The settlement of the lawsuit over the Northeast Evanston Historic District demonstrates the one theme that has run through the entire conflict: It’s all about politics.
Although the lawsuit was nominally grounded in issues of historic preservation and land use, it was town-gown politics that dominated from the lawsuit’s beginning to its end this week.
Representatives from both Evanston and NU resolved the legal dispute by creating a settlement that was unanimously approved by the Evanston City Council on Tuesday. The agreement to end the conflict, which began when NU filed suit in November 2000, includes a one-time $700,000 payment by NU in exchange for the removal of 14 NU properties from the historic district. Inclusion in the district prevents property owners from making some changes without city approval. According to the settlement, NU also received exemption from a binding appearance review.
Inherent in this settlement are issues of power and money. Any change to come from the settlement would have to resolve those two issues, and that might prove difficult.
At the core of the historic-district conflict is power: both the city’s right to exercise it and the university’s right to be free from that exercise. In responding to the lawsuit, the city claimed the enactment of the district was within its right as a local government to preserve the character of its neighborhoods. But NU claimed the city was overstepping its bounds and using its authority vindictively because NU does not pay property taxes.
The question of which side is correct in that debate would have been for a judge to decide, had the case gone to trial. But without that resolution, it is still difficult to argue that the desire for power over NU had no effect on the City Council’s decision. In May 2000, when the council created the district, Ald. Arthur Newman (1st) explained his support from move.
“If this ordinance prevents Northwestern from purchasing one more house west of Sheridan Road,” he was quoted in The Daily as saying, “then it’s a victory for the tax rolls and a victory for the city.”
Now that the lawsuit is resolved, NU has freed itself from some of the city’s control — for 14 of the 56 buildings previously included in the historic district. NU also is ensured that binding appearance, which would allow the city to make final decisions on how buildings can look, will never apply to the university.
‘Reignite the conversation’
It was a settlement that almost was reached before in September — without the monetary contribution — but the council voted down the agreement. Eugene Sunshine, NU’s senior vice president for business and finance, said the university resumed negotiations toward a settlement even after referring to city leaders as acting in “bad faith.”
“We felt it was important enough to try and reignite the conversation,” Sunshine said. “We signaled throughout that we wanted to work this out.”
The only difference between the rejected settlement and the current arrangement is the money. Evanston denies that money had anything to do with the enactment of the district, and barring any ruling by the judge, there is no proof of the connection. But money was in the background throughout the process.
When the district was created, it was not the only contentious issue between the city and university. In March 2000, as the district was being debated, a resident group known as the Fair Share Action Committee brought a nonbinding referendum to the ballot, where it was overwhelmingly approved. The effort called for city officials to work with NU to negotiate contributions from the city.
Evanston is frequently steeped in budget problems. Issues aside from Fair Share, such as previously rejected taxes on employees and tuition, were attempts to solicit money. Because NU is the city’s largest property owner but does not pay taxes on that land, some have said the university creates a burden on the city that has resulted in a high cost of living for residents.
The fact that it took a large financial contribution from NU to sweeten the deal indicates money is an important factor of contention. And with Sunshine saying there is a possibility down the road that NU might make another one-time contribution in return for tangible action, money will continue to be significant.
Without a doubt aldermen and NU administrators must work through many difficulties. Even the $700,000 is a problem — the university wanted it to go toward improving lighting off campus, but the city says it has no such plans. Current issues, such as a proposed gas tax that city officials believe will cost NU an additional $200,000 per year, exacerbate the friction between the two parties.
‘The culture of this fight’
But with the resolution of one serious strain, the lawsuit, officials on both sides of the issue are saying it is a good time to at least look at the nature of the relationship.
As part of the settlement, the two sides also will initiate a special task force to resolve land-use issues before they spin out of control. Both Sunshine and aldermen indicated it will provide at least the opportunity to take steps forward.
“How significant (the settlement) is depends on what we do from now on,” said Ald. Gene Feldman (9th). “We have to change the culture of this fight with each other.”
To do so the city will have to look at the ideas of money and power — essentially the politics between Evanston and NU. And both sides recognize it will not be easy.
Newman said it would be “naive” to assume the settlement would be the dawn of a new day in town-gown relations and argued that NU’s behavior will guide the relationship.
Although Sunshine is more optimistic, he said the university still realizes there is a long way to go.
“You can’t definitively and with certainty solve an institutional problem that has existed for 150 years,” Sunshine said.
The steps toward solving that institutional conflict will come slowly, if they come at all. Both sides are coming off a positive step and have a new avenue to discuss their concerns.
But those steps do not guarantee anything — they only create the opportunity. It’s the leaders in the city and NU who must now create the solutions.
What remains to be seen is whether the two sides can find new ways to cooperate. That is, if they can play the political game together. And after more than a century of bickering, that is something they have yet to prove.
