Law Doesn't Permit Public Park Land to be Sold, Given Away for Private Use
Because of a nearly three-month impasse between the Macomb Park District and Mark Seipel of Macomb, the Park District has asked a judge to order the removal of a private waterslide built on public park land at Derry Park on Macomb's southwest side. The district says Illinois law does not allow it to give, sell or grant rights in public parkland to any private individual for private use According to a press release issued by Emily Sutton, the attorney for the Macomb Park District, the district filed suit Aug. 7 McDonough County Circuit Court, which asks the court to require Mark and Beth Seipel, who own a home on Debbie Lane, to remove part of the in-ground slide that sits on park property, or to pay the costs of removing it. Sutton said the district filed the lawsuit only after efforts went unresolved to handle the matter privately. After appearing before the Macomb Park District Board of Commissioners at its May 2026 meeting, where Seipel asked for an easement for the built-in slide, which he said he was granted permission from the late Park District Commissioner Ray Peterson 36 years ago, he started an online petition to save the slide after being denied the request.
Sutton noted that the slide extends onto public park property, and at the hearing, the homeowner stated that he is selling his house and he was requesting the easement to sell the property with the slide intact. The top of the slide begins on the Seipel's property, and could only be used with their invitation and permission. Following the meeting, the district prepared a boundary line survey, which determined nearly 40 percent of the slide’s total length is on Derry Park. The couple also installed other items on park property, including a porch-style swing and a zipline.
'Honestly, I’m surprised this dispute has gotten to this point,” said Park Board President Neil Armstrong. 'Illinois law is clear: a park district cannot grant an easement over park land for a private structure, and it cannot sell or give park land away to benefit one individual. That is not a judgment call by this Board. The law does not give us that choice. And that’s a good thing, because it means no board and no employee can ever quietly hand out property that belongs to the public.”
Following Friday's filing, Seipel told The Community News Brief he was taken aback by the lawsuit filed against him and his wife as he believed they were all working for a win-win solution.
'I feel the Park District has not explored the options we offered them, they are bound and determined to have it all removed,' he stated. 'We offered trading like area and terrain from our Grant Street property with an easement from the north east corner of Derry Park to Grant Street.'
Sutton noted the Park District Code allows a district to grant easements over park land only for public services: things like water, sewer, electricity, gas and telephone lines; therefore, the district has no authority to grant an easement that lets a private structure, such as a slide, swimming pool or shed, remain on park land. The District also cannot sell any part of Derry Park to the Seipels as the gift was made in 1969, with conditions from the donors, Robert and Joyce Derry, who donated the 4.28 acres.
'The Illinois courts also apply a rule called public trust doctrine. A park district holds park land in trust for the public. It cannot transfer that land mainly to benefit private individuals, rather than the public at large,' the attorney explained. 'The sale of part of Derry Park to homeowners, to help them sell their personal real estate, would benefit private individuals.
'While Mr. Seipel has shared that the former director (Ray Peterson) gave him permission, the District has no record of that conversation or any way to verify it occurred. Whether it took place is irrelevant: no district employee has the power to give away any interest in park land through a conversation,' Sutton added. 'Interests in land must be in writing. Even a written promise would not have been effective, unless the elected board approved it by formal action at a public meeting.'
According to Seipel, his conversation with Peterson 30-plus years ago included the then-director telling him he could do 'whatever you want on the west side of that creek since they had no plans for that area and the Park District is never going to do anything with it. Hell, the Park District didn't know what they were doing with Derry Park on the east side of the creek.' Seipel said they shook hands and he proceeded to improve our back yard into a fun safe place for our kids, their friends, relatives and neighbors could all play, which has evolved into what it is today, and it is the best it has ever been.
'I know more kids have been into Derry Park through our backyard than I have ever seen there from Joyce Lane, plus with our offer to the Park District, that would give access with an easement along the east side of our Grant Street property for a walkway to the northeast corner of Derry Park,' he noted. 'That would make the park much more accessible and a reason more people would use it as a shortcut path toward downtown. I was under the impression our proposal for the land swap was to be voted on by the Park District's Board at their monthly meeting on Aug. 18, but instead this, a low-blow, gut punch.'
The District's attorney said in the release, which was sent Friday afternoon, public parks cannot be lost to private encroachment no matter how many years pass. Since the May 2026 meeting, the District has been on formal notice that an unauthorized structure sits on its land, that the homeowners have invited guests to use it and that a person has already been injured on it. Others later stated that they or their children were injured using the slide, Sutton wrote. Park District Director Blake Severs said the lawsuit came only after the stalemate with the homeowners.
“I wish we had not been forced to file suit, and I am hopeful we can put this behind us soon,' Severs concluded. “Once we learned the slide was on park property and that someone had already been hurt on it, we had to act. If we looked the other way and a child was injured, that would be heartbreaking enough. It would also leave the District and the taxpayers at financial risk. I am truly sympathetic to the homeowners’ request, and I understand that the slide has been enjoyed by many over the years. However, the law does not give us any options to transfer park land to them, and the District cannot leave the structure in place on park land.'
Seipel said if it comes down to removing the waterslide, he will remove it himself.
