Local Government Law

Section 11-31-1 of Municipal Code does not preempt, either expressly or implicitly, Section 11-81 of Village of Northfield Code defining an abandoned gasoline service station as a nuisance. Section 11-60-2 of Municipal Code provided Village with adequate statutory authority to enact that provision in Village Code. Court erred in granting Defendant's motion to reconsider and vacating its prior order that Defendant pay a daily fine of $750 for 21 days, totaling $15,750, for failure to abate the nuisance. (THEIS and KARNEZIS, concurring.)

Village commenced eminent domain proceeding for taking of property owned by School District, which had been leased to Park District for 30 years, was in regular use by Park District for outdoor activities, and which had not been used by School District except for one band camp. Court has authority to rule on School District's resolution as to property, as Municipal Code authorizes municipalities to take land belonging to School Districts, and this does not require the court to resolve competing legislative determinations. Section 11-61-2 of Municipal Code authorizes the taking of land from School District in order to develop it; thus, if use intended is to expand police and public works facilities, this would fall within such use. Holding the property for future use, or as an investment, is not an "existing use". (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 7/13/10; replaces opinion filed 6/9/10.) Court improperly authorized Defendant village to demolish Defendant's building. Notice provision of Municipal Code requires that owners and lienholders receive notice prior to court's entry of a demolition order. Village ordinance forbids the defendant from conducting repairs because building does not conform to village zoning ordinance, which states that if damage to nonconforming building exceeds 50% of replacement cost of above-ground portion of building, it may not be rebuilt as a nonconforming building; thus, repairs were not reasonable. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant Village passed ordinance establishing a special service area in order to create a wastewater treatment system and facility. Plaintiff Objectors submitted petition containing signatures of owners of record and electors in the special service area who opposed the proposal. Property Tax Code provides that if a petition signed by at least 51% of the electors residing within special service area and by at least 51% of owners of record of land included within its boundaries file petition objecting, then special service area shall not be created. After bench trial, court found that Objectors had collected requisite number of signatures. Multiple owners of property, whether individual or institutional, should each be counted as "owners of record" to determine total number. As to property owned by a living trust, the Court erred in counting as valid the signature of a beneficiary, who was the wife of the trustee; thus, that signature should be excluded, so that total number of signatures collected was 618, which was less than the requisite 619 signatures, given that total number of owners of record was 1216.

Plaintiff paid delinquent taxes on property and obtained a tax certificate, but tax deed had not yet been issued at time of demolition of property. Plaintiff did not acquire title until county clerk issued tax deed, thus was not entitled to damages equal to difference in market value of property before and after demolition, but instead to compensatory damages that would restore him to position he was in before loss, which was amount of taxes he paid on property. City should have given Plaintiff prior notice of demolition per Municipal Code requirement of notice to holder of tax lien certificate.