June 2015 - Parks & Recreation - 32

L AW R E V I E W

standing existed for FOTP to pursue
a lawsuit in federal court, because
FOTP had indeed " identified a concrete injury; i.e., the lands held in the
public trust are imminently in danger of being altered by the actions "
of CPD. Moreover, the court found
" this injury can be redressed by a fa-

any meaning or vitality at all, the members of the public, at least taxpayers who
are the beneficiaries of that trust, must
have the right and standing to enforce it.
To tell them that they must wait upon
governmental action is often an effectual
denial of the right for all time.
The federal district court then con-

" If the 'public trust' doctrine is to have any meaning
or vitality at all, the members of the public, at least
taxpayers who are the beneficiaries of that trust,
must have the right and standing to enforce it. "
vorable court decision. "
In so doing, the court cited earlier
legal precedent to provide standing to
local taxpayers who had " sued to prevent the implementation of plans to
construct facilities on public parks, "
because these citizens are " beneficiaries of lands held in the public trust: "
If the " public trust " doctrine is to have

30	 Parks & Recreation

sidered whether the claims in the
FOTP lawsuit were " ripe for adjudication. " As noted by the court, in determining whether a case is ripe, courts
will consider: (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the
hardship to the parties of withholding
court consideration. In this particular
instance, the court found claims based

| J U N E 2 0 1 5 | W W W. N R PA . O R G

on " transfer of control of public trust
land to a private entity " were certainly
fit for a judicial decision. The alleged
hardship to FOTP was more than
mere conjecture and speculation.
Here, the Park District has signed
an agreement, the MOU, with the
LMNA regarding the terms of the construction of the museum. Although
defendants argue that the museum
will need additional approvals before
it is constructed, the MOU makes
clear that the Park District has already
committed to transferring control of
public parkland to the LMNA.
As a result, the federal district court
denied CPD's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on the basis of legal standing
and ripeness.
Public Trust Claim
In its complaint, FOTP alleged CPD
had " engaged in a breach of trust "
against FOTP and other members of
the public with respect to the subject
property. The federal district court,
under the public trust doctrine, cited that " the state holds title to submerged land, as is involved here, in
trust for the people, and in general,
the governmental powers over these
lands will not be relinquished. "
Under the public trust doctrine, the
state cannot abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested so as to leave them entirely under
the use and control of private parties.
State control over public lands cannot
be relinquished except as to such parcels
as are used in promoting the interests of
the public therein, or can be disposed of
without any substantial impairment of
the public interest in the lands and waters
remaining. (Emphasis of the court.)
As characterized by the federal district court, this case illustrated " the
classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve
June 2015 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2015 - Parks & Recreation
