Cook County Judge dismisses Edgewater lawsuit, says NIMBYs can't use potential decrease in property values to overturn upzoning

Across the country, neighborhood upzonings and dense housing developments are being met with NIMBY lawsuits — impeding housing development in the middle of a nationwide housing shortage. But the good news is that some courts aren’t having it.

In Chicago, a NIMBY lawsuit was dismissed last week, preventing the undoing of a major upzoning in Edgewater and Uptown, two neighborhoods near the city’s northern border.

On October 16, 2025, the City of Chicago enacted two ordinances, upzoning hundreds of properties along both sides of the neighborhoods’ main thoroughfare, Broadway Avenue (from Foster Avenue to Devon Avenue) as well as on side streets. Properties were upzoned to B3-5 classification, allowing buildings as tall as 80 feet, a floor-area ratio (FAR) of 5.0, and certain uses that would be otherwise incompatible with the existing neighborhood zoning.

The Broadway upzoning addressed the urgent need for more housing and business opportunities in an area that has seen rising housing costs and concerns about gentrification. It falls in line with the goals of the city’s Broadway Land Use Framework, which commits the city to improving neighborhood housing affordability, supporting the local business environment, creating a more livable neighborhood, and “right sizing” approval processes to align with community priorities. And the area is a perfect place to upzone — it’s well served by mass transit, home to a wide diversity of neighbors and businesses, and close by to several beaches on Lake Michigan.

But, as always, with progress comes pushback.

Following the upzoning, a group of Edgewater residents and business owners, Edgewater Residents for Responsible Development (ERRD), sued to overturn the rezoning.

The Complaint

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the City (i) denied the Plaintiffs procedural due process and (ii) violated their substantive due process rights.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the City denied them procedural due process by not properly giving notice to owners and neighbors who should have been informed (i.e., owners whose buildings would be rezoned or those whose buildings fall within 250 feet of the rezoned area). In addition, the City allegedly failed to allow owners and neighbors the right to speak at the zoning committee hearing due to its use of a “lottery” procedure to select speakers during public comment.

The Plaintiffs also claimed that the City’s upzoning violated their substantive due process rights because the new zoning classifications were “incongruent and incompatible with the existing as-built neighborhood.” Furthermore, they claimed that the changes would lead to “significant negative impact on existing owners, renters and surrounding property owners, effectively destroying the character and harmony of uses in a long-established Chicago neighborhood.”

As relief, the Plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate the upzoning ordinances and return the properties to their prior classifications.

The Lawsuit

In March, the City asked the court to dismiss the case. At a status hearing on June 4, the court heard oral arguments from both sides.

On June 29, Cook County Circuit Judge Neil Cohen sided with the City and dismissed the lawsuit. Cohen stated that the plaintiffs failed to show how residents were deprived of their constitutionally protectable property interests:

“The only harm alleged in the complaint to these plaintiffs is the possible diminution of the value of their property, the possible harm to the character and diversity of the neighborhood, and possible increases in traffic congestion, availability of parking and pollution. None of these constitute constitutionally protectable interests under Illinois law.”

Furthermore, Cohen noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the city’s lottery system, which allowed only fifteen people to speak during the zoning committee’s hearing, barred them from providing unique testimony, especially since written testimony could be submitted.

Despite the ruling, an appeal is likely. Pat Sharkey, president of Edgewater Residents for Responsible Development, found the judge’s ruling to be a “narrow reading of who is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard and the principles governing valid zoning decisions is contrary to 60 years of Illinois law.” 

We disagree.

This lawsuit was one of many attempts by NIMBYs both in Illinois and around the country to stymie local development. Just a few miles away, in Old Town, a condominium association filed suit against the City and the developer of Old Town Canvas to try to halt a 349-home development. In April, the judge granted a motion to dismiss that lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right to propped-up property values. And we recently wrote about the Missing Middle lawsuit in Arlington, Virginia, which challenged an ordinance that allowed for by-right development of up to six units of housing on lots previously zoned single-family.

The plaintiffs who bring these lawsuits often operate under the idea that they are “saving” their neighborhoods. In his decision, Judge Cohen summed up why that’s wrong. Upzoning decisions, “[do not deprive] the property-owning Plaintiffs of any of their current uses of their properties, but rather have increased the permissible uses of their properties.” 

Ultimately, the dismissal of the Edgewater lawsuit paves the way for property owners to take advantage of that increase in permissible uses to build thousands of new homes — revitalizing neighborhoods, expanding housing options, and bolstering local economies.