Rolling Meadows settles lawsuit over police blockade

Rolling Meadows has reached a deal with the owner of the 12 Oaks at Woodfield apartments settling a lawsuit filed after police in 2008 blocked all but one entrance to the complex and stopped cars entering.

Complex owner Michael Sparks, in lawsuits filed first federally, and then in state court, claimed the action was unconstitutional.

Under the settlement, the city will dissolve the special taxing district currently on the complex, allow for 46 parking spaces along Arbor Drive, and vacate any fines for building and fire code violations if they are corrected within 90 days, according to a report posted on the city's website.

Sparks said he is not happy with the settlement, but he agreed to it.

"I'm not happy that I ever heard the name Rolling Meadows, let alone was stupid enough to come here and buy property," he said.

Two tenants who filed suit against Rolling Meadows and tried to get their case declared a class action received settlements of $6,000 each, Sparks said.

With the lawsuit settled, Mayor Kenneth Nelson said he is still hopeful a major redevelopment eventually could go forward at the site of about 20 buildings at Algonquin Road and Route 53. In 2007, a developer working with Sparks planned department stores, office towers, senior housing and a hotel on land that includes 12 Oaks at Woodfield.

"There's still some interest in redevelopment of the area," Nelson said. "The legal issues have put a damper on some interest."

The site could become a "red hot area," with its access to nearby highways and a proposed Metra STAR line station in Schaumburg, Nelson said.

One of Sparks' complaints against the city was that the taxing district - called a special services area - established in 2007 required him to pay an additional $612,000 per year in taxes for 10 years.

The city assessed the tax only one year, but Sparks claims other commercial owners in the area got their SSA fees refunded because they paid the assessments within 90 days. His were not refunded because it took him up to 180 days to pay.

The city's position was that the area needed the upgrades funded by the tax, even if the area was not immediately redeveloped.

The city defended the barricade as a response to residents who wanted more police presence, but some complained the tactics were heavy-handed. The barricades were removed almost immediately after Sparks filed suit.

Sparks has fixed some of the building violations and has said he would fix the rest, said Nelson. The violations have "nothing to do with the (recent) fires" at the complex, he said.

The most recent fire, a suspected arson, occurred May 16 in an entryway of one building. Most of the damage was limited to the building's electrical system and doors broken during a rescue search, city officials said.

A year ago a fire seriously damaged a 30-unit building at the property.

<div class="infoBox">

<h1>More Coverage</h1>

<div class="infoBoxContent">

<div class="infoArea">

<h2>Stories</h2>

<ul class="links">

<li><a href="/story/?id=205380 ">Police set up checkpoint at Rolling Meadows apartment complex <span class="date">[06/10/2008]</span></a></li>

<li><a href="/story/?id=205590">Rolling Meadows apartment checkpoints could last the summer <span class="date">[06/11/2008]</span></a></li>

<li><a href="/story/?id=208784">Lawsuit filed against Rolling Meadows over barricades <span class="date">[06/18/2008]</span></a></li>

<li><a href="/story/?id=211738">Rolling Meadows takes down controversial barriers <span class="date">[06/24/2008]</span></a></li>

<li><a href="/story/?id=221524">Fines, violations pile up at Rolling Meadows complex <span class="date">[07/17/2008]</span></a></li>

</ul>

</div>

</div>

</div>