Blame it on the golden arches. I could have driven to McDonald’s and devoured a burger with fries plus a parfait and a cup of coffee in the time it took the Springfield City Council to hash out the variance necessary to permit United Community Bank to erect a pylon sign on the same vacant lot where Mickey D’s already has one. The lot is almost two acres, which gives you some idea of just how compelling the controversy was. But by the time this matter was resolved Tuesday night, the aldermen were apparently too exhausted to spend even a minute with the naked dancing girls.
Instead, they took a rain check. Rather than accept attorney Don Craven’s
offer to settle the lawsuit filed by the owners of Déjà Vu–the Laketown nightclub
known for adult entertainment–the council may have guaranteed that the suit
will drag on even further.
They voted to amend the zoning ordinance in a way that would allow Déjà Vu
to stay where it is. But before they voted, Craven warned them that the grandfather
clause would not end the lawsuit.
“This is a good ordinance–I hope that this time you all vote for it,” he said.
“But I don’t want you to vote under any misapprehension that this will settle
the lawsuit that’s pending against the City of Springfield. There will remain
against the city a claim for damages, which is still pending, and a claim for
attorneys’ fees. So I just want you to know that despite my letter in March
that says we’ll settle . . . that unfortunately that offer has not been accepted,
and unfortunately that litigation will continue.”
Before Craven could step away from the podium, Mayor Tim Davlin had already
called for a vote and the ordinance passed. No one asked a single question.
The March letter mentioned by Craven offered to settle the case in exchange
for the grandfather clause plus $25,000 in attorneys’ fees. This offer was never
shown to the council. Instead, at least two aldermen say they were told in a
June executive session that Craven wanted a sum that sounded like $45,000.
When Alderman Frank Edwards called to chide Craven for “sticking it to the
city,” Craven showed him the letter plainly offering to settle for $25,000.
Corporation counsel Jenifer Johnson believes the confusion comes from the
fact that Craven submitted bills showing fees totaling $45,000. But he also
sent two July letters offering to accept just $25,000.
“I think there might be some misunderstanding about what their bills total
and what Don has requested,” she says. “I certainly didn’t mean to imply that
he had ever requested a certain number.”
He did request a certain number, but Johnson has found a Supreme Court case
in which a municipality escaped responsibility for attorneys’ fees by changing
zoning, similar to what Springfield did for Déjà Vu. Craven, however, says that
case doesn’t match his, and that the city is taking a risk by not accepting
his offer.
“We are generally happy–we get to stay where we are. But we’ve had to spend
$45,000 to accomplish that goal. We’re willing to settle for $25,000, yet they’re
going to spend more money on attorneys’ fees, and we’re going to spend more
money on attorneys’ fees, on a lawsuit that nobody gives a damn about. We offered
the city what we thought was a very reasonable deal in March, and so far all
we’ve gotten is the back of their hand.”
A much bigger attorney fee will be debated at the next City Council
meeting, September 2. The special guest star will be Chris Nichols, attorney
with the Peoria law firm of Husch & Eppenberger. Last November, under the
previous administration, the firm was hired to investigate shenanigans in the
Springfield Police Department. Then-mayor Karen Hasara announced that this investigation
would last about three weeks and cost about $15,000. But when the investigation
finally concluded six months later, the firm had racked up a $180,000 bill that
has become something of a scandal in and of itself.
Nichols’ scheduled appearance is the result of an August 12 debate among members
of the council’s finance committee. Faced with an ordinance that would pay Husch
& Eppenberger a “negotiated” sum just $11,000 less than the original bill,
the committee members asked whether Nichols could come to answer their questions.
Instead, he will face the full panel. Several aldermen have said they would
rather risk yet another lawsuit than pay this bill.
But the State Journal-Register made the subtle suggestion of a solution
in its August 3 edition. Near the top of page 21 was an editorial by Davlin,
explaining his desire to “streamline” city government so he can be more accountable
than Hasara. “We now have a $180,000 legal bill because the [previous] mayor
was not fully informed,” he wrote. Near the bottom of the same page, columnist
Bernard Schoenburg mentioned that Hasara had generously refunded money to folks
who had contributed to her mayoral campaign before she announced her decision
not to seek re-election. After refunding many contributions, she still had left
in her campaign account–guess how much?–$180,873.
I am not the only one who sees some cosmic message here in the fact that these
two almost identical sums appeared on the same page of the newspaper. One council
member told me: “It’s a sign from God!”
Or, if not God, at least Bernie and Tim. Close enough!
There’s no litigation yet, but the mayor and corporation counsel
walk over, under, or beside a big lawsuit just waiting to happen every time
they go from their offices to the City Council chamber. It’s that beautiful
footbridge arcing gracefully over the fountains between Municipal Center East
and Municipal Center West.
The perfect place for a healthy walk or a group photo, it also looks like
a great spot for your kids to play. Let the toddler run across that thing a
couple of times and he’ll sleep well tonight, you might say.
Trouble is, the average toddler can fit easily between the rails. Actually,
so could some teenagers—the spindles are a whopping 12 inches apart. The drop
from the bridge’s crest to the concave pavement below is approximately 15 feet–sort
of like stepping out of a second-story window.
The bridge undoubtedly met all building codes at the time it was built in
the 1970s. Now, however, it is in clear violation. The city’s current building
code requires that “guardrails on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas,
balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails . . . which do not allow
passage of an object 4 inches or more in diameter.”
On residential structures, such guardrails need to be 36 inches tall; on commercial
structures, they need to be 42 inches tall. The rail on the bridge is about
36 inches tall.
Asked about the bridge rail Tuesday night, Davlin responded that it needs
to be fixed immediately. “But, you know, that was donated to the city by the
Roman Cultural Society,” he said.
Of course, “donated” means it now belongs to the city, not to the Roman Cultural
Society. But Vince Salvo, the club’s current president, said the group may volunteer
to replace the rails.
“If there is a need to update it, and if the city would like us to check into
what it would take to make it par with code, we can do that,” Salvo said. “We
meet tomorrow night; I’ll bring it up at that time.”
God bless ’em.
So why all the martinis? In honor of the loyal crew of four aldermen
and at least two high-ranking city staffers who congregated at Saputo’s again
after the last council meeting with no care for what Citizen Sam or anyone else
who takes the Illinois Open Meetings Act seriously thinks.
Bottoms up!
This article appears in Aug 21-27, 2003.
