## Facts

- Chicago citizens, residents, taxpayers, and property owners sued on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons to stop planned construction in Washington Park and Douglas Park.
- Washington Park was acquired under an 1869 statute providing that acquired lands “shall be held, managed and controlled ... as a public park, for the recreation, health and benefit of the public, and free to all persons forever.”
- The Chicago Park District (successor to the original park commissioners) held the parklands; deeds conveyed fee simple title without express park-use restrictions, but plaintiffs alleged the statutory dedication controlled.
- The Chicago Park District agreed to convey about 3.8–3.9 acres of 371-acre Washington Park to the Public Building Commission for a public middle school and related recreational facilities; similar plans involved Douglas Park.
- Plaintiffs alleged the conveyances and construction would permanently divert dedicated parkland from park purposes, breaching public-trust obligations and violating state constitutional limits on special legislation and disposition of public property.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint on defendants’ motion; plaintiffs appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether citizens, residents, taxpayers, and park users have standing to sue to enforce public-trust obligations affecting dedicated parklands.
2. Whether transferring a small portion of dedicated parkland for a public middle school and recreational facilities violates the public-trust doctrine or the statutory dedication that the land be used as a public park “forever.”
3. Whether the legislation and governmental actions authorizing the conveyances and project constituted unconstitutional special legislation or otherwise violated state constitutional protections relating to public property.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs had standing to challenge alleged breaches of public-trust obligations affecting public parkland.
- The court affirmed dismissal on the merits, holding the authorized conveyances and construction for a public school and related recreational facilities did not violate the public-trust doctrine or the statutory park dedication.
- The court rejected the constitutional challenges, concluding the authorizing legislation and arrangements served legitimate public purposes and were not unconstitutional special legislation.
- Judgment of the circuit court was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Beneficiaries of a public trust in dedicated parkland, including taxpayers and park users, may seek judicial relief for alleged governmental breaches; enforcement is not confined to the Attorney General or public officers.
- Public-trust protection of parkland restricts alienation to private purposes but permits legislative and local governmental judgments reallocating limited park acreage to other public uses, so long as the use remains public in character.
- Courts generally defer to legislative and administrative determinations about permissible public uses of public-trust lands absent arbitrariness or a shift to nonpublic use.
- Legislative measures facilitating intergovernmental use of public property for public objectives are not invalid as special legislation when they operate on a reasonable classification and serve a public purpose.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court allowed citizen-taxpayer enforcement of public-trust obligations for dedicated parklands while upholding the transfer and use of a small portion of park property for a public school and related recreational facilities as a permissible public use authorized by legislative and local governmental action.


Paepcke v. Pub. Bldg. Comm'n of Chi., 46 Ill. 2d 330, 263 N.E.2d 11 (Ill. 1970)