a pre-home-rule version of the Des Plaines case discussed above in which the court held that the sanitary district’s taking of property pursuant to statutory power was not subject to the city’s zoning restrictions
How later courts described this case
- a pre-home-rule version of the Des Plaines case discussed above in which the court held that the sanitary district’s taking of property pursuant to statutory power was not subject to the city’s zoning restrictions
- ordinance allows special use when the proposed use is affected with the public interest
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Goldenhersh, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would affirm the judgment. The effect of this decision is to confer upon the Sanitary District plenary authority to exercise its powers of eminent domain in total disregard of the zoning ordinances of the City of Des Plaines. This bestowal of authority upon one municipal corporation superior to that of another, when, as here, the powers of each depend upon enactments of the General Assembly, appears to me to be without justification. The language quoted from Schiller Park to the effect that the courts will afford protection against abuse of the power offers little comfort, for neither in Schiller Park, nor in this opinion, does the court indicate in what manner the protection will be provided, nor the nature of the action which must be brought to obtain it.
In my view of the case these municipal corporations are equal in status, and effect should be given to their respective powers with respect to eminent domain and zoning. Concededly the Des Plaines zoning ordinance makes provision for “Special Uses” and “Variations” in proper cases, and judicial review of the host municipality’s action on an application for a requested classification would provide the protection against abuse to which the opinion refers.
Mr. Chief Justice Underwood joins in this dissent.