'Backroom Deal' Led To Illegal Vote To Rezone Ryan Field In Evanston, Lawsuit Alleges

EVANSTON, IL — Opponents of Northwestern University's ambition to use its football stadium as the state's fifth-largest concert venue on Thursday asked a Cook County judge to throw a flag on the field.

Ten days after a narrowly divided City Council approved the university's request to rezone Ryan Field to permit six concerts a year, a group of Evanston and Wilmette residents and a local nonprofit filed a lawsuit against the city seeking a court order blocking it from taking effect.

Residents allege city officials acted unlawfully, ignoring the principles of zoning to give Northwestern a special advantage in its efforts to commercialize its stadium, despite evidence of its expected negative effects.

"Members of the Council who voted in favor of the zoning amendment and memorandum of understanding ignored this evidence. They also ignored applicable laws and rules," according to the suit. "Instead, the proceedings revealed that Mayor Biss and certain councilmembers cut a backroom deal in which they agreed to disregard applicable laws and evidence in exchange for monetary contributions from Northwestern."

According to the four-count suit, the City Council's approval of the zoning changes Northwestern wanted was "arbitrary and capricious" and violated the residents' due process rights.

---

The suit also alleges that the Nov. 20 vote itself was invalid because city ordinances and state law requires a supermajority of six affirmative votes in the council.

In the most contentious matters, the nine councilmembers were split 4-4, with one abstention, before Mayor Daniel Biss stepped in to cast tie-breaking votes.

Filed on behalf of the Most Livable City Association and 13 people who live within 500 feet of the stadium by Chicago attorney John Shapiro, the 56-page complaint alleges Evanston's zoning code and the Illinois Municipal Code both required it to pass with a minimum of six votes.

In an argument rejected by attorneys for the city prior to the vote, one count of the residents' suit suggests that the City Code's requirement for a majority of the council meant six, since it defines the City Council as mayor and nine councilmembers.

Another count contends that the rezoning of the stadium was a "map amendment" rather than a "text amendment" — terms that the City Code leaves undefined.

But the residents' complaint points to the fact the rezoning would affect just one property, fundamentally changing it to become a new mixed-use district combining use for college sports with use as a "commercial performance entertainment venue," and so it should be treated as a map amendment.

And because a sufficient number of property owners within 500 feet of the area filed a written protest against the zoning change, the code requires approval by "three-fourths (3/4) of all the Aldermen elected to the City Council," according to the suit.

In September, about 55 percent of the owners of the nearly 300 properties located within the relevant radius objected to the plan, well over the 30 percent that triggers the three-quarter requirement.

Separately from the question whether the zoning change was a map or text amendment, state law includes a provision calling for "any proposed amendment of the regulations or districts" formally opposed by at least 20 percent of the owners of frontage properties to require a two-thirds vote by municipal authorities to be approved.

"Our elected officials failed to follow the law and that’s why we’re bringing this suit,” De Carlo said in a statement after the lawsuit's filing . “The law exists to protect us all, and it has to be applied impartially — with no exceptions for billionaires or powerful institutions.”

---

In support of its suggestion that Northwestern's stadium scheme slipped through the City Council as the result of a "backroom deal," the lawsuit provides the most detailed account yet of how the city officials negotiated the terms of the zoning change with Northwestern representatives.

As part of those negotiations, Biss asked each councilmember to determine what it would take to get them to consider Northwestern's concert proposal and then transmitted that back to university leaders, the suit alleges, citing one of the councilmembers who voted in favor of the zoning change.

Because Biss put the item on the agenda as a special order of business, it did not go through the City Council's committee process.

"Bypassing the Planning and Development Committee accelerated Northwestern’s requested zoning amendment," it said. "It put the amendment on the fastest possible track for City Council final action on November 13, 2023 — five days before Northwestern’s final home football game of the season, thereby satisfying Northwestern’s stated desire to begin demolition of the existing stadium immediately thereafter."

The complaint also references the tax changes that were included on the agenda at the Oct. 30 special City Council meeting, which would only have applied if Northwestern's zoning request was granted.

"On information and belief, Biss’ addition of his last-minute proposed tax increases to the special City Council meeting agenda was an effort to: 1) cement approval for the Northwestern zoning amendment because approving the increases aimed at Northwestern would generate more tax revenue to the City from concerts and alcohol sales at the new stadium," it alleges, "and 2) soften popular outrage at Biss’ ultimate vote in favor of Northwestern’s zoning amendment"

Citing court precedent regarding the rights of property owners, the suit references the practice of "contract zoning," which courts have suggested be consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan, as well as existing and permitted uses.

"By ignoring evidence of the adverse impacts of the proposed rezoning on nearby residents and trading a zoning change for monetary benefits promised by Northwestern that were unrelated to its proposed demolition and rebuild of its stadium, the City engaged in improper contract zoning," it alleges.

"Even apart from the City’s improper conduct of contract zoning, the City acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to consider in good faith the voluminous evidence of the harm that would be done to residents and by adhering to a predetermined outcome granting a zoning change to operate a performance entertainment venue."

The plaintiffs in the suit seek a declaratory judgment that the ordinance rezoning Ryan Field is invalid, an injunction stopping city officials from enforcing it, and an order awarding them their legal fees.

Patch requested comment about the allegations in the lawsuit from Biss. Any information received will be added here.

Earlier:

• Ryan Field Concert Plan Gets Final Evanston City Council Approval
• Final Vote On Ryan Field Concerts Pushed To Special Meeting
• Evanston City Council Set For Final Ryan Field Concert Rezoning Vote
• Mayor Daniel Biss Casts Deciding Vote In Favor Of Ryan Field Concerts
• Deny Request For Ryan Field Concerts, Land Use Commission Recommends