Replies

The Constitution prohibits the government from denying individuals their rights to life, liberty and property without due process of law.

Fifth amendment prohibits takings without compensation.

Daley must compenstate the owners by law.

That's my take -- and I am a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer - I have always represented myself in court.

But would recommend you consider the follow

Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 551 (1871). The Fifth Amendment ''has never been supposed to have any bearing upon, or to inhibit laws that indirectly work harm and loss to individuals,'' the Court explained.

Meyer v. City of Richmond, 172 U.S. 82 (1898).

Also consider the following from Findlaw:

Government Activity Not Directed at the Property .--The older cases proceeded on the basis that the requirement of just compensation for property taken for public use referred only to ''direct appropriation, and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power.'' 236

Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings: damage to abutting property resulting from the authorization of a railroad to erect tracts, sheds, and fences over a street; 237

similar deprivations, lessening the circulation of light and air and impairing access to premises, resulting from the erection of an elevated viaduct over a street, or resulting from the changing of a grade in the street. 238

Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action, such as the expenses incurred by a railroad in planking an area condemned for a crossing, constructing gates, and posting gatemen, 239 or by a landowner in raising the height of the dikes around his land to prevent their partial flooding consequent to private construction of a dam under public licensing. 240

.."legal because all federal loans to build the facility have been repaid and the decision to keep it open lies with the city. Past research indicates that the law hasn't been broken."..you also rewrote the headline to this piece with no touch on the facts nor offered any other facts which are a prominent part of the story. First, I thought this was a hit piece by this newspaper until I realized the news source did not author this piece to fit the headline....going back to Ron in post #4.

You left out the compensation in the piece and other legal references. There were many stories written on Daley's "sneaking around in the night" surfacing yesterday through today.

One does not have to sneak in the night in Chicagoland. The light pollution never presents a darkness to sneak around in. If you are a resident of Chicagoland and/or have visted the major cities around this country, you have to agree Chicago is one of the most beautiful. But, I will hand it to you, Writer1; you have brought a good piece of news-spin to the table for discussion. However, I see no case here.

Again if you are inconvenienced by this action by the City, my sympathy. This has been and will continue to be a passionate partisan debate.

Respectfully

f_t_d