MACOM sues City of Naperville - Park Dist.

[doctorwho]

Macom sues city, Park District
Land, height discrepancies of bridge spur lawsuit

April 19, 2007
By KATE R. HOULIHAN Staff Writer
Naperville-based Macom Corporation filed a lawsuit in DuPage County Circuit Court last week against the city, the Park District and the Illinois Department of Transportation in the hopes of halting work on a proposed pedestrian bridge in the southern part of Naperville.

According to the lawsuit, Macom is seeking an injunction against the bridge's construction unless discrepancies over the bridge's height can be fixed. The bridge would be built over Route 59 between 95th Street and 103rd Street by Frontier Park.

The lawsuit says in May 2004 Macom and the Park District entered into an agreement where Macom got about 13 acres of Frontier Park land and turned over 39 acres of property to the Park District. The Park District kept ownership of the land the bridge would be built on, according to the suit. The suit also stated that a provision to minimize the bridge's impact on any Macom developments would be included.

"Macom is not at all against the pedestrian bridge," Macom President Paul Lehman said Wednesday. "In fact, we welcome the construction of the bridge for the benefit of everyone in the area. Our concern relates to the design of the bridge."

According to the lawsuit, included in the agreement was a statement that read, "The Park District agrees that it shall use its best efforts to insure that neither the City of Naperville nor any other governmental body nor public or private entity constructs a bridge on the bridge parcel at a height lower than the height of the bridge as depicted in the schematic bridge drawing, such that the design of the bridge would impair the visibility or the site distances of the Frontier Property."

The lawsuit states that as currently designed the bridge would be 17.25 feet high as opposed to the 30 feet that was depicted in the original exhibit. The suit also says the bridge would extend "to the east of Route 59 at that approximate height for a distance of only approximately 25 feet (versus the required 90 feet) before beginning to slope down to ground level."

Lehman said that height would block the view of stores in Macom-developed Frontier Place, which sits along Route 59 just north of the bridge's location.

"Due to our fiduciary obligation to our tenants, we cannot just ignore the noncompliance with the agreement which was done in anticipation of protecting their interests," Lehman said.

"This is a frivolous lawsuit," city attorney Margo Ely said in a statement. "The city was not a party to the land conveyance agreement. I'm confident the complaint and injunction will be dismissed."

According to a city news release, a March 2005 public meeting was held to get public input on the bridge's design. The city said Macom did not attend the meeting or submit any comments.

"I agree with the City," said Steve Adams, attorney for the Naperville Park District. "The lawsuit is entirely without merit. The Park District fulfilled its duty under the agreement. The Park District is not responsible for the city's refusal to accommodate Macom's requested design changes. We will aggressively resist this lawsuit."

The case is set to be heard Aug. 9, according to the DuPage County Circuit Court clerk's court case Web site.

Staff writer Jennifer Golz contributed to this story.

www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/348384,6_1_NA19_BRIDGE_S1.article

[doctorwho]

And in the Herald

Developer sues over Rt. 59 pedestrian bridge
By Jake Griffin
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007



A prominent Naperville development firm is suing the city, park district and the Illinois Department of Transportation to stop construction of a proposed pedestrian bridge over Route 59 on the city’s south end.

In the suit filed April 12, Macom Corp. attorneys argue the design of the proposed bridge violates a land-swap agreement between the corporation and the park district.

The agreement called for a bridge to be built at a minimum of 30 feet tall and to remain level for 90 feet. That was to ensure signs on commercial properties adjacent the bridge wouldn’t be blocked, Macom President Paul Lehman said.

The proposed bridge is less than 18 feet tall and remains level for only 25 feet, according to court papers.

“We’re talking a significant difference,” Lehman said Wednesday. “We had that agreement in order to avoid this type of conflict.”

Lehman said his company offered to front the city the money to build the 90-foot section, but that proposal was rejected. He said he’s not against the bridge, just a bridge that lowers the value of the company’s commercial property by blocking motorists’ view of the buildings.

Naperville City Attorney Margo Ely said the city is fighting the lawsuit.

“This is a frivolous lawsuit,” she said in a press release. “The city was not a party to the land conveyance agreement. I’m confident that the complaint and injunction will be dismissed.”

The bridge would be south of 95th Street and is expected to cost $2.6 million. About $2 million of that is being covered by the state, city officials said.

[bob]

That will make Naperville and the Naperville Park District move really quick to do the work necessary for the Macom school site.

[momof3]

Who is Macom's attorney?

[bob]

momof3 said:

Who is Macom's attorney?

It wouldn't be.

[Arch]

Would it be cheaper to just not build the bridge in the first place?

[momof3]

So he is planning to sue the park district for damages? Bad karma and bad press!

Macom motion seeks to delay Route 59 bridge construction
May 23, 2007
By KATE R. HOULIHAN Staff Writer

In hopes of immediately halting work on a proposed pedestrian bridge in south Naperville, local-based Macom Corporation last week filed a temporary restraining order.

The motion against both Naperville and the Illinois Department of Transportation was filed in DuPage County Circuit Court. Macom President Paul Lehman said a hearing is set for June 4.

The temporary restraining order was filed because the hearing date for the corporation's lawsuit against the city, Park District and the Illinois Department of Transportation isn't until early August, Lehman said Tuesday. In that lawsuit, Macom is seeking an injunction against the construction because of a disagreement over how high the bridge should be built.

"However, the city and the state are looking to award a contract to start construction of the bridge and that date is in early June," Lehman said. "It's costly, very costly to argue about the design of a bridge after it's half up."

The bridge is set to be built over Route 59 between 95th Street and 103rd Street by Frontier Park. IDOT would pay for $2 million of the $2.6 million project.

Lehman said he's trying to save the city and Park District money, saying any possible damages to be awarded could be "significantly greater" than the cost of building the bridge to what he says are the correct specifications.

The lawsuit says as currently designed, the bridge would only be about 17 feet high, as opposed to the 30 feet it was shown to be in initial drawings. According to the lawsuit the bridge would extend east of the thoroughfare for 25 feet, instead of the 90 feet shown in drawings, before beginning its downward slope.

Lehman maintains such a height would block the view of stores in the Macom-developed Frontier Place that sits on Route 59 just north of the proposed bridge.

"Macom's contention that the bridge blocks a clear view of their commercial property from north-bound traffic is without merit and irrelevant," City Manager Peter Burchard said. "The bridge is see-through. It will be obvious there is a building next to it."

City officials said in a news release the bridge is needed to keep residents safe as they cross Route 59.

"Last month, a teenaged boy was hit by a truck near the intersection of Route 59 and 95th Street," Burchard said. "This is a very busy street in a highly populated residential area. We need this bridge built to safeguard children who are attempting to reach recreational facilities, schools and commercial properties."

Lehman said he is in no way against the bridge, and had no knowledge of any accident near the proposed bridge site. He said he's not sure a youngster would have taken the time to walk the extra distance to make a crossing over a bridge if it had been available. Lehman said he simply wants to see the bridge built to the original standards.

"This is a frivolous lawsuit and directly threatens the safety and well-being of our residents," city attorney Margo Ely said. "Narrow private interests cannot dictate sound public policy."

Contact Kate Houlihan at [e-mail] or 630-416-5224.

[gatordog]

I dont see how a smaller bridge significantly "blocks the view" of commericial sites. I cannot imagine there would be any measurable effects from that. Even if there was some small bit of "obstruction", drivers will pass back and forth MANY times past this property...I think we all will know what stores are there. Hopefully there will be lots of pedestrian traffic, which will have an enhanced view of the businesses there.

A smaller bridge will be easier for younger kids on bikes, parents pushing strollers, elderly, and will be quicker to get on and off reducing the tempation for older kids to "shortcut" and not use bridge. Smaller bridge will be more cost effective as well.

The pros of the smaller bridge design seem to greatly outweigh any cons (and to me the Macom negative is hypothetical only, not one that I believe has any significance)

[wvhsparent]

Funny too; the area in question is actually in Will County...Not DuPage.....Other that the Gvt offices being in DuPage........

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

Would it be cheaper to just not build the bridge in the first place?

Build a tunnel then.... no blocking then ;D

[Arch]

"Lehman said he is in no way against the bridge, and had no knowledge of any accident near the proposed bridge site. He said he's not sure a youngster would have taken the time to walk the extra distance to make a crossing over a bridge if it had been available. Lehman said he simply wants to see the bridge built to the original standards."

Guess what Paul... if he had to walk FURTHER out of his way to use the bigger bridge, like you want, then you have a point. Isn't it possible that the new shorter design will help it be used MORE and not LESS. I'm so glad you pointed out how and why people might want to bypass the bridge because it also seems that they went back to the drawing board to alleviate that concern as much as possible.

More use would result in fewer injuries or future fatalities at that intersection.

Thanks for letting the people of the city know just where your concerns actually are.. because it's obvious to me that it appears to not be about anyone else's safety. Instead, it's all about your property. Thanks for letting me know again where your priority seems to be.

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

"Lehman said he is in no way against the bridge, and had no knowledge of any accident near the proposed bridge site. He said he's not sure a youngster would have taken the time to walk the extra distance to make a crossing over a bridge if it had been available. Lehman said he simply wants to see the bridge built to the original standards."

Guess what Paul... if he had to walk FURTHER out of his way to use the bigger bridge, like you want, then you have a point. Isn't it possible that the new shorter design will help it be used MORE and not LESS. I'm so glad you pointed out how and why people might want to bypass the bridge because it also seems that they went back to the drawing board to alleviate that concern as much as possible.

More use would result in fewer injuries or future fatalities at that intersection.

Thanks for letting the people of the city know just where your concerns actually are.. because it's obvious to me that it appears to not be about anyone else's safety. Instead, it's all about your property. Thanks for letting me know again where your priority seems to be.

seems to be a common link here , the city attorney got it right - "Narrow private interests cannot dictate sound public policy."

[gatordog]

I think somebody from the effected community should sent a LTE or public communication to Mr Lehmen informing him:
If you delay construction of this bridge with your frivolous lawsuit, we will boycot any and all businesses in your commercial property. I wonder how your business clients would feel about that?

PS I am with you on a boycott, should it come to that.

[Arch]

Would be curious to know:

Would the smaller shorter bridge actually be exiting people CLOSER to the businesses?

[momof3]

gatordog said:

PS I am with you on a boycott, should it come to that.

I thought everyone was on board with the Ashwood boycott, now another one?