A Comeuppance for Obama’s Presidential Center

 

When Barack Obama was President of the United States, he eagerly used his “pen and phone” to achieve his grand environmental objective of locking up public lands to keep them from private use. In January 2017, he used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate 1.3 million acres of land in Utah as a National Monument. The month before he mounted an all-out resistance to both the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline—two projects that offered more reliable delivery of oil and fewer adverse environmental effects than the railcars and trucks that they displaced.

Citizen Obama uses a different playbook now that he is embroiled in his own personal land-use controversy. The Obama Foundation is in a fierce struggle over its proposal, now before The Chicago Parks Commission, to locate the new Obama Presidential Center (OPC) in the high-rent district of Jackson Park on the South Side of Chicago. The park is now a scenic area near Hyde Park, originally designed by the great landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. Many compelling objections to the Jackson Park location are outlined in an excellent group letter (to which I added my name) by over 200 University of Chicago professors, as well a powerful letter to the Chicago Tribune by Professor W.J.T. Mitchell, one of the leaders of the opposition, who rightly blasts the Tribune’s architectural critic Blair Kamin for his defense of an ungainly project, which is just too big for its proposed home.

Here are the salient objections. The proposed 20-acre site will have its epicenter—a massive tower that could reach 160 to 180 feet—near East 60th Street, close to both the Museum of Science and Industry as well as the University of Chicago, two major South Side institutions. The scale of the major and auxiliary buildings requires closing a six-lane north-south artery, Cornell Avenue, which winds its way through the park. As a result, the city of Chicago, which is hard-pressed for cash, will have to spend untold millions to make major alterations to expand two nearby arteries, Lake Shore Drive on the east and Stony Island Avenue on the west. Additional parking facilities will have to be built somewhere inside the park. Meanwhile, an initial OPC proposal to build a massive structure above ground was withdrawn after it was met with a chorus of boos. But Chicago’s high water table makes it an expensive proposition to build a substitute facility below grade. The tight boundaries around the complex will make it difficult to develop complementary businesses in the immediate neighborhood.

There are, as the critics point out, a number of less fancy sites on the South Side that present none of the planning tangles of the proposed OPC project. Washington Park, for example, is a larger tract of largely undeveloped space located just west of Hyde Park that could easily house the OPC, leaving it room to grow. It is also near a major expressway and has space for neighborhood businesses to develop. Similarly, South Side locations could be developed without the massive re-engineering of existing facilities. It is an open secret the Obama forces are doing what’s best for themselves by trying to locate the facility in a posh neighborhood without regard to the negative consequences on the rest of the community.

In making its demands for the new facility, the OPC notes correctly that Jackson Park is not held in “public trust” and thus is ripe for development. But beware of hidden technicalities. The public trust doctrine dates back to the famous, if Delphic, 1892 Supreme Court decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois. It provides that public trust lands, like Lake Michigan and its adjoining beach, cannot be sold or given away by the state. This restrictive principle is in practice quite perverse, insofar as it blocks perfectly sensible transactions between the state and private parties that work to the mutual benefit of both sides. The correct approach, therefore, should scrutinize the transaction to ensure that the state receives cash and in-kind benefits that exceed the value of the property it surrenders. (The private party, like the Obama Foundation, can take care of its own interest.) The just compensation requirement operates in the same way as in ordinary takings cases, only in reverse, because the government is disposing of the land and not acquiring it. First, it preserves fairness by making sure that both sides come out ahead. Second, it imposes a price constraint on the private party to incentivize it not to take deals that make no sense in the first place. The OPC is not exempt from these rules because of its lofty ambitions.

Since Jackson Park is not held in public trust, Chicago can make a deal with any private party. But that added freedom does not remove from it the obligation to receive a fair value for what it transfers—including valuable building rights on public lands. Some years ago, I described this public trust doctrine as the inverse of the takings clause: “nor shall public property be given to private use, without just compensation,” in order to make sure there is no sweetheart deal in either direction.

There is no way that this Jackson Park transaction passes that fair-value test. Chicago receives no direct compensation in cash or kind from the transaction. Instead, it suffers three kinds of losses. The first is the financial obligation to retrofit the park to accommodate this oversized project. The second is the loss of amenities in Jackson Park and its surroundings. The third is the long-term inconvenience and delay to the many commuters and visitors who today use the park’s roads and other facilities. The deal would fall apart if the Obama team were required to compensate the City for these losses. Yet the balance is far different with virtually all the other sites on the South Side, like Washington Park. There, the new center could act as a magnet that would increase the value of nearby parcels of land, which would benefit greatly from the increased commercial and tourist traffic generated by the project. And the close access to Chicago’s expressway system would reduce the cost and inconvenience of reconfiguring city streets.

The above analysis offers a clear blueprint by which to evaluate the transfer of public lands to private parties. Unfortunately, the relatively clear tests for major land use decisions have been aggravated by the so-called “exaction problem.” The current system of public deliberation rightly allows community members to articulate the pros and cons of the proposed transfer so that the Park Commission has all the relevant information to make an informed decision about the Obama Foundation proposal. That is no easy task when so many of the values at stake are intangible in nature. But it is perfectly commonplace, indeed virtually obligatory, for today’s interest groups to do more than state their preferences and make suggestions about project implementation. The deliberative process also allows them to demand that some portion of the supposed gain from the project be directed their way. These demands are backed by the threat to try to block the project.

The instrument of choice to extract these benefits is the community benefits agreement (CBA), which is a contract between a developer and representative community organizations that set out binding obligations that the developer owes the community. When negotiating a CBA, community representatives typically try to obtain some collateral benefits for the community that, unlike safeguards against pollution and congestion, lie outside the scope of the project. These agreements are notoriously difficult to negotiate because it is never clear which groups represent the community and what benefits they should be able to extract from the project. With the OPC, some of the groups demanding the CBA are organized along racial lines. The Obama Library South Side Community Benefits Agreement Coalition has presented the OPC with an expensive list of demands, such as setting aside certain OPC jobs for black workers, creating affordable housing elsewhere on the South Side, and offering subsidies for various black-owned business. This triggered a set of demands from a group led by the Hispanic American Construction Industry Association, who claim that they were not adequately consulted during the formation of the project, which accordingly denied them their proper share of the local goodies.

So far, the Obama Foundation has played hardball, refusing to sign any such agreement, knowing of course that formally assuming these duties will drive up the cost of the project and raise concerns from present and future donors that their gifts are being diverted to purposes they do not share. The ironies here are clear. The Obama Foundation is using techniques against the community that the Obama administration would never have tolerated by other well-heeled groups. At the same time, the OPC may well be done in by the exact type of CBAs that the administration routinely accepted. Given the location and expense of the OPC, let us hope that the Parks Commission will slap down the grandiose plan.

© 2018 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Could Trump use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate Jackson Park a National Monument and block development of Mordor Tower on the grounds it violates the character of the area? It would be a fitting way to stop it.

    • #1
  2. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Well at least it doesn’t look like the Clinton Double Wide Trailer Home Massage Parlor…

    • #2
  3. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Seawriter (View Comment):
    Could Trump use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate Jackson Park a National Monument and block development of Mordor Tower on the grounds it violates the character of the area? It would be a fitting way to stop it.

    He could use his phone and his pen.

    • #3
  4. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Time for Environmental Impact Statement studies to begin. This should take at least another five years. The stakeholders need to comment.

    • #4
  5. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Richard Epstein: The park is now a scenic area near Hyde Park, originally designed by the great landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.

    This alone should be the end of his idea.

    Good grief.

    Some things are irreplaceable, and this is one of them.

    Environmentalists and city planners should always make this the ultimate issue in their decision-making: Is this change irrevocable?

    • #5
  6. KentForrester Moderator
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Hoist by his own petard.

    I’ve been waiting ever since I joined Ricochet to use that expression.  Thanks, Mr. Epstein.

    Kent

    • #6
  7. John Stanley Coolidge
    John Stanley
    @JohnStanley

    As I understand, this is not the holding place for written documents and other research materials, but is more a conference center.

    • #7
  8. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Obama was a vigorous defender of ANWAR.  Put his stupid library there.  Or maybe his BFF’s in Iran will provide a stretch of desert.

    • #8
  9. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    John Stanley (View Comment):
    As I understand, this is not the holding place for written documents and other research materials, but is more a conference center.

    It’s not at all clear what the exact function of this Center will be, nor what activities will take place there, much less how the City of Chicago will benefit from it.  If prior behaviour is any indicator, it seems likely that the primary activity will be fund raising for the benefit of the Obamas and their entourage. The Clintons have certainly laid the blue print for that structure. I’m perplexed that the old,Chicago pals,think there will be any spillover for them. Call me cynical but I don’t think the Obamas plan to share.

    • #9
  10. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Isn’t there a suitable landfill somewhere?

    • #10
  11. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    So Obama wants to build an obelisk to honor himself, the neighborhood be damned.

    It figures.

    • #11
  12. barbara lydick Inactive
    barbara lydick
    @barbaralydick

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    Hoist by his own petard.

    Sweet, ain’t it.

    • #12
  13. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    cdor (View Comment):
    So Obama wants to build an obelisk to honor himself, the neighborhood be damned.

    It figures.

    It’s either an obelisk, or a giant representation of Obama’s favorite word – “I”

    • #13
  14. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    Hoist by his own petard.

    I’ve been waiting ever since I joined Ricochet to use that expression. Thanks, Mr. Epstein.

    Kent

    You may not know it, but we have an @owenpetard as a member.

    • #14
  15. Jules PA Member
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Richard Epstein: The ironies here are clear. The Obama Foundation is using techniques against the community that the Obama administration would never have tolerated by other well-heeled groups.

    Surprise, surprise…

    • #15
  16. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    Richard Epstein:But it is perfectly commonplace, indeed virtually obligatory, for today’s interest groups to do more than state their preferences and make suggestions about project implementation. The deliberative process also allows them to demand that some portion of the supposed gain from the project be directed their way. These demands are backed by the threat to try to block the project.

    The instrument of choice to extract these benefits is the community benefits agreement (CBA), which is a contract between a developer and representative community organizations that set out binding obligations that the developer owes the community. When negotiating a CBA, community representatives typically try to obtain some collateral benefits for the community that, unlike safeguards against pollution and congestion, lie outside the scope of the project. These agreements are notoriously difficult to negotiate because it is never clear which groups represent the community and what benefits they should be able to extract from the project. With the OPC, some of the groups demanding the CBA are organized along racial lines. The Obama Library South Side Community Benefits Agreement Coalition has presented the OPC with an expensive list of demands, such as setting aside certain OPC jobs for black workers, creating affordable housing elsewhere on the South Side, and offering subsidies for various black-owned business. This triggered a set of demands from a group led by the Hispanic American Construction Industry Association, who claim that they were not adequately consulted during the formation of the project, which accordingly denied them their proper share of the local goodies.

    So far, the Obama Foundation has played hardball, refusing to sign any such agreement, knowing of course that formally assuming these duties will drive up the cost of the project and raise concerns from present and future donors that their gifts are being diverted to purposes they do not share. The ironies here are clear. The Obama Foundation is using techniques against the community that the Obama administration would never have tolerated by other well-heeled groups. At the same time, the OPC may well be done in by the exact type of CBAs that the administration routinely accepted.

    A great battle of the Chicago Community Organizers!

    May they all loose!

    It was delicious reading this insightful analysis by Prof. Epstein, who literally wrote the book on ‘takings.’

    • #16
  17. Dan Hanson Thatcher
    Dan Hanson
    @DanHanson

    All I want to know is,  who ordered takeout?

    Is that the building, or the bag it came in?

    Thank you, I’ll be here all night.

    • #17

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.