|
|
|
94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2005 and 2006 SB2153
Introduced 11/2/2005, by Sen. Martin A. Sandoval SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED: |
|
|
Creates the Negative Use Restriction Act. Contains findings. Provides that a private agreement that purports to impose a recorded negative use restriction with a term of more than one year upon real property so as to prohibit or have the economic or practical effect of prohibiting the use of the real property for grocery store or drug store purposes after the owner or operator of a grocery store or drug store in excess of 7,500 square feet has terminated operations at the site is against public policy and is void and unenforceable. Creates an exception in the case of an owner or operator of a grocery store or drug store that terminates operations at a site for the purpose of relocating those operations into a comparable or larger grocery store or drug store located within one-half mile of the site if certain conditions are met, and permits a unit of local government that exercises zoning powers to change certain conditions under specified circumstances. Provides that a violation is a petty offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000, and that a unit of local government may seek an injunction or other equitable relief to stop a violation. Effective immediately.
|
| |
|
|
A BILL FOR
|
|
|
|
|
SB2153 |
|
LRB094 14069 WGH 50102 b |
|
|
1 |
| AN ACT concerning property.
|
2 |
| Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
|
3 |
| represented in the General Assembly:
|
4 |
| Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the |
5 |
| Negative Use Restriction Act. |
6 |
| Section 5. Findings. The General Assembly finds: |
7 |
| (1) that the public health, safety, and general welfare |
8 |
| of residents of a community are compromised
and the |
9 |
| benefits of competition in the marketplace are lost when |
10 |
| private parties impose
use restrictions upon real property |
11 |
| that prohibit or materially limit the use of
the property |
12 |
| for use as a grocery store or
drug store after a grocery |
13 |
| store or
drug store
owner or operator has terminated |
14 |
| operations at the site; |
15 |
| (2) that the public health, safety, and general welfare
|
16 |
| of residents of a community are furthered when residents |
17 |
| have access to grocery stores and
drug stores, both of |
18 |
| which meet basic human
needs; |
19 |
| (3) that negative use restrictions are separate and
|
20 |
| distinct from a non-compete clause included in a shopping |
21 |
| center development
agreement, in which a landlord agrees |
22 |
| with a tenant to not lease other space in the same shopping
|
23 |
| center to another retail establishment of the same type in |
24 |
| order to induce the tenant
to sign a long-term lease as an |
25 |
| anchor tenant at the shopping center, and that such |
26 |
| non-compete clauses are commercially
reasonable; |
27 |
| (4) that negative use restrictions that
enable a prior |
28 |
| owner or operator of a grocery store or drug store, after |
29 |
| terminating operations at a site, to prevent any competitor
|
30 |
| from operating the same type of establishment at that site |
31 |
| in the future serve no public
purpose, but instead have |
32 |
| significant deleterious and blighting effects on the |