Editor's note: This article has been revised from an earlier version to include arguments contained in a brief to be filed by intervening Homewood resident activists opposed to the development. The information was supplied by their attorney shortly after initial publication.
A developer seeking to turn a defunct south suburban country club into a logistics hub has asked a Cook County judge to allow it to end a court fight with the village of Homewood over the fate of the property, after Homewood officials agreed to allow the owners to disconnect the property from the village.
On April 15, attorneys representing W&E Ventures filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their litigation over the future of the Calumet Country Club.
In the motion, the property owners noted the village’s decision two days earlier to approve an ordinance redrawing Homewood’s municipal limits to no long cover the Calumet Country Club legally eliminates any remaining dispute between the property’s owners and the village.
That, they said, would make any further action from the court in the matter “moot.”
Cook County Judge Maureen Ward-Kirby has not yet ruled on the motion.
A group of Homewood resident activists, who are seeking to yet secure a court order blocking the village from granting the disconnection sought by developers have filed a motion opposing the motion to dismiss. They accused the village of caving to the developers, and accused both sides of doing an "end-run around" village residents in court.
The legal fight over the fate of the Calumet Country Club has continued since July 2019, when the former owners of the club, identified as CCC Investors LLC, filed a petition in Cook County Circuit Court seeking a court order allowing them to disconnect the 130-acre country club from Homewood.
The owners had negotiated a deal with developers associated with the Diversified Partners firm to buy the property. Diversified Partners has promoted a plan to invest $100 million into the property, to convert the land into a warehouse and distribution hub.
Developers say the project would add 1,000 jobs to the region, and would create a significant source of new property tax revenue for local school districts and which ever village or city that adds the property to its tax roll, potentially reducing the tax burden on homeowners by hundreds of dollars annually.
Developers have maintained their proposed project represents the only truly viable use for the property, located just off Interstates 80/294, one of the busiest trucking routes in Illinois and the U.S.
Reggie Greenwood, executive director of the Southland Economic Development Corporation, for instance, has noted the development proposal would match the trend in the region, which has become one of the hottest destinations for such transportation and logistics developments in the state and the country.
Amazon, for instance, is building distribution centers in the nearby communities of Markham and Matteson, while other transportation and logistics developments are also ticketed for other nearby south suburbs.
However, Homewood officials opposed the proposed industrial redevelopment, saying they desired a different use for the property, such as retail or residential.
That opposition from Village Hall, prompted the country club owners to sue, to secure a court order forcing the village to let them remove the property from Homewood and seek approval for their project elsewhere.
After a year and a half in court, the village and the property owners reached a settlement to end the court fight. In the settlement, the village agreed to either approve the development or allow the property owners to disconnect.
In introducing the settlement, village officials maintained their opposition to the project, but said they believed the developers would win in court. They said they believed allowing the project to move forward within the village would at least allow Homewood to control certain aspects of the project, and reap some of the economic benefits.
However, Homewood village officials ultimately rejected the development, bowing to pressure from a group of activists who called the project an example of “environmental racism.” They have said they believe the country club should be preserved as a park or “open space.”
According to U.S. Census Data, in 2019, about 44.4% of Homewood residents were non-Hispanic white, while 44.5% were Black.
As village officials rejected the development, the activists then joined the court fight, with a group of five mostly white, politically progressive Homewood residents intervening as taxpayers to seek a court order preventing Homewood’s elected officials from honoring their settlement.
The activists contended “their interests were not being adequately represented by the village of Homewood.”
While the judge allowed the residents to intervene in court, she refused their attempt to void the settlement agreement. The village board then approved an ordinance on April 13 disconnecting the Calumet Club property from Homewood.
The activists had threatened the village with further legal action, potentially including seeking court-ordered sanctions, if it proceeded with disconnection without the activists’ permission.
It is not clear what the village board’s decision to uphold the settlement agreement and allow the country club’s owners to disconnect the property from Homewood may mean for the ability of the activists to continue their campaign in court to block the disconnection.
Homewood Village Attorney Christopher Cummings said the village has no position on the activists’ ability to continue their legal action.
Attorney Patrick Keating, of Homewood, representing the activists, planned to introduce a brief laying out his clients' objections to the motion to dismiss. In the motion, Keating continued to assert the settlement honored by the village should still be considered void, because the activists are now considered defendants in the action, and they have not agreed to the resolution of the case.
He further argued it doesn't matter if the settlement was reached before the Homewood resident opponents were allowed to intervene.
"The taxpayer residents have a right to defend this litigation and the Village of Homewood had no right, once they became intervenors, to take that right away from them by doing an end-run around the court and handing the Petitioner disconnection on a silver platter," Keating wrote.
Walt Brown Jr., president of Diversified Partners, has said his firm intends to continue with the development, whether or not it is located within the village of Homewood. He has said options include developing the project in unincorporated Cook County, or in another community, such as neighboring Hazel Crest.
W&E Ventures is represented by attorneys Eric P. VanderPloeg and Aaron H. Stanton, of the firm of Burke Warran MacKay & Serritella, of Chicago, and Margaret Manetti, of Sosin Arnold & Schoenbeck, of Orland Park.