"In January, the Illinois Appellate Court deemed the law to be unconstitutionally vague. When the Illinois Supreme Court denied the city’s appeal of that ruling last Thursday, it sent the case back to the Cook County Circuit Court, where a judge is thought to have little choice but to strike down the law.
The case has jolted historic preservationists around the country, and for good reason. The seven standards by which Chicago evaluates potential landmarks—evidence of important architecture, connection with a historic event, and so on—differ little from the criteria used by other American cities. If Chicago’s law falls, could ordinances in New York or Los Angeles also be toppled?

=====================================

Selected Excerpts from the Appellate court's decision, which the Illinois Supreme court let stand:

"plaintiffs alleged that the Ordinance was facially vague in violation of article IV, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution"

"the seven criteria the Commission should use in considering a designation. Those seven criteria are characterized as (1) critical part of the City’s
heritage, (2) significant historic event, (3) significant person, (4) important architecture, (5) important architect, (6) distinctive theme as a district, and (7) unique visual feature"

"Plaintiffs are correct that “[a]n ordinance or statute violates due process guarantees when its terms are so incomplete vague, indefinite and uncertain that men and women of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning and differ as to their application.” "

"Plaintiffs point to numerous provisions within the Ordinance that they claim are vague and arbitrary. They argue that the seven criteria used to guide landmark designation are  vague and uncertain due to the Ordinance’s use of phrases like “may or may not,” “or other,” “value,” “important,” “critical,” “historic,” and “significant.” Plaintiffs allege that the seven criteria are
so rife with vague, ambiguous, and overly broad language that they could conceivably describe any property in any city."

"We believe that the terms “value,” “important,” “significant,” and “unique” are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. We are unpersuaded by the City’s argument that the Commission members can be well guided by these terms. This is especially true in light of the fact that the qualifications of a Commission member are equally vague."

"When a legislative body grants an administrative agency discretionary authority to act, it must provide intelligible standards to guide the agency in the exercise of that authority."

"The seven criteria outlined in the Ordinance to assist the Commission in
recommending buildings or districts for landmark status remains unconstitutionally vague"

"an ordinance which is so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning is unconstitutional"

"Plaintiffs properly stated a cause of action for vagueness, sufficient to overcome a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, and thus we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings."

________________________________________

Additional related Links of interest:

http://www.iml.org/dbs/imllegal/dyncat.cfm?catid=2533

Lawyer challenging landmark law says ruling was right

Bankers' Alert: The Chicago Landmark Ordinance, Lending Implications