1976 May - September

These documents show how the U2 zoning ordinance was formulated and debated by the City and NU.

Northwestern Statement of Facts May 6, 1976

On May 6, 1976, NU submitted the following Statement Of Facts to the Zoning Amendment Committee. The statement clearly shows NU's disregard toward the impact of its athletic facilities on the neighborhood

Salient passages from the Statement of Facts

Northwestern University, a not-for-profit educational institution located within the City of Evanston submits this statement of facts to support its contention that it is being unfairly, improperly and unconstitutionally restricted by the City zoning ordinance in the use of its property at 1501 Central Street, which includes Dyche Stadium and McGaw Hall.

...

For a number of years, there has been a continuing controversy with respect to the utilization of these facilities. The subject has come before the courts on six occasions, before the Zoning Board of Appeals on at least two occasions, and before the Evanston Zoning Amendment Committee on still two other occasions... The zoning ordinance ... enacted in 1971... [re.] permitted uses in U2 Districts...:

....not including the use of any building stadium or other facility for professional athletic, sports or games, or other commercial purposes.

...

The impact of the Evanston zoning ordinance has been to prevent Northwestern University from utilizing its property for the uses, similar to existing uses, for which it is unquestionably suited. As a result of the ordinance and its enforcement, however, Northwestern has been forced to cancel negotiations with promoters of Virginia Slims tennis tournament, which was to be held at McGaw hall in February, 1975, has had an exhibition basketball game between the Chicago Bulls and Milwaukee Bucks at McGaw Hall on October 18, 1975 cancelled, has been prevented from hosting a professional soccer game involving the Chicago Sting Soccer Club at Dyche Stadium on June 13, 1976, and has been prevented from negotiating with other professional sports clubs, including the Chicago Bears football team and others.

The result of this restriction has been unreasonably to deprive Northwestern University of the ability to make a reasonable rate of return on its property, and thus to cause the University to suffer an unconscionable hardship.

...

Northwestern recognizes that increased frequency of use of its facilities will create some additional burden on the adjoining community. Nevertheless, it believes firmly that the fears of its neighbors as to the impact of these burdens are exaggerated, and that in any event, such burdens are easily outweighed by the immense burdens on Northwestern in having potentially revenue-producing facilities remain vacant well over 350 days a year and earning an unreasonably low rate of return...

Below: May 6, 1976 ZAC Public Hearing minutes

Below: pp. 10-12 of the previous document.

Mr. Brace (NU counsel) responds to questions by O'Brien (ZAC member) re. number of events that NU could host in the U2 if its ordinance proposal were passed.

Below: ZAC Public Hearing minutes, July 1, 1976

Excerpts (pp. 6-8) from ZAC Report on the Public hearing, July 1, 1976

Speakers in these pages: ZAC members Patrick O’Brien and Betty L. Harper; and NU lawyer Mr. Brace.

O’Brien: A question is just tumbling out of me and i just have to ask it. Mr. Brace, should I have the right to have a circus in my backyard?

Brace: Do you have a field house in your backyard?

O’Brien: No, I’ve got a garage apartment, swimming pool, should I be able to have a swimming extravaganza back there for profit?

Brace: Well—

O’Brien: And why, it would not—my reason for having such an extravaganza in my backyard, in order to aid me in paying my tax bills. Why isn’t that almost the same argument that you’re making in behalf of Northwestern? Of which I’m an alumni let everybody understand that.

Brace: It’s not the same argument I’m making in behalf of Northwestern.

O’Brien: Why?

Brace: Well, it’s—I mean, I’ll give you an example—

O’Brien: ‘Cause you’re saying, we’ve got property and we have the right to use our property as we see fit to use our property. And my god, that thing went out of date about 1880, I think.

Harper: Well, certainly 1920. Enclid V. Ambler.

Brace: Well, let’s look at it –I mean, if your position is that there’s no limit on the power of Evanston to regulate the use of property, then I have a difference that a court will have to decide. My position is that there is a limit on the power of Evanston to regulate the use of property and that limit – that constitutional limit had been exceed in the case of the ordinance which presently exists.

O’Brien: please draw a contrast between me, as a private property owner and Northwestern University. Why can I not have a circus in my back yard?

Brace: Because you don’t have—

O’Brien: Northwestern wants to have circuses in its back yard. It’s a bigger back yard, granted.

Brace: And you don’t have a multi-million dollar facility, including the stadium and the field house and so forth, in your back yard.

O’Brien: I have a very expensive operation going, but it’s not like...

Brace: I’m sure it is, but – I can give you an example, I really don’t want....

O’Brien: No, give me a legal reason, no come on. You know better, give me a legal – what’s the difference? Why can’t Paul Boyer [ZBA member] have a circus in his back yard for fund raising to aid in his taxes? He’s got a financial problem, I’ve got a financial problem, we all do. And what you’re really telling us is that this institution, which is a person, like I’m a person, a legal person, of this legal person has a financial problem and it wants to use its private property, my property is my private property, as it sees fit. Why is it distinguished from anybody else? That’s what I find is mind boggling.

Brace: ..... Now, what you want to do, and you people have even written or drafted ordinances to that effect, you want us to come to you every time we propose to use that property and let the City Manager decide on an ad hoc basis, whether it is going to be permitted or not. And the basis – his standard in applying to that, is whether it’s good for the City of Evanston as a whole. Basically, the City of Evanston, by its zoning ordinance has taken that property and is controlling it as if it owned it. They say, Northwestern University, if you want to use it yourself that’s fine. Pat O’Brien, if you want to live in your own house, have a party, have a swimming-- --

O’Brien: That’s swell.

Brace: But if you want to rent, bring the proposed tenant in, we’ll look him over and find out whether he’s going to swim more often in his swimming pool that you do and based on your judgement we’ll tell you whether you can rent that house to somebody else...and that’s unconstitutional.

O’Brien: Mr. Brace, I have had parties in my back yard, for instance for my law firm. We’ve had recruiting parties, probably trying to recruit people away from your firm, in my back yard, right, private party. But don’t you think that’s different from having a swimming party that you charge admission to, to raise money to help pay your taxes? Isn’t that what you’re saying?

Brace: No.

O’ Brien: Well, that’s—

O’Brien: You’re saying that somehow Northwestern is a person. Northwestern, we’ll just call it a person. Mr. Northwestern has a financial problem. For whatever reasons, Mr. Northwestern has a financial problem and therefore the City must accommodate Mr. Northwestern and give it privileges over its properties that no other person in the city has over its property.

Below: September 2, 1976 - ZAC Public Hearing minutes

Below: List of exhibits at September 2, 1976 (ZAC case #3: 5-6-76) and September 21, 1976 (ZBA case # 4-76-V)

(List delivered in October 20, 1976 to Mr. Young by Donald J. O'Meara)

Below: Betty Harper's letter to ZAC - September 22, 1976 ( re. zac 15:10-3-74)