|
|
Post by southsidemom on May 23, 2007 18:16:29 GMT -6
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? What is the Ashwood boycott?  |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on May 24, 2007 9:27:07 GMT -6
I thought everyone was on board with the Ashwood boycott, now another one? What is the Ashwood boycott? I just meant that maybe Ashwood isn't selling as well as Macom would like because Macom does things like sue the city and park district for damages - which really only hurts the taxpaying citizens of the community. ETA - ok I have to take that back - suing the city and the pd for "damages" hurts ALL members of the community because instead of spending our tax dollars on facilities and services for the community, they will be paying it to MACOM - for what "damages" - I don't know. The taxpayers are hit especially hard because they are paying off Macom instead of getting services. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 24, 2007 9:28:35 GMT -6
It's all about money, not kids.
Some people and entities make that more than perfectly clear, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 24, 2007 9:32:58 GMT -6
I thought everyone was on board with the Ashwood boycott, now another one? What is the Ashwood boycott? I think the Ashwood situation has more to do with not many ppl are buying Mil+ homes right now...... |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Jun 5, 2007 15:05:30 GMT -6
Judge sides with Park District, city in bridge lawsuit
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/413832,6_1_NA05_BRIDGE_S1.article)
June 5, 2007
By KATE R. HOULIHAN Staff Writer
A DuPage County judge dismissed a lawsuit Monday that was filed by a development corporation in the hope of halting work on a proposed pedestrian bridge in south Naperville.
Attorneys representing Naperville-based Macom Corporation, the Naperville Park District and the city presented their respective cases early Monday. Macom was suing the Park District and the city, in addition to the Illinois Department of Transportation, over the height of the bridge.
Judge Edward Duncan said the suit lacked merit and agreed with the Park District and city's motion to dismiss the case.
"They're trying to dictate the size and design of a public project," said Kristen Foley, senior assistant city attorney, during the hearing. "This is language that is unenforceable. The city would never consider a bridge that high or that long. The plaintiff cannot force their design upon the city of Naperville."
In May a temporary restraining order was filed by Macom because of concerns that bridge work would begin before the full lawsuit was heard. Foley said later in the day that because everything was resolved with the lawsuit, the matter of holding a hearing on the temporary restraining order was moot.
The bridge is set to be built over Route 59 between 95th and 103rd streets by Frontier Park starting next month. The Illinois Department of Transportation would pay $2 million of the $2.6 million project, which should be complete by early next year.
"There's nothing preventing the city from going forward with the bridge," Foley said.
City officials repeatedly have said the bridge is necessary for foot and bike traffic trying to cross Route 59 safely.
"The city is just happy that we can continue building the pedestrian bridge and continue to protect the public safety of our residents," Mayor George Pradel said in a statement.
The lawsuit had said the bridge, as currently designed, 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.
Macom Corporation president Paul Lehman has said such a short height and close downslope would result in the bridge supports blocking the view of stores in the Macom-developed Frontier Place that sits on Route 59 just north of the proposed bridge.
Attorneys for Macom argued the agreement between the Naperville Park District and Macom used language that qualified as a restrictive covenant. Duncan cited prior court cases in answering the question of whether the agreement indeed was a restrictive covenant that applied to the land in question.
"We have to find that that language is too indefinite and uncertain to be a restrictive covenant," Duncan said.
Lehman had no comment other than to say they are looking at the judge's ruling and deciding what to do.
Contact Kate Houlihan at khoulihan@scn1.com or 630-416-5224.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 6, 2007 10:55:08 GMT -6
A wise decision by the court. Poor Mr. Lehman  ....instead of selling to clients who want to blend in with the miles and miles of mind-numbing, wall-to-wall commericial and retail development up and down Rt 59...he will instead have to find clients who want to be near a unique, community-focusing (and publicly-funded ) pedestrian bridge. |
|
....instead of selling to clients who want to blend in with the miles and miles of mind-numbing, wall-to-wall commericial and retail development up and down Rt 59...he will instead have to find clients who want to be near a unique, community-focusing (and publicly-funded ) pedestrian bridge.