THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, Appellant, v. ERNEST E. RAPKA et al., Appellees.
No. 44331
Supreme Court of Illinois
April 5, 1973
Rehearing denied June 1, 1973
296 N.E.2d 336 | 54 Ill. 2d 217
Therefore, the findings and report of the Commissioners is approved and the respondent‘s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys of this court.
Respondent disbarred.
MR. JUSTICE WARD took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinion filed April 5, 1973.—Rehearing denied June 1, 1973.
THOMAS A. FORAN, of FORAN & WISS, and RICHARD V. HOUPT, of PEDERSEN & HOUPT, both of Chicago, for appellant.
HALL, MEYER, FISHER, HOLMBERG, SNOOK & MAY, and CONZELMAN, SCHULTZ, O‘MEARA &
MR. JUSTICE WARD delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, Village of Deerfield, filed a petition in the circuit court of Lake County to condemn approximately 127 acres of land lying outside of but immediately adjacent to the plaintiff‘s corporate limits. The petition represented that the purpose of the acquisition was for the establishment of a playground or recreational center as allegedly authorized under division 95 of the Illinois Muniсipal Code (
Section 11-95-1 of the Municipal Code (
“The corporate authorities of every municipality with a population of less than 500,000 may dedicate and set apart for use as playgrounds, or recreation centers, any land or buildings which are owned or leased by the municipality аnd are not dedicated or devoted to another and inconsistent public use. Such a municipality, in such manner as provided by law for the acquisition of land or buildings for public purposes by the municipality, may acquire or lease land or buildings, or both, within or beyond the corporate limits of the municipality, for plаygrounds and recreation centers.”
The parties agree that section 11-95-1 authorizes acquisition by purchase, as is indicated by the further provision in that section that no land shall be acquired nor
It is the plaintiff‘s contention, however, that the power granted by section 11-95-1 to acquire land cannot be limited to acquisition by purchase or other forms of voluntary transfer, but must be understood as including the power tо acquire by condemnation. The plaintiff bases this contention in part upon the language in section 11-95-1 which empowers the municipality to acquire property “in such manner as provided by law for the acquisition of land or buildings for public purposes by the municipality.” That phrase, according to the plaintiff, is to be read as incorporating the provisions of another section of the Municipal Code, section 11-61-1 (
“The corporate authorities of each municipality may exercise the right of eminent domain by condemnation proceedings in conformity with the provisions of the constitution and statutеs of the State of Illinois for the acquirement of property useful, advantageous or desirable for municipal purposes or public welfare including property in unincorporated areas outside of but adjacent and contiguous to the municipality where required for street or highway purposеs by the municipality.”
As originally enacted in 1949 (Laws of 1949, p. 478) the section did not contain the closing portion which now follows the word “welfare.” That portion was added in 1961 (Laws of 1961, p. 2425). The defendants suggest that the 1961 amendment represented a legislative limitation of the eminent domain power conferred by section 11-61-1 tо property lying within the corporate limits,
So far as we are advised, neither section 11-61-1 nor section 11-95-1 has received any prior judicial construction on the point at issue, and the matter is admittedly not free from difficulty. The antecedent of section 11-95-1 was an act of 1915 entitled “An Act to provide for the acquisition, equipment, conduct and maintenance of public playgrounds in and by cities having a population of less than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000).” (Laws of 1915, p. 312.) Section 5 of that act provided: “All cities, villages and towns voting to adopt the provisions of this act are hereby vested with power and authority to purchase, accept by gift, or condemn by the exercise of the right of eminent domain of such real estate as the voters may elect to acquire as herein provided.” The act of 1915 was repealed in 1921 as part of a new act which was almost identical to that of 1915. (Laws of 1921, p. 674, sec. 8.) Section 5 of the 1921 act contained the same provisions as section 5 of the 1915 act.
In 1923 the 1921 act on playgrounds was amended. (Laws of 1923, p. 256.) Section 2 of the 1923 act contained language similar to that found in section 11-95-1 of the present Municipal Code authorizing а municipality to acquire or lease property within or beyond the municipal limits for the purpose of establishing playgrounds and recreation centers “in such manner as may now or hereafter be authorized or provided by law for the acquisition of lands or buildings for public purposes by such municipality.” Neithеr section 2 nor any other section of the 1923 act continued the express authorization which had been contained in the prior legislation to
We note that in other instances where an act authorizes municipalities to engage in an activity which may require the acquisition of land, the act itself will typically contain its own provisions with respect to the power of eminent domain. (See, e.g.,
However, under the plaintiff‘s argument there was a broad power of condemnation for municipal purposes which еxisted under section 11-61-1 prior to its amendment in 1961. The amendment was not designed, the argument is, to repeal or lessen the broad municipal authority to condemn. It was intended to insure a power to condemn, for street purposes, land outside but adjacent and contiguous to the municipality. The argument is persuasive. Taking the language of the amendment we do
The plaintiff also maintains that the mere use of the term “acquire” in section 11-95-1 in itself implies the power to acquire by eminent domain. In view of our holding that the eminent domain power exists under section 11-61-1 we need not consider the merits of this contention.
As required by section 11-95-1, the plaintiff submitted the question of acquiring the property to a referendum, the result of which was favorable. The defendants contend, however, that the referendum was invalid because it combined in a single proposition the question whether the property should be acquired and the question whether bonds should be issued to meet the cost of acquisition, and thus violated section 18 of article II of the Illinois constitution of 1870. That section, which provides that all elections shall be free and equal, has been construed as requiring that separate and independent questions may not be combined in one proposition in such a way as to place a voter in the position of having to vote for or against both questions when he might otherwise favor one but oppose the other. See O‘Connor v. Board of Education, 288 Ill. 240.
The defendants concede that since the proposition limited the issuance of bonds to providing for the acquisition of the land, no voter who voted favorably on the issuance of bonds could be regarded as opposing the acquisition. The defendants point out, however, that a voter who favored the acquisition of the land but opposed
It should be observed that this court hаs considered that the constitutional proscription under discussion was against the combining of separate and unrelated questions into a single proposition for submission to a vote. Conversely it has been held that where a submitted proposition did not contain separate and unrelated questions, the proposition was not violative of the constitution. (Routt v. Barrett, 396 Ill. 322.) The simple circumstance that a proposition contained more than one question has not made it constitutionally defective. (Roll v. Carrollton Community Unit School Dist., 3 Ill.2d 148.) We held in Schoon v. Board of Education, 11 Ill.2d 91, that a single proposition asking electors to approve the issuance of bonds to permit the construction and equipping of a new school building and also to permit the construction of additions to existing structures was not constitutionally objectionable. In Roll a proposition to issue bonds for the purposes of purchasing a site for a high school and constructing the school, of building a new grade school аnd of constructing an addition to an existing school building was alleged to have been unconstitutional. Holding that the proposition was not illegal we said: “In our view the designated purposes are sufficiently connected and related to each other in nature to satisfy the constitutional provision.” 3 Ill.2d 148, 151.
We judge thаt the questions in the proposition here were not separate and unrelated in the constitutional sense.
Finally, the defendants contend that section 11-95-1 is invalid because it contains no territorial limitations; that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case for the necessity of condemning defendants’ prоperty; and that the plaintiff did not make a good faith attempt to acquire
So far as the claimed invalidity of section 11-95-1 is concerned, we recognized in Village of Schiller Park v. City of Chicago, 26 Ill.2d 278, that the legislature may validly confer upon a municiрality a power of condemnation to be exercised over property lying beyond its corporate limits and within the limits of another municipality, and that if such power should be abused, protection would be afforded by the courts. As to the proof of necessity, the plaintiff established a prima facie case when it intrоduced in evidence its ordinance reciting a need for the establishment of a recreational center. Decatur Park District v. Becker, 368 Ill. 442, 445; Trustees of Schools v. Sherman Heights Corp., 20 Ill.2d 357, 359. With regard to the third contention, the record shows that the plaintiff did offer to purchase the property but that the defendants made no response, thus sufficiently establishing an attempt to acquirе the property without condemnation.
For the reasons given, judgment of the appellate court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Judgment reversed; cause remanded.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion and would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. The princiрle is firmly established that a municipal corporation has the right of eminent domain only when the grant of power is specifically conferred by legislative enactment (Department of Public Works and Bldgs. v. Ryan, 357 Ill. 150), and that the statute purporting to authorize the exercise of the power will be strictly construed. Harvey v. Aurora and Geneva Ry. Co., 174 Ill. 295; Indiana Harbour Belt R.R. v. Green, 289 Ill. 81.
As stated in the majority opinion, section 11-61-1 of the Municipal Code, when enacted in 1949, contained
Not infrequently, following judicial interpretation of a statute, an amendment is enacted, in which event “[s]uch a statutory change is usually equivocal, suggesting either that the legislative body has effеcted a conscious change in policy (Western National Bank of Cicero v. Village of Kildeer, 19 Ill.2d 342, 353), or that it has simply prevented the recurrence of an erroneous interpretation (People ex rel. Spitzer v. La Salle County, 20 Ill.2d 18, 28).” (People ex rel. Clark v. Wheeling, 24 Ill.2d 267, at 269.) It is noted that there was no appellate decision interpreting section 11-61-1 between the dates of its enactment in 1949 and its amendment in 1961.
In its opinion the majority attributes tо the amendment a purpose not considered in any prior authorities and concludes that the amendment “was intended to insure a power to condemn, for street purposes, land outside but adjacent and contiguous to the municipality.” The reason for “insuring” a power which has not been questioned is not stated, nor can it be ascertained from the language of the opinion.
Applying long-established principles to the interpretation of the statutes here involved it is apparent that the “broad municipal authority to condemn” to which the
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE UNDERWOOD joins in this dissent.