Developer seeks $99.8 million
LAKE GENEVA — Illinois developer Robert Hummel has filed a claim seeking more than $99.8 million from the city, saying he was unfairly "singled out" when the city put a "unique moratorium" on development of the 718 acres he owns on the city's south side.
Hummel in mid-August proposed a plan to build 1,207 residential units on the property, including 623 single-family homes, 300 multi-family homes, 184 attached single-family homes and 100 townhouses.
But the plan commission in mid-September declined to consider the plan because the city is working on updating its comprehensive plan, which will dictate future development within the city when the plan is completed in 2010.
City Clerk Diana Dykstra said the claim, served to the city Jan. 14, has been sent to the city's insurance company for review.
City Attorney Dan Draper was not available for comment on the city's response to the claim, but he previously told The Janesville Gazette that if the city was to deny the claim, Hummel would have six months to file a lawsuit.
Hummel, who is half of the former group that proposed the Mirbeau-Hummel development, is seeking:
-- $21.1 million for the loss of the residential and commercial value of the property.
-- $68.25 million for the loss of development profits.
-- $5.5 million for the loss of profit the developer would have realized from his contract with Mirbeau of Geneva Lake for its purchase of a portion of the property.
-- $700,000 for out-of-pocket expenses.
-- $1.25 million for additional interest expenses.
-- $3 million for general damages, specific damages and consequential damages.
This isn't the first claim for millions of dollars the city has received.
Mirbeau of Geneva Lake in July filed a lawsuit against the city seeking $29 million in damages alleging the city "acted maliciously" toward Mirbeau and deprived Mirbeau of its rights by asking voters whether the city should approve the rezone request and general development plan.
That lawsuit still is pending in Walworth County Court.
Jan 23, 2009 at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
turtlecreekguy - I am not in total disagreeement with you, however, best use applies when there is zero reliance on public dollars.
*
Today, nearly every developement is reliant on infrastructure being brought to site, or TIF monies, etc.
*
But I would be interested in seeing links to your court examples, because your position would hold in metro Chicago, or even here in SE WI, but in a fairly rural area like Walworth, and Lake Geneva, you may be hard pressed to find best use case history.
Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Given the condition of the economy one has to wonder whether this development would ever have become a reality. There are many of these grandiose developments which have not seen the light of day in the recent past.
Jan 23, 2009 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Not so sure about that, LongTimeGone. Wisconsin law holds that a property owner has the right to realize "best use" for his property and if the proposed development doesn't stray too far from established zoning and land use of the surrounding area, the local jurisdiction can be held liable for denying the property owner "best use".
.
There are plenty of examples of courts ruling in favor of the property owner in these disputes.
Jan 23, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
The plaintiffs are simply strategizing and positioning for a settlement, paid from the tax base. Don't do it.
*
Courts routinely rule in favor of municipalities' right to zone their territory - regardless of the rube factor of local elected officials, or the merit of the development.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.