Malec v. City of Belleville, Illinois
943 N.E.2d 243
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Developers pursued a 150-acre TIF District and a Carlyle/Green Mount Business District in Belleville, Illinois, to redevelop the area and reimburse project costs via tax increments and sales taxes.
- Redevelopment Plan and ordinances (TIF 6814-6816, Business District 6818, and 6819) were enacted January 11, 2006 based on findings of blight and inadequate infrastructure.
- Underground coal mine under the site posed subsidence risk; multiple studies (Midwest Testing) warned of grouting/remediation, while city officials relied on those reports and on EDR analyses for eligibility.
- Trial evidence showed limited prior development interest; the only substantial investor prospect was Walmart/Lowe’s, both requiring mine remediation as a condition for development.
- Plaintiff, a Belleville resident, challenged the ordinances as improperly defining blight, misapplying the plat/subdivision rules, and authorizing a disputed economic incentive agreement.
- Circuit court ruled for defendants on all counts; the appellate court affirmed, holding that the TIF Act, Business District, and EIAs were properly implemented under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TIF area qualifies as blighted due to an unused mine | Malee argues mine qualifies as blight; farmed land cannot be vacant due to underground mine. | City relied on Midwest Testing and statutory definitions to deem mine-impacted land vacant and blighted. | TIF findings upheld; mine qualifies as unused mine for blight. |
| Whether farmland can be treated as vacant and blighted under the TIF Act | Farmland should not be deemed vacant unless plat subdivision applies; intrafamily deeds cannot create subdivision. | Subdivisions existed via deeds; Plat Act subdivision exception applies; land deemed vacant. | Land deemed subdivided and vacant under 65 ILCS 5/11—74.4—3(v); plat requirements not required. |
| Whether the Business District findings meet the blight and but-for tests | BLIGHT and but-for conditions overstated; farming use defeats blight characterization. | Combined factors (subsidence risk, unsafe structures, traffic, dumping) predominate and show blight and need for redevelopment. | Business District findings and but-for justifications upheld. |
| Whether the Economic Incentive Agreement (8—11—20) is valid when land is largely farmland | EIA relies on vacant land; farmland cannot be vacant; signing bonus concerns. | Code allows EIAs; findings properly applied to area as vacant/developed portions; evidence supports eligibility. | EIA upheld; the city properly authorized sharing of sales taxes under 8—11—20. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geisler v. City of Wood River, 383 Ill. App. 3d 828 (2008) (presumption of blight validity; plaintiff bears burden to overcome it)
- Board of Education of Community High School District No. 218 v. Village of Robbins, 327 Ill. App. 3d 599 (2001) (interprets "growth" to require new buildings/improvements increasing tax base)
- Castel Properties, Ltd. v. City of Marion, 259 Ill. App. 3d 432 (1994) (ties redevelopment eligibility to impairment of growth and reliance on specific tests)
- Pleasantdale School District No. 107 v. Village of Burr Ridge, 341 Ill. App. 3d 1004 (2003) (contextual guidance on blight findings and redevelopment statutes)
- People v. Ward, 215 Ill. 2d 317 (2005) (statutory interpretation using plain meaning; dictionary aid for terms like vacant)
- Masterson v. Highlands, L.L.C., 188 Ill. 2d 546 (1999) (statutory interpretation; give effect to plain language)