An ordinance to protect the city’s lakeshore and lands surrounding it could be on the City Council agenda in the next few weeks. Even now, before the Environment Board has reviewed and amended it, the 7-page ordinance evinces careful thought and drafting.
While the proposed ordinance contains many necessary protective recommendations and measures, two stand out – a definition of the area to be protected, the Lakefront Protection Zone, and a call for a referendum should any public property in LPZ be proposed for sale.
The LPZ is well defined. The call for a referendum, however, should be strengthened and clarified. Without strong clear language, the ordinance could seem to some to create a path for the city to sell some valuable and irreplaceable property.
A binding referendum is necessary to protect our precious lakefront zone; an advisory referendum is, as its name suggests, reflects opinions.
Protecting more than the shoreline
The Lakefront Protection Zone would extend well past the shoreline. As defined in the proposed ordinance,
“‘Lakefront Protection Zone’ means: All Shoreline, publicly-owned structures, beaches, and Green Space east of Sheridan Road, or east of Lake Shore Boulevard between Greenwood and Lee Streets, and including: (1) Cornelia Lunt Park between Judson Avenue and Church Street; (2) Patriots Park between Forest Place and Davis Street; (3) All property zoned U3 (or future zone designations) within 200 feet of Lake Michigan including and including lagoons with flowage to Lake Michigan; and (4) The Shoreline as defined herein. But not including (exceptions): Private residential property upland of the Ordinary High Water Mark or facilities operated by and necessary for security of the Evanston Water Plant …”
This expansive definition is important for the preservation of open space. Few if any would dispute that open green and blue space are vital to the health and well-being of Evanston and Evanstonians.
Protection in words – the people’s choice
Here’s what the proposed ordinance has to say about “Public Property Ownership & Leasing (7-18-3):
“Public property within the Lakefront Protection Zone shall be managed as follows:
(A) The sale and/or long-term lease (90 days or more) of an interest in public property that may restrict public access, diminish public amenities or fail to preserve or protect Green Space within the Lakefront Protection Zone requires a public referendum with public notice and hearing as prescribed in this and other applicable ordinances.
(B) Leases of public property whereby the lessee shall continue to provide public access and amenities in their existing (at time of lease commencement) or improved condition, and to preserve or enhance Green Space requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council with public notice and hearing as prescribed in this and other applicable ordinances.
Having residents weigh in about what happens with public property is crucial to good government. Illinois law supports two types of referenda, binding and advisory. As their names suggest, one mandates action, the other informs. A binding referendum is placed on the ballot by a governing body, such as a city council or school board. A group of concerned residents can place a question to the voters to get their opinion on a matter. The petition to have the question placed on a ballot must be “signed by a number of voters equal to at least 8% of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding election by registered voters of the municipality … ” (10 ILCS 5/28-6).
A binding referendum question would have to be placed by City Council – a simple majority would do it in most cases – and then put to the voters. If the voters approve the question, City Council would be mandated to take the action required. An advisory referendum, no matter how gratifying, has no real force.
Deciding which option – a supermajority of City Council members voting on the sale of public property or a majority of voters approving a binding referendum – would offer more protection could be tricky. This is because, either way, it goes back to City Council. With enough votes, Council members can overturn an ordinance, even one that results from a binding referendum.
Reportedly, at a recent meeting of the Environment Board, a Council member objected to the idea of a referendum question over selling public property in the LPZ, saying he felt the matter should be in the hands not of the public but of City Council. But it could end up there anyway.
Protection in deed
The most protection for the lakefront, as I see it, is not in words but in deeds. The city could convey the land it owns within the LPZ to a park district, with restrictions in the deed for each parcel that the land may not be sold, developed or used for private purposes. Another possibility is that the city could quit-claim its land back to itself with similar restrictions in the deed.
Yet path to protection would be to convey the property in the LPZ to a third party. Illinois law permits this (505 ILCS 35/, the Illinois Conservation Enhancement Act). Individuals, companies and organizations have donated property to conservancies to protect open space, wetlands, prairies, etc. from commercial and private encroachment. Openlands, which operates in the Midwest, and the Nature Conservancy, an organization with national and international projects, are two nonprofits whose mission is conservation of natural resources.
While this may seem like a radical approach, it would preserve the land for future generations here in Evanston. And that is really the goal, isn’t it?
