HomeUncategorized

Webster Square developer calls lawsuit a “costly diversion”

We’ve just received Sandz Development VP David Goldman’s statement regarding the recent lawsuit seeking to overturn zoning approval for Webster Square, the vacant site of the former Lincoln Park Hospital:

While we are not surprised to hear that this lawsuit was filed, we are disappointed to see that Mr. Oberman’s action will require the City to spend taxpayer dollars to defend its well-reasoned, strongly-supported decision to approve our project.

Over the past two years, our efforts to reach out to the community, twice secure unanimous Plan Commission approval, meet Transportation and Fire Department requirements, comply with building codes and win City Council and public support, we have diligently and consistently worked to follow all due, legal process. It has been a long process, but one that ultimately resulted in a plan that is right for Lincoln Park and for the City. Webster Square will bring jobs and vitality to a site that has stood vacant for years and will return an abandoned property to productive use and to the tax rolls.

This effort by Mr. Oberman and his handful of clients to overturn the decisions of multiple City administrative and safety departments, the Chicago Plan Commission and the City Council Zoning Committee is a costly diversion from the pressing issues we all face in these tough economic times. While we have not had a chance to fully digest all the details of the legal filings, we are confident that the City’s process and decision will stand and we look forward to bringing Webster Square to Lincoln Park.

Goldman describes the Webster Square development in the above video, and in this one at YouTube.

One of the little-noticed ironies in the long-running controversy over this development is that Louis Supera, the father of Mike Supera (the S in Sandz), pioneered the redevelopment of Lincoln Park more than 60 years ago, and Mike Supera redeveloped parcels in Lincoln Park that had previously been designated as “slum and blighted” property.

(Visited 227 times, 1 visits today)

COMMENTS