Bibliographic Details

The Lucas Museum & the public trust doctrine / Cassandra Francis, commentary by Richard Epstein.

Author / Creator Francis, Cassandra, author.
Imprint [Chicago, Illinois] : University of Chicago Law School, May 11, 2015.
Description 1 online file (1 audio file) (1 hr., 1 mins.,11 secs.) : digital, stereo, MP3
Language English
Subject City planning and redevelopment law -- Law and legislation -- Illinois -- Chicago.
Lakeshore development -- Law and legislation -- Illinois -- Chicago.
Lakeshore development -- Law and legislation.
Illinois -- Chicago.
Format Spoken word recording, Audio, E-Resource, Streaming Audio
URL for this record
Varying Form of Title Portion of title Lucas Museum and the public trust doctrine
Other authors / contributors Epstein, Richard Allen, 1943- speaker.
University of Chicago. Law School, host institution.
Law of the Land (University of Chicago. Law School), sponsor.
Computer file characteristics MP3
Sound characteristics digital stereo
Notes Presented by Law of the Land.
Recorded May 11, 2015, posted May 15, 2015.
Summary Cassandra Francis discusses the position Friends of the Parks has taken regarding two recent instances of proposed development on Chicago's lake front and how the Lakefront Protection Ordinance applies to these projects. The George Lucas Museum of Narrative Art's proposed building site is along the Chicago lakefront, near Soldier Field and east of Lake Shore Drive. Francis shows how the museum intrudes on public land that is frequently heavily used, and explains how the ordinance has been used in the past and how that use affects current proposals. Richard Epstein holds that the public trust doctrine does not prohibit all development, but that the development can be made if clear compensation is made. In the case of Soldier Field, an earlier lakefront development project, the compensation was not received, a landmark building was ruined and the decision should have been the opposite of what it was. He holds no strong opinion on the Lucas museum proposal, although the proposed alternate site at Michael Reese hospital has to be taken into account. The appropriate action is to argue the case on the net benefit to the city, not necessarily in cash.