Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Yuppie condo group loses lawsuit against the city of Chicago after claiming that the approval of an 80-story high-rise complex violated their constitutional rights   (chicagorealestatedaily.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Chicago, constitutional right, Chicago River, condos  
•       •       •

2100 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Nov 2013 at 3:58 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-23 01:03:27 PM  
For those of you not familiar with the local geography.

featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com

At the top of the picture across the river from the huge parking lot, you can see the base of the building whose inhabitants are suing to try to stop the project, which will obliterate their views east up the river.  Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view.  Who would've thought?
 
2013-11-23 01:09:25 PM  
80 stories doesn't seem anywhere large enough a monument to Rahm Emanuel's ego.
 
2013-11-23 01:15:05 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: 80 stories doesn't seem anywhere large enough a monument to Rahm Emanuel's ego.


80 stories is pretty big, and appropriate, his ego isn't quite as big as Daley's.
 
2013-11-23 01:26:57 PM  
Skyscrapers aren't in The Constitution!
 
2013-11-23 02:03:34 PM  

Fark It: At the top of the picture across the river from the huge parking lot, you can see the base of the building whose inhabitants are suing to try to stop the project, which will obliterate their views east up the river. Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view. Who would've thought?


You don't understand. Their condo was the absolute last one the area could possibly support without the area turning into a high-density hellhole. Anymore people, and the neighborhood will descend into a Mad Max urban landscape with people killing each other over the last of the organic arugula.

/this is, sadly, not that much of an exaggeration over what these people claim in planning meetings.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-23 02:19:03 PM  
There may be a statutory right to a good view -- recall the link about the retired MLB player who sued to remove his neighbor's trees -- but claiming a constitutional right is stretching the limit of what even the most activist judge will give you.
 
2013-11-23 04:08:39 PM  
If I can afford to move there and not have to take a 45 minute train ride every day, then Iam happy.

Rent will probably exceed my mortgage plus monthly train fare so I probably don't give a fark...
 
2013-11-23 04:19:14 PM  
A government agency bending the rules for the Kennedy's?  I'm sure that's never happened before.
 
2013-11-23 04:46:42 PM  
GOOD.

"property value" is an asinine concept that gets used by HOA type busybodies to bully people to tell them what they can or cannot do with their property.  Your house is worth what someone is willing to pay, if it goes up good if it goes down then that's life, it doesn't give you a right to dictate to other people how they can or cannot use their own property.   If you are buying a house as an investment instead of a place to live you are what's wrong with America.
 
2013-11-23 05:20:23 PM  
I appreciate that they will lose their views, and despite the potential for higher value resultant of new, higher end buildings nearby, they feel that their property will be devalued. That said, I cannot fathom what lawyer seriously filed a claim indicating that residents have a "constitutional right" to tell their neighbors what they can/can't do with their land because of the potential for impacting land values.
 
2013-11-23 05:23:00 PM  

Farnn: A government agency bending the rules for the Kennedy's?  I'm sure that's never happened before.


Just like with Congress, the GOP wants to stand in the way of job creation and massive investments whenever they can score some partisan points. It's a billion dollar project that will net tens of millions of dollars in property taxes and income taxes in a very short timeframe for both the state and the city... I know you think that in a more conservative city, they'd stick to their guns and tell those libby libs to go fark themselves with their millions of dollars... but the reality is that most cities will change zoning requirements and restrictions if you put enough money and jobs on the table.
 
2013-11-23 05:24:56 PM  

firefly212: I appreciate that they will lose their views, and despite the potential for higher value resultant of new, higher end buildings nearby, they feel that their property will be devalued. That said, I cannot fathom what lawyer seriously filed a claim indicating that residents have a "constitutional right" to tell their neighbors what they can/can't do with their land because of the potential for impacting land values.


the one who took their retainer.

/you can always sue somebody!
 
2013-11-23 06:40:54 PM  

Fark It: For those of you not familiar with the local geography.

[featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com image 320x207]

At the top of the picture across the river from the huge parking lot, you can see the base of the building whose inhabitants are suing to try to stop the project, which will obliterate their views east up the river.  Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view.  Who would've thought?




I think anyone would has read the Constitution would know that river views are not mentioned once.
 
2013-11-23 06:42:09 PM  
If you reeeeaaaally concentrate you might hear me playing a sad tune in  my tiny wittle violin.
 
2013-11-23 07:40:53 PM  
I see Kentucky is in late-season form!

GO CATS!!!....to basketball games.
 
2013-11-23 07:42:07 PM  

bionicjoe: I see Kentucky is in late-season form!

GO CATS!!!....to basketball games.


wrong thread...dammit
 
2013-11-23 08:54:12 PM  

Fark It: Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view.


Yup. The condo members should have bought that bit of land, then they could have done whatever they wanted with it.
 
2013-11-23 10:07:39 PM  

Fark It: For those of you not familiar with the local geography.

[featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com image 320x207]

At the top of the picture across the river from the huge parking lot, you can see the base of the building whose inhabitants are suing to try to stop the project, which will obliterate their views east up the river.  Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view.  Who would've thought?


When i was last in Chicago, i just happed to see that site and thought to myself, man, that place is just begging for a development.

Note to buyers: If you buy property with a great view and there is a slice of land in front of you, expect this to happen.
 
2013-11-23 10:17:09 PM  

Fark It: For those of you not familiar with the local geography.

At the top of the picture across the river from the huge parking lot, you can see the base of the building whose inhabitants are suing to try to stop the project, which will obliterate their views east up the river.  Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view.  Who would've thought?


I'm sure they feel horrible about the condos behind them, whose view they blocked.
 
2013-11-23 10:31:44 PM  
So if they could have gone forward with their law suit could the people in the building behind the original filers (as facing the river) file a suit against them for blocking "their" view?  Ad Infinitum?
 
2013-11-23 11:23:43 PM  
And now the Iranians won't be able to fix this problem for them?

Bummer.
 
2013-11-23 11:49:32 PM  
The constitutionality of this depends on two things:

If I'm invested in the condo, I have property rights and fark your view.
If my view will be blocked, I have the right to enjoy my property as it was when I bought it, so fark the condo.

A constitutional dilemma, indeed
 
2013-11-24 12:21:58 AM  

WelldeadLink: Fark It: Apparently you don't have a constitutional right to a killer view.

Yup. The condo members should have bought that bit of land, then they could have done whatever they wanted with it.


What do younet they would have put up a high rise if they owned it?
 
2013-11-24 12:23:59 AM  
Bet
 
2013-11-24 12:28:27 AM  

DrPainMD: The constitutionality of this depends on two things:

If I'm invested in the condo, I have property rights and fark your view.
If my view will be blocked, I have the right to enjoy my property as it was when I bought it, so fark the condo.

A constitutional dilemma, indeed




Property rights are not enshrined in the Constitution.

See Kelso vs New London.
 
2013-11-24 01:19:32 AM  
They used the wrong tactic to stop the tower from being built, they should have tried to find some environmental reason to prevent the construction or an endangered species living on the lot.
 
2013-11-24 01:57:27 AM  
I'm surprised the city building inspectors haven't visited the condo building, you know, to helpfully point out all of their building code violations, real or imagined.  Anyway, it's the Kennedy's, how can you say no, after all they've gone through.  There's been a wink and a nod, on the 5th floor at City Hall, everybody involved will get a little somethin' for the effort and the condo owners will get some nice shade.
 
2013-11-24 06:45:33 AM  

DrPainMD: The constitutionality of this depends on two things:

If I'm invested in the condo, I have property rights and fark your view.
If my view will be blocked, I have the right to enjoy my property as it was when I bought it, so fark the condo.

A constitutional dilemma, indeed


The second part is not a constitutional right as it relates to anything that is not you property. You have the right to use your property but not dictate how others use theirs
 
2013-11-24 07:05:41 AM  
BTW this has happened before in Chicago, always the same outcome the people whining about "views" get told to STFU and that's the end of it.
 
2013-11-24 09:05:37 AM  

firefly212: I appreciate that they will lose their views, and despite the potential for higher value resultant of new, higher end buildings nearby, they feel that their property will be devalued. That said, I cannot fathom what lawyer seriously filed a claim indicating that residents have a "constitutional right" to tell their neighbors what they can/can't do with their land because of the potential for impacting land values.


Really? Have you met many lawyers?
 
2013-11-24 10:30:32 AM  
It is almost like you shouldn't pay a premium for a view with owning the land the view is over.
 
2013-11-24 11:46:06 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Property rights are not enshrined in the Constitution


The 5th and 14th Amendments would like a word with you.

No person shall... ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... - 5th Amendment

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... - 14th Amendment


Though that really has no bearing on this case.
 
2013-11-24 04:09:45 PM  

Farnn: A government agency bending the rules for the Kennedy's?  I'm sure that's never happened before.


img.fark.net
 
2013-11-24 10:04:57 PM  
if I walk up to a window, the last farking thing i want to see out of it is Chicago.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report