Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02183/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-2183

CITY OF JOLIET, ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NEW WEST, L.P., et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 05 C 6746 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 11, 2016 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2016

____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. For more than a decade, the 

City of Joliet, Illinois, has been attempting to condemn the 

two buildings of the Evergreen Terrace housing complex. In 

2005 it filed a condemnation action in state court, and the 

proceeding was removed to federal court. New West, the 

complex’s owner, went on the offensive with a suit of its 

own under the Fair Housing Act and other federal statutes. 

We concluded in New West, L.P. v. Joliet, 491 F.3d 717 (7th 

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
2 No. 15-2183

Cir. 2007), and Joliet v. New West, L.P., 562 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 

2009), that no rule of federal law unconditionally blocks the 

condemnation action, and we directed the district court to 

decide it with dispatch. 491 F.3d at 721; 562 F.3d at 839.

About three and a half years after the second of these decisions, the condemnation suit finally went to trial. It took 

100 days of court time, spread over more than a year and a 

half of calendar time. The district court then issued a lengthy 

opinion holding that Joliet is entitled to possess (and demolish) Evergreen Terrace. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130800 (N.D. Ill. 

Sept. 17, 2014). This decision resolved the merits but not the 

amount of compensation. Illinois law (which applies under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(k)) requires a jury for the valuation decision, though not for the decision whether the government is 

entitled to take the property. 735 ILCS 30/10-5-5(a). A jury 

concluded that New West and its affiliates (and lenders) are 

entitled to $15,077,406 as just compensation. After additional 

delay caused by post-decision motions practice in the district 

court, the controversy has made its way back to us.

New West (as we call all appellants collectively) contends 

that Evergreen Terrace is not dilapidated and that the City’s 

suit should have been rejected on that ground, and on the 

further ground that razing the buildings would have a disparate impact on its predominantly black tenants, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The district judge, as trier of 

fact, rejected both of these arguments. His conclusions—

including the conclusions about the nonexistence of discriminatory intent or disparate impact—are findings of fact for 

the purpose of appellate review. See Pullman-Standard v. 

Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982). This means that they must stand 

unless clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6); AnderCase: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-2183 3

son v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985). We hold that none of 

the critical findings is clearly erroneous.

A lengthy recitation of the facts is unnecessary. Anyone 

with a craving for detail has only to read the district court’s 

opinion. The appeal can be resolved in considerably fewer 

words.

The judge found that Joliet is entitled to condemn the 

complex for two reasons: first, it is dilapidated and crimeridden; second, the City plans to use the land to extend the 

existing Riverwalk park along the Des Plaines River. 2014 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130800 at *33–57. The findings are supported 

by testimony, data (such as the number of crimes committed 

daily at Evergreen Terrace), the fact that an extension of the 

park has been planned since 1990, and a report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. New West 

says that the judge should have drawn inferences more favorable to its position. Perhaps the judge could have ruled 

for New West, but the record contains far too much evidence 

in Joliet’s favor for a court of appeals to declare the judge’s 

findings to be clearly erroneous.

This leaves the question whether condemnation would 

violate the Fair Housing Act, either because Joliet set out to 

discriminate against blacks (disparate treatment) or because 

closure of Evergreen Terrace would have an unjustified disparate impact on black residents. The district judge found 

that Joliet acted for reasons unrelated to race (the ones we 

mentioned above). Id. at *57–63, 65–68. Although the judge 

recognized that one former member of the city council had 

made racist comments several years before the City began 

the condemnation suit, the judge found that other members 

of the council did not share those views. Id. at *63–64. The 

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
4 No. 15-2183

judge added that it would be implausible to attribute antiblack intent to the City, because as part of this litigation it 

agreed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create at least 115 new low-income housing units 

and provide housing vouchers for all remaining residents at 

Evergreen Terrace, so that they could secure low-income 

housing at places of their choice within the City (or anywhere else in Will County).

New West contends that the judge erred in considering 

the settlement with HUD, but it was admissible (it is a public 

document of which the court could take judicial notice). True 

enough, the settlement is a promise, and promises sometimes are broken. But breaking one’s promise to a federal 

agency—a promise reiterated to a federal judge—is risky, 

and the judge was entitled to conclude that Joliet is likely to 

keep this promise. The judge observed that Joliet’s own redevelopment plan, adopted before it started the condemnation action, is “practically identical to the terms of the HUD 

settlement agreement.” Id. at *61.

According to New West, the vouchers are useless because owners will not rent to persons displaced from Evergreen Terrace. The district judge found otherwise, and once 

again that finding is supported by the record. Joliet had a 

population of 148,000 at the 2010 census, and a city of that 

size should not have difficulty finding room for 240 or so 

families with housing vouchers. The judge observed that the 

population of Joliet Township is about a quarter black. Id. at 

*62. Only a small fraction of the black population is affected 

by the closure of Evergreen Terrace, which implies that 

space elsewhere will be available.

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-2183 5

New West relies more heavily on its disparate-impact 

theory than on its disparate-treatment theory. About 95% of 

Evergreen Terrace’s residents are black, and New West contends that this means that its closure must have a disparate 

impact. Since §804(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§3604(a), forbids actions with unjustified disparate impact, 

see Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015), New 

West maintains that closure necessarily violates the Act.

The district judge thought that the racial composition of 

Evergreen Terrace is the wrong starting point. Instead the 

judge asked whether closure of Evergreen Terrace affects a 

substantial fraction of all blacks in Joliet. He answered that it 

does not; about 97% of the City’s black residents live elsewhere, and the closure therefore would not affect the population as a whole adversely. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130800 at 

*66.

We agree with the district judge that the record does not 

demonstrate disparate impact, but for a different reason. 

New West sees a need to move as an injury in itself. (If the 

current residents of Evergreen Terrace are uninjured, there is 

no adverse impact.) But given the district court’s findings 

about the dilapidated and crime-ridden nature of Evergreen 

Terrace, it is inappropriate to treat a move to new housing as 

injurious. The residents of Evergreen Terrace will be better 

off in the newly constructed units, or the units available with 

housing vouchers. Joliet has not required the residents to 

move any distance; the new units will be built nearby, and 

the vouchers can be used anywhere in Will County. Plaintiffs deem the need to move an injury only because they disagree with the district court’s principal findings of fact—but, 

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
6 No. 15-2183

given our conclusion that those findings are supported by 

the record, the disparate-impact theory evaporates.

And that’s not all. Although Inclusive Communities Project

held that unjustified disparate impact from housing policies 

violates §804(a), it stressed the importance of considering 

both whether a policy exists and whether it is justified. 135 S. 

Ct. at 2522–24. The Court observed that “a one-time decision 

may not be a policy at all” (id. at 2523). Disparate-impact 

analysis looks at the effects of policies, not one-off decisions, 

which are analyzed for disparate treatment. The Justices

added that “governmental entities ... must not be prevented 

from achieving legitimate objectives, such as ensuring compliance with health and safety codes.” Id. at 2524. The district 

court’s findings show that the condemnation of Evergreen 

Terrace is a specific decision, not part of a policy to close minority housing in Joliet. The judge also found that Joliet set 

out to achieve goals that the Supreme Court approves, and 

the analysis of Inclusive Communities Project therefore favors 

the City rather than New West.

New West insists that the district court’s findings, no 

matter how well supported by the record, must be thrown 

out because made by a judge. New West does not contend 

that a property owner has a constitutional right to jury trial 

in a condemnation suit. Its theory, rather, is that by proceeding first with the condemnation action and deferring New 

West’s own suit seeking damages under the Fair Housing 

Act, the district court violated the Seventh Amendment by 

making findings that will be preclusive in New West’s suit 

for damages. See Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 

(1962); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959). 

The district court issued an opinion rejecting that contention, 

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-2183 7

see 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12756 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2012), and 

New West wants us to resolve that subject.

That request is premature. This appeal concerns Joliet’s 

condemnation suit, not New West’s suit under the Fair 

Housing Act. There is no right to a jury trial of the takings 

issue (as opposed to the compensation issue) in a condemnation action under Illinois law, which controls, so the decision 

to hold a bench trial did not violate any of New West’s rights

in this proceeding. New West predicts that the judge will dismiss its statutory suit as barred by principles of issue preclusion given the findings made in the condemnation action. If 

the judge does that, the Seventh Amendment argument then 

will be ripe.

The fact that the condemnation action and the statutory 

action are distinct is why this court denied New West’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order that would 

compel the district court to use a jury in the condemnation 

suit. The order denying the petition has no bearing on the 

merits of the Seventh Amendment question.*

 * Here is the text of that order, issued on March 27, 2012, and previously unpublished. We set it out to facilitate understanding of our current ruling:

The petitions for a writ of mandamus are DENIED. This court directed the district judge to resolve the condemnation action first. That is 

at last being done, though long after we contemplated it would happen. 

Our opinion three years ago observed that resolution of the condemnation proceeding was already overdue, and we told the court to bring it to 

a “speedy” resolution. Joliet v. New West, L.P., 562 F.3d 830, 839 (7th Cir. 

2009). Trial of the condemnation action in December 2012 is not speedy 

by any means, but it is preferable to the approach proposed in the petition for mandamus, which would postpone the condemnation action 

indefinitely.

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
8 No. 15-2183

We asked at oral argument why the district court did not 

empanel a jury and try the two suits together, with the condemnation issues resolved by the court and the Fair Housing 

Act issues by a jury. The jury also could have served an advisory role in the condemnation action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

39(c). The answer is that no one suggested this to the district 

court, and the judge did not propose it on his own. It would 

have been fruitless to expect a jury to follow 100 days of trial 

spread over 18 months—but maybe the presence of a jury 

would have induced the judge to rein in counsel’s presentations and make the trial manageable. One of the issues the 

judge will have to consider in the Fair Housing Act case is 

whether New West surrendered its right to a jury by not 

proposing a joint trial, or at least an advisory jury in the 

condemnation action. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). We do not 

express any view on that subject. We do hope, however, that 

what we have said in this opinion will lead the parties to 

think carefully about whether a trial of the Fair Housing Act 

suit is necessary.

 

If, as [New West] contend[s], the Seventh Amendment prevents using resolution of issues in the condemnation proceeding as a basis of 

preclusion (res judicata or collateral estoppel), then there may need to be 

a second round of litigation. The district court thought not, observing 

that the condemnation proceeding and the civil-rights actions are separate suits, and that the principle of Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 

U.S. 500 (1959), deals with the sequence of decision in a single action. If 

the judge is right, then there will be no problem with using the findings 

preclusively later; if the judge is wrong, then the findings cannot be used 

preclusively. Either way, there is no reason to delay the condemnation 

trial further.

The federal judiciary should be able to resolve a condemnation proceeding in less than seven years. We urge the district court to expedite 

the trial that has been scheduled for next December.

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-2183 9

New West’s other arguments do not require discussion.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-2183 Document: 36 Filed: 06/17/2016 Pages: 9