CHICAGO (CN) — Park activists made their case to a Seventh Circuit panel Tuesday for why construction on the Obama Presidential Center should be halted.
The Chicago community group Protect Our Parks has actively opposed the South Side site of Barack Obama's presidential library and a museum, claiming that the lofty facilities will destroy almost 1,000 trees in the park and take public park land for private use.
The facility is slated to occupy more than 19 acres of public space in Chicago’s Jackson Park, which is one of the oldest and largest green spaces in the entire city.
According to the Obama Foundation, 90% of the center’s grounds will be open to the public, and will contain a library, activity center, museum, a garden and wetlands walk, and children’s play area.
A three-judge Seventh Circuit panel heard the community group’s appeal Tuesday, which came after U.S. District Judge John Blakey denied their bid for an injunction against the project.
During the roughly 40-minute hearing, Protect Our Parks attorney Richard Epstein argued that the Obama Foundation and city of Chicago did not consider proper alternative locations for the center and that the lack of an environmental impact statement shows they are downplaying the affect the center will have on the historic park.
“Defendants point to no precedent that has countenanced the wholesale destruction of trees, the massive demolition of a world class historical site, dangerous interferences with traffic, and the all-around confusion that arises from large construction without at a minimum the preparation of an EIS,” Epstein wrote in a brief submitted to the Chicago-based appeals court.
Throughout the hearing, the judges repeatedly asked Epstein to clarify his procedural and environmental arguments as to why an injunction should be granted that would halt the construction of the project, which has already broken ground.
“I had some trouble with this argument, because it’s not uncommon on a construction site that you got to take down some trees, and this is after all a public park. This isn’t something that’s gonna exist for five years and then vanish, over the long haul the tress will be replaced,’ said U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Wood, a Bill Clinton appointee.
“In the long haul we’re all dead,” Epstein responded. “This is 50 years before, if you are lucky, you will return to the status quo.”
Woods then asked Epstein why that tradeoff is not permissible by the decision-making agencies.
“If you are going to make a tradeoff this is not a very close tradeoff. The only thing they are interested in is trying to get the grandeur of a Park Avenue address. If it's trying to reach the crowds and the customers, you’re better off near the Red Line and the Green Line [train routes] or the expressway. If you are trying to avoid overall costs, it turns out building on solid land is infinitely cheaper than building where they are going,” Epstein said.
Central to Epstein’s argument is that several community groups have proposed an alterative location for the Obama Presidential Center that they claim would have a less severe impact.
“History, nature and public access to parkland are being reduced or eliminated. Here in Chicago, we have an abundance of vacant land on the South Side outside of a public park that would be an ideal place for the Obama Presidential Center,” said Brenda Nelms, co-president of Jackson Park Watch, in a statement.
She added, “We urge the court to halt all road closure and construction work until the legal issues raised in this case have been fully resolved. Our public land and history are held in high regard by Chicago residents and visitors. Complete and grounded review of this legal matter should be allowed to run its full course before further destruction is permitted.”
Speaking in favor of the project were a trio of attorneys. Tacy Flint spoke on behalf of the Obama Foundation, Andrew Worseck argued on behalf of Chicago, and Allen Brabender represented the federal defendants in the case, including the U.S Department of Transportation and its Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Brabender argued that traffic impacts caused by the Jackson Park proposal and alternative locations were properly weighed. He also said that environmental impacts were considered in a performed assessment.
“So no impacts went unexplored,” he said.
Worseck echoed similar arguments in saying that the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is providing some funding for the project for transportation improvements, could have rejected Chicago’s proposal for federal money to help pay for the needed road changes. He also said the environmental impacts have been well considered.
“The agencies were well within their discretion and expertise to conclude that the presidential center would not create a significant impact,” Worseck said.
During her brief speaking time, Flint focused on the positive impacts she claims the center's improvements would have on the park, including easier park access for pedestrians to Lake Michigan and integration with other nearby museums and educational campuses.
“The [Illinois] Legislature, whose job it is to identify the public interest of the city of Chicago, unanimously determined, not just that a presidential center should be built, but that it should be built in Jackson Park,” Flint said.
In his rebuttal, Epstein disagreed that the park will have significant community improvements.
“They talk about community development, there is no community development,” he said.
Wood was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judges David Hamilton and Michael Kanne. appointed to the court by Obama and Ronald Reagan, respectively. The judges did not indicate when they would issue a ruling.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
San Francisco sues Oakland over plan to change airport name April 18, 2024
