-->
Q5: Pedway Extension
Posted February 7th, 2007 at 02:18 PM by Eric Frost
Last question posed to candidates for alderman at last week's NEAR meeting.*
What is your position on the extension of the pedway which was approved by the city council in 1969 and reapproved by the council in 1979, 1993, and 2001?
*
Ward outlined several documents including ammendments to Planned Development #70 over the years, perhaps the most important of which was the Lakeshore East development which stated that it is not responsible for connecting the pedway to the existing buildings. However, according to Ward, the previous documents are binding and require that the LSE build the pedway for the entire neighborhood.
*
Natarus stated that Chicago's Corporate Counsel does not agree with Ward's interpretation. Natarus recommended that Ward or advocates in the community get an independent legal opinion and the Natarus would himself introduce an ordinance if he can get a legal opinion agreeing with Ward's interpretation.
*
Reilly agreed with the Alderman about wanting a legal opinion. He went on that it happens all too often that a developer is allowed to change language. He said that in meetings the the Alderman is responsible for advocating for the average citizen. Reilly said that he is willing to work with the neighborhood to explore some possibilities and believes that Corporate Counsel should produce an opinion.
What is your position on the extension of the pedway which was approved by the city council in 1969 and reapproved by the council in 1979, 1993, and 2001?
*
Ward outlined several documents including ammendments to Planned Development #70 over the years, perhaps the most important of which was the Lakeshore East development which stated that it is not responsible for connecting the pedway to the existing buildings. However, according to Ward, the previous documents are binding and require that the LSE build the pedway for the entire neighborhood.
*
Natarus stated that Chicago's Corporate Counsel does not agree with Ward's interpretation. Natarus recommended that Ward or advocates in the community get an independent legal opinion and the Natarus would himself introduce an ordinance if he can get a legal opinion agreeing with Ward's interpretation.
*
Reilly agreed with the Alderman about wanting a legal opinion. He went on that it happens all too often that a developer is allowed to change language. He said that in meetings the the Alderman is responsible for advocating for the average citizen. Reilly said that he is willing to work with the neighborhood to explore some possibilities and believes that Corporate Counsel should produce an opinion.
