Misinformation about the Preservation Foundation and McKinley Road Development Lawsuit

In a local podcast at the beginning of the long Fourth of July holiday weekend, a former Lake Forest official made a statement about the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, which was untrue and needs correction.  Specifically, he stated that the Foundation was “[s]pending donor money on legal cost to fight the City” in Dailey v. City of Lake Forest, No 23 MR 0008.  A discussion followed to the effect that Foundation donors were unknowingly funding the legal fees to sue the City.  This statement is false in two respects.

First, the Foundation did not sue the City.  Concerned neighbors filed this lawsuit, challenging the City Council’s decision to overturn the Historic Preservation Commission’s 5-0 decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for that portion of the McKinley Rd. Development fronting on Westminster.  The Historic Preservation Commission concluded that the structures proposed for this City owned parcel of land, situated within a designated historic district, did not meet the 17 standards required by Lake Forest’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.  While the Foundation supports development that is consistent with the historic visual character of Lake Forest, it agreed with the Commission’s decision that the proposed structures did not meet those standards and so stated at the City Council meeting.    As provided by law, all those who made comments at the meeting where the City Council overturned the Commission’s decision, including the Foundation, were joined as defendants in the lawsuit.  Thus, it is untrue that the Foundation sued the City. 

This said, as a party defendant to the litigation, the Foundation has the right to advocate its position and has done so.  For example, the Developer – not the City – made a motion to dismiss the neighbors’ complaint, which motion the Foundation opposed.  It did so because, in the Foundation’s view, the Developer’s arguments misstated the law and, if accepted, would have undermined Lake Forest’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.  The Foundation views the defense of this ordinance as critical because it is instrumental in preserving the City’s historic visual character.  In response, the Developer tried to silence the Foundation by moving to strike its submission.  The Court, however, denied that motion, concluding that the Foundation had a right to be heard.  Afterwards, the Court denied the Developer’s motion to dismiss. 

Second, while the Foundation will continue to advocate its position, it does not have the resources of the Developer or the City.  The Foundation is a not-for-profit organization; its members and donors are largely Lake Forest residents, who share the Foundation’s vision to preserve the historic visual character of Lake Forest.  The Foundation is grateful for their generous contributions to support this vision, but it simply does not have the resources to fund contentious litigation.  In this instance, the Foundation has been able to participate in the litigation, because, as reported at its annual meetings, its counsel has been providing legal services on a pro bono basis. This means that no donor money has been used to pay legal fees. 

Members and donors can be confident that the Foundation will continue to advocate responsibly for the preservation of the historic visual character of Lake Forest and will resist any efforts to undermine this vision.