A federal judge on Thursday denied the city of Chicago's motion to dismiss a park preservation group's lawsuit aimed at blocking the proposed Lucas Museum, dealing a blow to the project and the goal of breaking ground along the lakefront this spring.
U.S. District Judge John Darrah ruled Friends of the Parks makes a case that the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art would not benefit the public, and that the project may violate the state's public trust doctrine.
Darrah said Friends of the Parks had plausibly argued that the proposed museum would "impair public interest in the land ... and promote private and/or commercial interests," and he cited case law that says courts "must be skeptical with claims of public benefit."
The ruling cast doubt on plans to begin construction on the project sometime this spring. Construction cannot begin until the court case has been settled.
Friends of the Parks contends the land selected for the museum site between Soldier Field and McCormick Place is held in the public trust because it is formerly part of Lake Michigan, and that the land should be protected and preserved for the state's residents.
"We're thrilled that the judge has upheld what we've been saying all along, that our case does have merit," said Juanita Irizarry, executive director of Friends of the Parks.
"Star Wars" creator George Lucas wants to house his collection of artwork and showcase exhibits and films at the futuristic-looking building. The museum has the approval of the Chicago City Council, the Plan Commission and the Chicago Park District, which has entered an agreement to lease the land near Lake Michigan at a cost of $10 for 99 years.
The 300,000-square-foot museum will be privately funded and is slated to be built on 17 acres of lakefront property. The project is expected to cost more than $300 million.
The judge also ruled that "plaintiffs sufficiently plead that the ground lease effectively surrenders control of the museum site and places the public land 'entirely beyond the direction and control of the state.'"
The museum, designed to include several theaters, a library and an observation deck, will charge an admission fee but also will have several free areas. The plan also calls for nearly 4.6 acres of parkland and improvements at the site.
Friends of the Parks' attorneys say the terms of the lease, which include a two-time option to renew, essentially mean the Park District is handing over the property to the nonprofit organization that will run the museum. The parks group also argued that a state law passed last year targeting museums on formerly submerged land should not serve as a green light for the project, and Darrah agreed they made a viable claim on that point.
"We're pleased the case is going forward," Friends of the Parks attorney Tom Geoghegan said. "I think this is an excellent opportunity for the mayor to reconsider the location for this project."
A lawyer and spokesman for the city's Law Department said they were reviewing the judge's ruling. The Park District issued a statement that said the museum "is an unparalleled investment in the City's museum campus and our cultural and educational offerings, not to mention an incredible addition of green space to Chicago's lakefront."
Geoghegan said the group is not opposed to the concept of the Lucas Museum, or its presence in Chicago — simply the selected location.
"Let's use the lakefront for what it is meant for," he said. "We don't think this building is appropriate on the lakefront."
Geoghegan has said previously he wants to depose Park District officials as part of the legal discovery process to shed more light on how the city came to an agreement with the Lucas camp on the lakefront site. The judge's ruling kicks off a new phase in the case, creating the potential for those depositions to take place.
Lawyers for the city and the Park District argue that the lease is not a transfer of public property and that the museum will have substantial public benefits. They argue that the museum will be an upgrade over what is now a parking lot primarily used for Bears games, and the grounds near the museum will be enjoyed by city residents and visitors.
Friends of the Parks also questions the plans for parking near the proposed museum, arguing "it is very unlikely and certainly not guaranteed" that Lucas' pledge of $40 million for a parking garage near the site and a possible pedestrian bridge over Lake Shore Drive would cover the costs of the projects, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
At Friends of the Parks' annual meeting luncheon at the Chicago Cultural Center, group members and supporters celebrated the judge's decision.
"We are still in it!" Irizarry told the gathering.
Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, who voted against the Lucas Museum and was among nine aldermen honored at the luncheon, said he and several others opposed to the location also are considering whether to file a friends of the court brief in the lawsuit. They also are thinking about pursuing a remedy in state court, where they would argue the project would obstruct a free, open and clear lakefront and would not bring sufficient economic development to the city.
Waguespack said there are other sites more suitable for the Lucas Museum, including the former Michael Reese hospital site or University of Illinois at Chicago property that was under consideration as a possible site for the Obama library. He also worried about who would be left paying for proposed parking facilities near the museum.
Friends of the Parks sued to block the museum in November 2014, after Lucas and the city announced plans for the lakefront project.
A status hearing has been scheduled in the lawsuit for Feb. 17.
Twitter @pmocwriter