ok our first case today this is consolidate now it is four one five zero seven one putin four one five zero seven  to article one section two of the illinois house to show a state actor violates the constitution when it deprives a citizen of property without due process in this case notice now my co defendants counsel mr young will argue that the notice of the plaintiffs received in this case was actually sufficient for due process purposes i would like to touch very briefly on the city's argument that this is a summary judgment motion for a denial of due process it isn't a typical zoning case in that we weigh the pros and cons of a particular zoning action this was a denial of due process a deprivation of property without proper notice the case must be returned in this case because summary judgment was granted without any evidence of deprivation of property the plaintiff alleged his property value declined the defendant's ignite that allegation no evidence was raised on that issue inexplicable inexplicably summary judgment was granted without a basic element of denial of due process claim now the plaintiff has argued in his brief that it's enough to show a lack of notice that we're putting the cart before the horse because you get notice before there is a deprivation well that's the definition of due process but it's not the definition it's not what makes a cause of action for denial due process a cause of action pretty nial due process is a deprivation without the notice in this case there's no evidence of a deprivation no evidence that his property value is because line we haven't gotten that far yet it is a personal injury cases liability arise when you have breach of duty that results in an injury of course you have to have a breach of duty first but you still don't have a cause of action if there's no injury regardless of whether there was a breach of duty the same is here this is going to decrease property values well politicians all the time say what they think is going to happen if a particular bill passes or doesn't pass that's not evidence that it did happen or that it will  happen in this case there's no probative evidence and that's not even admissible if an out of court statement made by a non present actor so that that's not admissible as a summary judgment evidence here there's just no evidence that there was a deprivation summary judgment was granted too soon by without any further questions on that issue i'll turn t my name's jason young i'm here on behalf of dependent calvin jones as mr ron addressed the standing issue i'm going to address more of the fact that there was a procedural due process violation in this case we feel that summary judgment was improper in this for three reasons first the ordinance as a whole grant a reclassification the property and the conditional permit use to be used as a rehabilitation home to make those things able to be done and in compliance with the city code and city ordinances a variance had to be granted to the ball regulations to allow this property be reclassified  plaintiff complains that they didn't have notice of this requested variance and then the burials was never requested up in tell the point time when the city council member offered an oral amendment at the city council hearing is our position that no notice was necessarily needed for that specific variance he had plaintiff had sufficient notice of the requested reclassification of property and conditional  use he attended several meetings he was offered opportunity to speak at several of these meetings and offer his objections as to why this should not be done at no where in any of the pleading subsequent pleadings did the plaintiff at any point in time raising the objection to the variance other than that he had no notice that it was given he never offered any reasons why he had a problem with this is only an ordinance as a whole simply because this variance was or was it was included he simply objected to the reclassification the property in the use of the property as a rehabilitation home so our argument is that there was no procedural due process violation because he had notice of the requested stone ordinance as a as a whole to find that no notice for one small one small aspect of the zoning ordinance and invalidate the entire ordinance based on that would would seem to be an equitable violation the plaintiff throughout his briefs and the trial court in particular stated in its order that the city the city and the defense fail to comply with the political ordinances when enacting this it's in that it wasn't the request wasn't made in the initial complaint or i notice wasn't properly included in the public notice and things of that nature but those were all specific aspects of the procedure which in and of itself it is not a procedural due process violation or there be a procedural due process violation he would have to be denied meaningful notice and meaningful opportunity to object to this prior to the end to be an action and in this case he had those those those opportunities even if you look past all of notice prior to anything or prior to the amendment the amendment was made at a city council meeting he was not present that at city council meeting the ordinance was inactive however after that the organist was vetoed and it was sent back to the next city council opportunity to speak in opposition of of the order to speak and he did speak at that subsequent city council meeting and if anything he would have had a lesser burden to meet at that point time because they needed more votes to override the mayor's veto than they would have had at the initial city council meeting and that is the one where the final determination was made best correct it was if they did not override the mayor's veto the ordinance would have died it would have been over at that point but it but the over the veto and he an opportunity to speak before that vote was was made so clearly he had notice of this variance which was just a small aspect of the the property anyways and the variance was only made to make the zoning reclassification comply with the zoning ordinances of the city which is only ordinance of of opportunity to speak out his vision of this only relief i ask ation he had plenty of notice of that he had plenty of he had plenty of all of those aspects to comply with procedural due process it was just this one variation variance which he's never offered a reason why he objects that various other then he didn't get notice of it as trying to invalidate the reclassification as a whole and given that he had the opportunity to speak prior to it's an it it's the evidence we had in their briefs they argue since it's a summary judgment they argue that there is there are questions of fact regarding a chief issue and that is the the injury suffered by my client there are no questions of fact they state that there is but they've offered nothing no evidence no affidavits no pleadings nothing to raise the question back what we allays in our complaint and this is really what the court teenagers paragraph five wheel as a jones proposed to use his property for rehabilitation group homes for adult males who are impacted by drug dependency incarceration and family dysfunction admitted every one of those things and they didn't take the our make the argument that that they denied the paragraph saying that our our property was injured but they admitted all these fact and they've admitted that the mayor stated in writing that the barrier sinclair's property was going to be negatively impacted that you do just judicial admission it's there i don't have to prove it anymore once to le complaint and it's admitted by the other side i don't have to prove it so there is so they admitted those things and more importantly i think they've admitted to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those things it's not just  this admissions it's also the statements that say we were in jason property owners our property is used for business catering to teenagers they want to put a rehabilitation home for x or for  convicted felons who are out on parole those the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that happen to include that the value of our property is going to be impacted by this use we're tired of those in princes and emotion state they faced with those missions and by those allegations had an obligation to present some sort of evidence they have an obligation to raise a question of fact we all know that you cannot whatever simply refuting aryans they did not think they rested on their pleadings so the issue of whether or not my client's property suffered an impact a detrimental impact on its on had this try this case it was getting it ready for trial and i took the deposition america houston america used and said this zoe i know this town i know this town of living here forever this zoning will impact the value of this property he because in any zoning case there's always some detrimental impact on somebody that's by its very nature a city council can do the way it has the power to weigh ok this guy's property loses value there's nothing to there's nothing anywhere that says that houston statement is wrong and his statement his opinion is as good as anybody's opinion anybody's  as anybody here that's all i would have i think it carries a lot more weight because he happens to be there and he speaks on behalf of the city i think it's notable i think by your honour's train here yes the ordinance passed by the city council but the mayor signs it all ordinances are signed by the mayor the mayor is the city his position his factual positions are his mission by the city that evidence is there yes they could have refuted it they could have put on some expert who said wow this would be great but houston's statement along with the three facts that i've alleged that create the reason when prince that's a number that's faced without them putting something every case it's fact specific was the notice reasonably designed to give meaningful notice to the people who are going to be empowered did you try did you did you do enough that the average person reasonable person would say ok i know what's going on one of the things that goes into that decision is the rules that the city has i never argue a half an hour in this case that the violation of their own rules which i think everybody can see that they did they clearly violated their own rules i never argued that the violation of their own rules standing alone is a violation of due process that's not my position my position is that the violation of their own rules here is one of the things for you guys to look at to decide whether or not to notice that my client take a guy was really eason title to know with those rules are he's entitled to the presumption from course that he knows that those rules are he knows that if you want to get a variance you have to ask for so when he gets notice saying we're going to come in here and ask for a meaningful was sufficient they cite a whole bunch of cases that say that good fiction fuels in my mind the amount or level of notice with notice at all that's not what happened that's not what happens this is a veto session that's all it is now yes my client he was there there's no evidence by the way that he received notice that there was going to be any shows it is going to be a veto session that his veto was going to be discussed that's sort of like in my mind it's a motion to reconsider before a judge it's not a rehearing you don't get a chance to put on whether it's it's a motion to reconsider is there something new is there something different this was not a plenary redo it was not a chance to come in and put in all your evidence it was docket as a discussion about the judge's b t o do we have any of  now it's hard to argue what a lay person knew what was going on the only thing he argued about every city council meeting was the actual petition that had been filed ok the petition that was on file the complaint we saw him in legal terms the complaint did not ask for that remedy so his arguments were to rest addressed to that remedy did me i think you can be in if you did it certainly that you should've known at that point in time but the point i'm making here is a veto session is very different and i think if you were view the record it's obvious a veto session is very different from the original plan or a theory it's not a i put on my own as you put on your evidence it's mostly can we support can we all of them and vote and get enough votes to do what we already did to reaffirm what we already did and the vote was the same this was the first time that changed so it wasn't really a redo it was more of a political process it wasn't was tainted clearly it was a due process violation and was it corrected by the judges veto and then the rehearing i think if you look at the record you'll see that it was not it was not there was only cases have three steps there's there's a review by the professional staff the same kind of reading a play commission then there's a review by the zoning committee a committee of nine people and then there's a recommendation to the city council and every stage there is there's due process rights there's a right to be heard by the objectors in this case they violated those rules there was never a ruling by rational staff various there was never a ruling regarding her by the the committee zoning committee nine people regarding the variance so every step of the way my client has an expectation of those rules being enforced and i think that matters to the level of notice he was entitled yet if they do this landmark and condominium the best for the proposition right but the fact they didn't follow their own rules plays into that as it is a back specific decision as to whether or not the notice was sufficient did my gak what a reasonable person recognized that they issue was going to be heard that day and i think a reasonable person knows what the rules are and his entitle to rely on those rules that feeds into what he perceives this notice and if he if he knew the rules and knew that you were supposed to have these variances in your petition they're supposed to be heard by the pressure staff and by the committee then by the city and none of that stuff happened what notices he did it which i think we're going all agreeing today the only notice the gap was some some notice that made you show up at the july fifteenth here that's it that's all we have was that nowness based upon all this other stuff meaningful notice it wasn't designed to tell this guy it's from their perspective and from our perspective it's subjective wasn't reasonably designed to advise the person what was on the docket and it was based upon the totality of the service that the fact that they repeatedly violate their own rules it was clearly whatever notice the gap which may just have been aware side saying hey this biko is coming up here because there was nothing there's nothing in the record that was sent directly to my guys saying oh by the way show up and nothing that was posted on the door saying oh by the way show up the best that we have in the record is that it was set for a veto hearing at the regularly scheduled city council meeting is that enough notice is that sufficient notice based upon the  the circumstances for this guy to have a meaningful understanding of what was on the docket i would submit to you no way he doesn't know it's a veto session he doesn't have a chance to know whether or not this particular issue is on the docket and one last point house or stated that the various is a small matter it's not a small matter to huge matter both requirements are probably the most important part of the zoning though it's the thing that says very very briefly on the deprivation deprivation shoot the moving party in a motion for summary judgment has the obligation to present evidence to establish it before the responding or he needs to respond in this case the me he does allege the mayor said what he thought it would happen and we did it meant that is a traditional admission that the mayor said that it's not a judicial admission of matters asserted that's classic hearsay and there 's no exception were political statements based on the inherent trustworthiness of politicians that's not an exception to the hearsay rule there is no it miscible evidence of that decrease in property  it specific in this case it's our position that there was sufficient notice he's never complained about the variance and yes paul releases are important but if you look at the specific variance it was granted in this case it was the decrease that was the variance to allow for a smaller law to be used as a rehabilitation home had nothing to do that would affect anybody else's property other than this property basically allow them to use a smaller piece of property for rehabilitation home and to invalidate the entire sony reclassification based on this one varian i would think is not proper the variance is the ball regulations are the city's own ordinances they create those those are their own rules that they are making themselves fall the fact that they granted this variance to comply with these rules is is what landmark and how many more are also about their not complete it's not just the procedures that were done but it was these are the ordinances that we put in place for a zone these are the bulk regulations for this type of property the of other count count one which is the sufferer to due process down and addresses the passage in an ac inactive and then you know then he's like well yeah i didn't want this whole thing to go down i didn't want this property to be rezoned further i've for the use as a rehabilitation home it was only after filing claims that they realized well you know what you didn't have notice of the variance he didn't have a problem with the variance throughout the entire process he had a problem with the reclassification of the subject property it was only after that he lost on that and the reclassification with this was done they he now had a problem with this various because i didn't necessarily have perfect notice of that but he did have meaningful notice he appeared at the veto meeting had an opportunity