local Government Law

House Bill 2839

Topic: 
Judicial review

(Gong-Gershowitz, D-Glenview) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to provide that unless the action is governed by the procedures or provisions of another statute, a person suffering legal wrong because of a final administrative decision, or adversely affected or aggrieved by a final administrative decision, is entitled to judicial review of the final administrative decision to the same extent, with the same rights and the same responsibilities, as a person who is a party. The only exception is that this person is not entitled to relief if there was a previous public hearing at which the person failed to present his or her position. To the extent necessary, the person may provide new or additional evidence to the court for the limited purpose of demonstrating the legal wrong or adverse effect or impairment that he or she has experienced or may experience as a result of the final administrative decision.

These new provisions are limited to final administrative permitting decisions made by the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Public Health, or Department of Transportation that impact the public trust in the waters and lands of this State, State parks or natural areas, threatened or endangered species, surface or ground water quality, air quality, or other matters affecting the right to a healthful environment under the Illinois Constitution. 

For purposes of this Section, "adversely affected or aggrieved" means a plaintiff demonstrates: (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized, actual, and imminent; (2) a causal connection between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's conduct; and (3) a likelihood that a decision in the plaintiff's favor would redress the injury. 

House Bill 2839 is scheduled for hearing next week in House Judiciary Committee. 

 

McCaskill v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the City of Harvey

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Election Code
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 190190
Decision Date: 
Sunday, February 24, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3rd Div,
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
ELLIS

(Court opinion corrected 3/4/19.) Respondent filed petition to appear as a candidate for City Alderman in consolidated primary election; he first filed to be nominated at Democratic Party primary, but later realized that his City doesn't hold partisan primaries, and thus filed a 2nd set of nominating petitions as a nonpartisan candidate and filed a document "withdrawing" his "candidacy" as a "Democrat." Objector objected that Respondent had violated Section 10-4 of Election Code. Section 10-6.2 of Election Code, which is more specific on this topic and which permits multiple filings and prescribes a procedure whereby candidate may choose one set of the petitions, controls over the more generally-worded Section 10-4. The dual-circulation prohibition in Section 10-4 applies only to partisan elections, and does not apply to this nonpartisan election. (FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring.)

House Bill 3181

Topic: 
Code of Civil Procedure

(Mazzochi, R-Westmont) provides that if the grounds do not appear on the face of the pleading, the motion must be supported by affidavit that the claim asserted is unenforceable because the claim was (1) filed for a purpose of forcing an individual or entity to change positions or induce or coerce behavior in a manner unrelated to the claim asserted; or (2) based on allegations made to a government entity by an anonymous complainant if: (a) the anonymous complainant is not revealed; or (b) the anonymous complainant, if revealed, made the allegations to a government entity while holding an ulterior motive with regard to the defendant or for the purposes of retaliating against the defendant. Assigned to House Rules Committee. 
 

House Bill 1466

Topic: 
Condos and taxes

(Harris, D-Chicago) authorizes the board of managers acting on behalf of all unit owners to allocate the percentage of ownership in the common elements as a tract for each unit for the limited purpose of calculating the assessment or levy of any such taxes, special assessments, or charges of the State of Illinois or of any political subdivision. It may do so by a two-thirds vote of the members of the board of managers or by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the unit owners at a meeting duly called for such a purpose, or upon such greater vote as may be required by the declaration or bylaws.

Requires this allocation of ownership to be based on the square footage of each individual unit and that it be separate from, and in addition to, the allocation for purposes of association assessments for common expenses, association special assessments and charges, and voting rights. It has been assigned to the House Revenue and Finance Committee.

House Bill 29

Topic: 
Condos and common-interest community associations

(Thapedi, D-Chicago) amends the Common Interest Community Association Act to limit the concurrent exercise by units of local government of powers and functions exercised by the State affecting community instruments and accounting practices.

It also amends the Condominium Property Act to limit the concurrent exercise by units of local government of powers and functions exercised by the State affecting an association’s: budgeting practices; sale of property; notice requirements; contracts with board members; voting procedures; property improvement procedures; accounting practices; collection and sharing of records; amendment to the condominium instruments; and subdivision or combination of units. It has been sent to the House floor by the House Judiciary Committee.

Price v. City of Chicago

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
First Amendment
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-2196
Decision Date: 
February 13, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant’s “bubble zone” ordinance that precluded plaintiffs from approaching within eight feet of person in 50-foot vicinity of abortion clinic, if plaintiffs’ purpose was to engage in counseling, education, leafleting, handbilling or abortion protesting, facially violated their First Amendment rights. Dismissal was proper, where Supreme Ct., in Hill, 530 S.Ct. 703, upheld nearly identical Colorado law based upon similar challenge. Ct. further observed that while Supreme Court, in McCullen, 134 S.Ct. 2518, and Reed, 135 S.Ct. 2218, subsequently rendered opinions that substantially undermined basis for Hill Ct.’s ruling, it was nevertheless bound by Hill Ct.’s ruling where Supreme Ct had not expressly overruled Hill.

Senate Bill 196

Topic: 
Open Meetings Act

(Bush, D-Grayslake) provides that a public body may hold a closed meeting to consider the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, specific independent contractors, or specific volunteers (currently, only specific employees) of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee, independent contractor, or volunteer of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. Senate Bill 196 has been referred to the Committee on Assignments to be referred to a substantive committee. 

Senate Bill 169

Topic: 
Foreclosure

(Mulroe, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to provide that the failure to send a copy of the notice of foreclosure to the alderman or to file an affidavit as required results in a fine of $500 payable to the ward in which the property is located. Under current law, it results in the dismissal without prejudice of the complaint or counterclaim on a motion of a party or the court. It also deletes language regarding the requirements a party must comply with if the party refiles the complaint or counterclaim. Senate Bill 169 has been referred to the Committee on Assignments before being assigned to a substantive committee. 
 

House Bill 832

Topic: 
Vacancy Fraud Act

(Martwick, D-Chicago) allows a taxing body or its representative to file a vacancy-fraud complaint with the county board of review if the property is receiving vacancy relief and the property owner is not actively attempting to lease, sell, or alter the property. It sets forth factors in determining whether vacancy fraud has occurred and its penalties. House Bill 832 was just introduced. 

The Church of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ v. City of Markham, Illinois

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-1432
Decision Date: 
January 17, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing as moot plaintiff-church’s action under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) alleging that defendant-City’s zoning ordinance improperly treats religious uses of property on unequal terms with analogous secular uses, where defendant denied plaintiff conditional use permit to operate church in zoned residential area, under circumstances where plaintiff claimed it did not need conditional use permit to operate church in residential home. While Dist. Ct. dismissed case as moot because plaintiff had obtained parking variances that were consistent with use of home as church, plaintiff’s obtaining of said variances was only tangentially related to plaintiff’s main claim that concerned zoning use classifications and not parking variances. Moreover, plaintiff RLUIPA lawsuit was not moot, where lawsuit concerned issue as to whether operating church on subject property was either permitted or conditional use, which remained open question in spite of defendant’s grant of parking variances. Also, Dist. Ct. could not find as merely speculative plaintiff’s claim for damages, since plaintiff could establish at least nominal damages arising out of defendant’s initial efforts to preclude plaintiff from operating church.