August 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 32

LAW REVIEW
es do: " that they use the affected
area and are persons for whom the
aesthetic and recreational values
of the area will be lessened by the
challenged activity. " According to
the court, that kind of injury to
aesthetic or recreational values is
" cognizable under Article III " for
purposes of standing, but POP
" made no such claim. "
As described by the federal
appeals court: " Municipal
taxpayers have standing to
sue only when they have both
identified an action on the city's
part that is allegedly illegal and
adequately shown that city tax
dollars will be spent on that
illegal activity. "
Municipal Taxpayer
Standing
In addition,
the
court
also
considered
federal appeals
whether
POP had satisfied the " elements of
municipal taxpayer standing. " As
described by the court, municipal
taxpayer standing has the following
" two threshold requirements " :
First, and most obviously, the
plaintiff must actually be a taxpayer
of the municipality that she
wishes to sue. Second, the plaintiff
must establish that the municipality
has spent tax revenues on the
allegedly illegal action.
The second
requirement...requires
a plaintiff to show that the
taxpayer's action...is a good-faith
pocketbook action. The plaintiff
must be able to show that she has
the requisite financial interest that
is, or is threatened to be, injured by
the municipality's illegal conduct.
32 Parks & Recreation | A UGUS T 2 0 2 1
The burden of establishing standing
is on the plaintiffs.
Moreover, the court noted that
" a plaintiff who asserts municipal
taxpayer standing must show
that the municipality has actually
expended funds on the allegedly
illegal elements of the disputed
practice. "
As cited by the federal appeals
court, Article III is satisfied if there
is at least one individual plaintiff
who has demonstrated standing.
As a nonprofit group, the court assumed
POP was not a municipal
taxpayer. As such, the court found
POP " would only have standing to
the extent that its members would
otherwise have standing to sue in
their own right. " In this particular
instance, the court found only one
individual plaintiff remained in the
case who was a resident and taxpayer
of the City of Chicago. Accordingly,
POP's municipal standing
argument would be based on
that individual plaintiff.
The federal appeals court, however,
found " the record doesn't
support the conclusion that the
plaintiff had suffered a direct
pocketbook injury from the conversion
of part of Jackson Park
into the campus of the Obama
Presidential Center. " On the contrary,
the court found " the Obama
Foundation - not the City - will
bear the project's costs " of construction
and operation of the
Obama Presidential Center:
The City's agreement with the
Foundation provides that the
cost of initially constructing the
Center, of operating the Center
once it is built, and of maintaining
the Center going forward will
all be the Foundation's responsibility.
Thus, no tax dollars will
| PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
be spent to build or operate the
Center. And if no tax money is
spent on the allegedly illegal activity,
then a plaintiff's status as
a municipal taxpayer is irrelevant
for standing purposes.
That being said, the federal appeals
court acknowledged " the City
is set to spend millions of dollars
to prepare the Jackson Park site for
construction of the Center, even
though it isn't paying for the Center
itself. " Specifically, the court
found " the City will pay for three
projects: alteration and rerouting
of roadways, including removing
Cornell Drive and converting the
roadway into parkland; environmental
remediation and utilities
work; and construction of athletic
facilities. " The court, however,
noted POP had not claimed that
" those three
projects themselves
violate the public trust doctrine or
are otherwise beyond the City's
power to undertake. "
As described by the federal appeals
court: " Municipal taxpayers
have standing to sue only when
they have both identified an action
on the city's part that is allegedly
illegal and adequately shown that
city tax dollars will be spent on
that illegal activity. " In this particular
instance, the court found
" the allegedly illegal conduct is the
construction and operation of the
Center, and taxpayer dollars aren't
being spent on that conduct. " As
noted, however, the court found
POP had made " no showing that
the City will pay for those projects
with municipal taxes " :
It is not enough to simply allege
that the City is spending money;
the existence of municipal taxpayer
standing depends on where the
money comes from. The parties
August 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2021 - Parks & Recreation
