THE CITY OF OAKBROOK TERRACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUBURBAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated July 1, 1996, and Known as Trust No. 1122, et al., Defendants-Appellees (Public Storage, Inc., et al., Defendants), 364 Ill. App. 3d 506

JUSTICE O’MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, the City of Oakbrook Terrace (City), sought to enforce a zoning ordinance regulating off-premises, freestanding, outdoor advertising signs against various defendants that owned or leased either existing legal, nonconforming signs or the property on which such signs were located. The parties filed cross-motions for

summary judgment. Relying primarily on

section 7 — 101 of the Eminent Domain Act (Act) (735 ILCS 5/7 — 101 (West 1998)), the trial court found that the City could not require alteration of defendants’ signs without paying them just compensation. Accordingly, it granted defendants’ motions for

summary judgment and denied the City’s motion. The City appeals. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On December 23, 1980, the City, a home rule unit of local government, enacted Ordinance No. 80 — 24 (1980 ordinance) prohibiting off-premises, freestanding, advertising signs and requiring that all nonconforming signs be removed or altered to conform to the ordinance by 1988.

On January 15, 1999, the City commenced an enforcement action against defendants, seeking injunctive relief and the assessment of fines after it gave notice to defendants or their predecessors to remove, alter, remodel, or convert their signs to conform to the City’s ordinance. Defendants did not bring their signs into conformance, file for variances, or appeal the City’s determination that the signs violated the 1980 ordinance.

On August 14, 2001, the City enacted Ordinance No. 01 — 15 (2001 ordinance), which repealed certain portions of the 1980 ordinance, including the portion that prohibited off-premises, outdoor, advertising signs. The new ordinance permitted such signs, but imposed size and height restrictions and included a two-year amortization period for nonconforming signs. Under the ordinance, off-premises, outdoor, advertising signs could not exceed 20 feet in height and could not have a face area larger than 200 square feet.

Defendant Paramount Media Group, Inc. (Paramount), leases a free-standing off-premises outdoor advertising sign located at 0S480 Route 83 in the City. The sign was erected by a predecessor to Suburban Bank and Trust Co. (Suburban), as trustee under a trust agreement dated July 1, 1996, and known as Trust No. 1122, and also owned by a predecessor to Suburban prior to the enactment of the 1980 ordinance. In November 1999, Paramount leased the sign from Suburban for a 20-year term. Suburban sold its property and the sign on December 18, 2003, to defendant J.T. Land Group, Inc. (J.T. Land Group).

Paramount leases space on the sign to various advertisers. The Paramount sign exceeds the area and possibly the height restrictions for such signs, in violation of the 2001 ordinance. Defendant Carolyn B. Robinette, as successor trustee of the Clay-burn B. Robinette Declaration of Trust dated November 15, 1980 (Robinette Trust), owns certain properties located at 0S680 and 0S700 Route 83 in the City (the Trust Properties).

The Robinette Trust or its predecessor erected an off-premises, freestanding sign on the 0S700 property before the adoption of the 1980 ordinance, and it currently owns the sign and leases space on it to various commercial advertisers. Defendant Viacom, Inc. (Viacom), or its predecessor, National Advertising Company (National), erected the off-premises, freestanding sign on the 0S680 property sometime before the adoption of the 1980 ordinance. Under a lease with the Robinette Trust or its predecessor, Viacom’s sign occupies the properly and is leased to various commercial advertisers.

Both signs on the Trust Properties exceed the height and space limitations set forth in the 2001 ordinance. Defendant estate of Rose Alma Robinette (Robinette Estate) owns property located at 0S560 Route 83 in the City. Viacom or National erected an off-premises, freestanding sign on the property sometime prior to the adoption of the 1980 ordinance. Viacom leases the sign from the Robinette Estate or its predecessor and leases space on it to various commercial advertisers. The sign exceeds the height and space limitations set forth in the 2001 ordinance.

The City filed its third amended complaint on November 19, 2001, seeking injunctive relief against defendants, alleging they maintained off-premises signs in violation of its 2001 sign ordinance. Paramount filed a counterclaim against the City, arguing, among other things, that enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unlawful taking of Paramount’s property without payment of just compensation. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for

summary judgment. On June 16, 2004, the trial court denied the City’s motion and granted defendants’ motions. The City timely appeals the grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendants and the denial of its motion for

summary judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits on file demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kleinschmidt, Inc. v. County of Cook, 287 Ill. App. 3d 312, 315-16 (1997). When the parties file cross-motions for

summary judgment, the parties agree that no material factual issue exists and that only questions of law are presented. Subway Restaurants of Bloomington-Normal, Inc. v. Topinka, 322 Ill. App. 3d 376, 381 (2001). Of course, the mere fact that the parties have presented cross-motions for

summary judgment does not establish that no factual issues exist; rather, the trial court and the reviewing court may determine the existence of a factual issue sufficient to preclude the entry of

summary judgment notwithstanding the fact that the parties do not believe one exists. Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 357 Ill. App. 3d 172, 174 (2005). We review de novo the propriety of an order granting

summary judgment. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102 (1992). Similarly, the construction of a statute or ordinance involves a question of law, which we review de novo. Village of Mundelein v. Franco, 317 Ill. App. 3d 512, 517 (2000). III. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction and Scope of Appellate Review As a preliminary matter, we address whether we have jurisdiction to review this appeal and the scope of our review. In this case, the City filed a complaint seeking to enforce its billboard ordinance against defendants.

Defendants, in turn, filed answers to the City’s complaint and raised several affirmative defenses, including arguments based on free speech, due process, equal protection, a highway advertising statute, estoppel, and laches. Subsequently, the City moved for

summary judgment, addressing all the defenses raised by defendants. In their motions for

summary judgment, defendants raised only

section 7 — 101 of the Act and a takings argument. However, in their memoranda in opposition to the City’s motion, defendants addressed some of their affirmative defenses. Following a hearing on the parties’ motions, the trial court denied the City’s motion for

summary judgment and granted defendants’ motions. The court noted that it had reviewed the voluminous pleadings, and, in explaining its ruling, the court focused on

section 7 — 101 of the Act. It concluded by stating that it was adopting the positions of Paramount and Viacom in their “briefs,” without specifying if the court was relying solely on the materials defendants submitted in support of their motions for

summary judgment or if it was also relying on defendants’ memoranda in opposition to the City’s motion. In its written order denying the City’s motion and granting defendants’ motions, the trial court stated “[f]or the reasons stated in open court, including [sjection 7 — 101 of the [Act].” In motions filed prior to oral arguments in this case, the parties presented arguments concerning our jurisdiction over all or part of this appeal. Viacom contends that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the City’s “interlocutory” appeal of its denied

summary judgment motion because that motion addressed different issues from defendants’ granted

summary judgment motions. According to Viacom, because the trial court ruled only on the effect of

section 7 — 101, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal from the denial of the City’s

summary judgment motion as to the other issues. The City contends that the trial court ruled on all of the issues raised in the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment and in the memoranda opposing the motions. Thus, because the order disposed of all the issues, it was a final, appealable judgment. Alternatively, the City moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court’s order was insufficient to establish jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal because the order did not cite to Supreme Court Rule 304(

a) or make the required express written finding that there was no just reason for delaying appeal. 155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a). Ordinarily, the denial of a motion for

summary judgment is not a final judgment and therefore is not appealable. Chavda v. Wolak, 188 Ill. 2d 394, 403 (1999). However, an exception exists where the parties file opposing motions for

summary judgment on the same claim and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other. Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 187 Ill. 2d 341, 358 (1999). The resulting order is final and appealable because it entirely disposes of the litigation. Arangold, 187 Ill. 2d at 358. Here, the trial court’s ruling is ambiguous as to its scope. Upon reviewing the transcript of the hearing on the parties’

summary judgment motions, we are unable to ascertain whether the trial court ruled in defendants’ favor on all of the issues raised in all of the

summary-judgment-related pleadings or only with respect to the common issues addressed by both sides in their

summary judgment motions. During the hearing on the parties’

summary judgment motions, the court focused on

section 7 — 101, but also noted that it was adopting the arguments in Paramount’s and Viacom’s “briefs.” The court announced its decision following arguments by the City during which the City addressed, among others, some of defendants’ affirmative defenses. In light of this ambiguity as to the scope of the order, we are reluctant to read the order expansively. Indeed, we note that defendants needed to prevail on only one of their affirmative defenses to dispose of this litigation. That said, however, the posture of the case under a narrow reading of the trial court’s order is that defendants’ position is sustained by virtue of the grant of

summary judgment in their favor and against the City on defendants’ motions and the denial of the City’s motion for

summary judgment. As a result, the affirmative defenses are effectively mooted and would potentially come into consideration on this appeal only if we find that the City should prevail on the issue of the application of

section 7 — 101 of the Act. Because we ultimately conclude that the trial court properly ruled in defendants’ favor on the issue of the application of

section 7 — 101 of the Act, we need not further address the scope of its order. Accordingly, we shall interpret the court’s ruling to encompass only the common issues raised in the parties’

summary judgment motions, namely, the application of

section 7 — 101 of the Act and a takings argument. We also note that, in answer to the City’s jurisdictional challenge, because the trial court’s order on the cross-motions for

summary judgment disposed of the litigation, it constituted a final judgment and this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. In light of our narrow reading of the trial court’s order, we decline to address two arguments raised by the City. First, the City and Viacom address whether the City’s inspection fee constitutes an illegal tax. In the trial court, Viacom raised the fee issue as an affirmative defense. The City responded to this argument in its answer and subsequently addressed it in its motion for

summary judgment, arguing that Viacom stated no facts to support its claim that the fee was excessive and had no relation to the cost of the inspections. Viacom, however, did not raise the fee issue in its

summary judgment motion; instead, it raised it in its response in opposition to the City’s

summary judgment motion, arguing that the City did not show that there existed no material factual issue with respect to the fee argument. As we noted above, given the ambiguous scope of the trial court’s order, we will read it as incorporating only the issues addressed by both sides in their motions for

summary judgment, namely,

section 7 — 101 of the Act and a takings argument. Therefore, because both sides did not address the fee issue in their

summary judgment motions, we decline to address it here. Second, the City requests that we address its argument that defendants’ affirmative defenses be stricken. In its motion for

summary judgment, the City argued that defendants’ affirmative defenses should be stricken for failure to plead sufficient facts. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 613(d) (West 1998). The City furthermore requests that we address the affirmative defenses. Because defendants did not raise these issues in their

summary judgment motions, we decline the City’s request to address them here. Moreover, as noted above, in light of our ruling on the applicability of

section 7 — 101 of the Act, there is no need to reach the affirmative defenses. Accordingly, we deny as moot the City’s motion to preclude defendants from relying on their affirmative defenses as a basis to decide this appeal. We grant Viacom’s motion, joined by the other defendants, to strike for lack of jurisdiction the City’s appeal of the

summary judgment denial as to all issues (excluding

section 7 — 101 of the Act and the takings argument). Finally, we deny the City’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. B. Home Rule Powers The City argues that, as a home rule municipality, it is not subject to the requirements of the Act. It contends that, under its home rule authority, it can regulate signs and eliminate nonconformities over time in the manner it determines to be in the best interests of the City and its residents. Addressing the City’s home rule argument, the trial court found that the Act preempts the City’s ordinance and that sign owners throughout the state should be compensated equally.

Section 7 — 101 of the Act provides, in relevant part: “[pjrivate property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation, and in all cases in which compensation is not made by *** [a] municipality in its respective corporate capacity, such compensation shall be ascertained by a jury.” 735 ILCS 5/7 — 101 (West 1998). The 1993 amendment to the Act provided specific protection to billboard owners. Pub. Act 87 — 1205, eff. July 1, 1993 (amending 735 ILCS 5/7 — 101 (West 1992)). After the amendment,

section 7 — 101 further provides: “[t]he right to just compensation as provided in this

Article applies to the owner or owners of any lawfully erected off-premises outdoor advertising sign that is compelled to be altered or removed under this

Article or any other statute, or under any ordinance or regulation of any municipality or other unit of local government, and also applies to the owner or owners of the property on which that sign is erected.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/7 — 101 (West 1998). The City is a home rule municipality and derives its home rule powers from the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6. The constitution permits municipalities to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to their government and affairs, except as limited by that section. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6(a).

Section 6(

i) provides that home rule units may perform concurrently with the state any power or function of a home rule unit to the extent that the General Assembly by law does not specifically limit the concurrent exercise or specifically declare the state’s exercise to be exclusive. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6(i). The intent and purpose of the home rule provisions is to severely limit the judiciary’s authority to preempt home rule powers through judicial

interpretation of unexpressed legislative intent. Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 153 Ill. 2d 164, 186 (1992). Home rule powers should be construed liberally. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6(m). We apply a three-part test to determine whether a municipality’s actions are a valid exercise of its home rule authority. County of Cook v. John Sexton Contractors Co., 75 Ill. 2d 494, 508 (1979). First, we must decide whether the exercise of power by the municipality is a power “ ‘pertaining to its government and affairs.’ ” County of Cook, 75 Ill. 2d at 508, quoting Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6(a).

Second, we must determine whether the legislature has specifically limited the local exercise of the power at issue or whether the legislature has specifically declared the State’s exercise to be exclusive, thereby totally preempting a home rule unit’s exercise of its constitutional power. Finally, if no specific action has been taken, then we must determine the proper relationship between the local ordinance and the state law. County of Cook, 75 Ill. 2d at 508. 1.

Local Government and Affairs The presence of a statewide, as opposed to a local, interest in an area has been found on the basis of constitutional provisions committing the area in question to a specific branch of government. McLorn v. City of East St. Louis, 105 Ill. App. 3d 148, 153 (1982) (power over sovereign immunity); County of Cook, 75 Ill. 2d at 514-15 (environmental control); People ex rel. Lignoul v. City of Chicago, 67 Ill. 2d 480, 487 (1977) (regulation of banking industry); Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley, 61 Ill. 2d 537, 542 (1975) (unified court system); see also City of Quincy v. Daniels, 246 Ill.

App. 3d 792, 796-97 (1993) (home rule municipality’s trespass ordinance, which created a criminal offense for conduct the state’s criminal statute deemed to be noncriminal, held void because language in state statute and constitutional convention comments reflected a statewide policy of having a uniform definition of crimes). Home rule entities also have been found to overstep their powers when their ordinances have an extraterritorial effect. See, e.g., People ex rel. Bernardi v.

City of Highland Park, 121 Ill. 2d 1, 16 (1988) (home rule municipality could not abrogate state statute regulating prevailing wages for public works projects where the ordinance would have affected wages outside the city and intruded into a field traditionally regulated by the state). It is not enough that the state has comprehensively regulated an area that would otherwise fall under home rule power. Village of Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utilities Co. of Illinois, 158 Ill. 2d 133, 138 (1994).

Historic regulation by the state of an area is but one factor to consider in determining whether an area is of local dimension. Bolingbrook, 158 Ill. 2d at 139. Whether a particular problem is of statewide rather than local dimension must be decided with regard for the nature and extent of the problem, the units of government that have the most vital interest in its solution, and the role traditionally played by local and statewide authorities in dealing with it. Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483, 501 (1984).

Generally, the power to regulate outdoor advertising pertains to a municipality’s government and affairs. Scadron, 153 Ill. 2d at 194. However, the administration of justice under the constitution is a matter of statewide concern and does not pertain to local government and affairs. Ampersand, 61 Ill. 2d at 542. When the interests affected extend well beyond those of home rule units, then the exercise of power does not pertain to local government and affairs. City of Carbondale v. Yehling, 96 Ill. 2d 495, 499 (1983).

In Yehling, the city of Carbondale, a home rule unit, enacted an eminent domain ordinance setting forth procedures to exercise eminent domain powers within its city limits for the purpose of redeveloping its business district. The supreme court initially determined that the city’s purpose pertained to its local government and affairs. However, the court held that the city’s exercise of eminent domain power under its ordinance impermissibly interfered with the state judiciary system and therefore it did not pertain to the local affairs of Carbondale. Yehling, 96 Ill. 2d at 501.

By imposing duties upon county and judicial officials, defining specific remedies available in court proceedings, and prescribing the order of certain court proceedings, the ordinance was no longer local in character. Yehling, 96 Ill. 2d at 504. Attempting to distinguish Yehling, the City argues that its use of amortization as just compensation has no impact on judicial procedures and that its ordinance places no undue burden on the courts. Paramount and Viacom contend that the City’s ordinance precludes a specific remedy of just compensation available in court proceedings under

section 7 — 101 of the Act and that the City is attempting to modify the procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/1 — 101 et seq. (West 1998)) that the judiciary would have to follow. Thus, they argue that the City’s ordinance directly conflicts with the Code and affects the court system and its procedures by completely denying citizens the procedural and property protections and the just compensation remedy mandated by the Act.

We disagree in part with Paramount and Viacom’s argument that the City is attempting both to modify procedural rules of the Code and to preclude a specific remedy available under the Act. We first look to the claim that the City’s ordinance is seeking to modify the procedural rules of the Code. We find that the City’s ordinance does not impact the procedures the courts are to follow as set forth in the Code. The Act’s placement within the Code does not necessarily imply that any municipal ordinance to the contrary infringes into the judiciary’s domain. We find any infringement to be too tenuous.

We also note that the burden imposed on the judiciary in Yehling was more explicit, including prescribing the order of court proceedings and imposing duties on judicial officials. Indeed, in other cases in which ordinances have been held to interfere with the procedural administration of the judiciary, the ordinances imposed, as in Yehling, explicit burdens on the court system. See Village of Glenview v. Zwick, 356 Ill.

App. 3d 630, 641 (2005) (home rule municipality’s fee-shifting ordinance, which imposed on an opposing party the obligation to pay the municipality’s reasonable attorney fees when the municipality was the successful party in litigation involving the enforcement or defense of a provision of its municipal code, did not pertain to the city’s government and affairs because it imposed a burden on the state’s judicial system); City of Naperville v. Lerch, 198 Ill.

App. 3d 578, 583-84 (1990) (in the absence of a statute passed by the General Assembly, trial court had no power to award plaintiff home rule municipality attorney fees under its ordinance permitting such award); Ampersand, 61 Ill. 2d at 542-43 (ordinance imposing payment of county library fee in addition to court filing fees held invalid because it related to the administration of justice, which is a statewide concern and does not relate to local government and affairs). The ordinance does not mandate any procedures dealing with the litigation of a violation of the ordinance.

We conclude, therefore, that the City’s actions here do not generally interfere with the Code of Civil Procedure. This does not, however, answer the question of whether the City’s ordinance precludes a remedy, namely, just compensation, available under the Act. The City argues that its amortization scheme is just compensation. That is to say, the amortization provision of the City’s ordinance fulfills the Act’s mandate that a property owner receive just compensation when it is deprived of its property by action of the state or municipal government. In support, the City cites to Village of Skokie v.

Walton on Dempster, Inc., 119 Ill. App. 3d 299 (1983). According to the City, Village of Skokie endorses the use of an amortization period to compensate an owner while a municipality gradually eliminates a nonconforming use in its zoning scheme. The City overstates the rules laid down in Village of Skokie. In the first instance, we note that Village of Skokie raises no home rule issue. Second, there is no issue regarding a taking being worked by a regulatory ordinance; thus, there is no issue of whether an amortization period may stand as just compensation.

Because of these distinguishing features, the general rule that the City attempts to draw from Village of Skokie is inappropriate. The Village of Skokie court approved of the amortization at issue there (Village of Skokie, 119 Ill. App. 3d at 304-05); however, the issue being addressed related to the constitutionality of the ordinance, and not whether substituting amortization for just compensation overstepped a municipality’s home rule authority. Village of Skokie, 119 Ill. App. 3d at 303-04.

Belatedly, we note that, even where a home rule municipality legislates within a subject matter where there exist state statutes, this exercise of home rule authority will be allowed where there is no infringement of the powers accorded to a specific governmental branch. For example, in City of Chicago v. Taylor, 332 Ill. App. 3d 583, 589 (2002), the court upheld an ordinance regulating firearms despite the existence of state statutes covering the same subject matter.

Additionally, the court emphasized the fact that the delegates to the Illinois 1970 constitutional convention considered that firearm control “was a suitable field for local regulation pursuant to home rule authority.” Taylor, 332 Ill. App. 3d at 588; see also Crawford v. City of Chicago, 304 Ill. App. 3d 818, 826-27 (1999) (domestic partnership ordinance valid exercise of home rule authority because it extended health benefits to city employees and did not impact marriage rights in general); Town of Normal v. Seven Kegs, 234 Ill.

App. 3d 715, 719 (1992) (underage drinking ordinance was valid exercise of home rule authority where ordinance “does not conflict with or run contrary to State law”); City of Wheaton v. Sandberg, 215 Ill. App. 3d 220, 226 (1991) (local ordinance regarding the use of eminent domain to cure community blight upheld even though it did not incorporate all standards for determining blight as used in state statute; no legislative expression of need for uniformity across all communities in dealing with blighted areas). But cf. LaSalle National Trust, N.A. v. Village of Mettawa, 249 Ill.

App. 3d 550 (1993) (disconnection ordinance impermissibly infringes upon judiciary as it requires municipal approval of disconnection after court determines that requirements of disconnection statute have been met). The key factor in these cases appears to be whether the ordinance “conflict[s] with or run[s] contrary to State law.” Town of Normal, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 719. Where an ordinance contravenes a state statute; or otherwise intrudes upon the bailiwick of a governmental branch, the courts have not hesitated to find it an invalid exercise of home rule authority.

E.g., Ampersand, 61 Ill. 2d at 542-43; Zwick, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 641; Lerch, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 583-84. With these principles in mind, we find Department of Transportation v. Drury Displays, Inc., 327 Ill. App. 3d 881 (2002), to be more particularly apt. There, the Department of Transportation condemned the defendant’s sign and argued that the just compensation due to the defendant was only the “bonus value” (the difference between the market rent and the actual rent being paid) for the condemned sign. Drury Displays, 327 Ill. App. 3d at 887.

The court analyzed the plain language of the statute, particularly the portion of

section 7 — 101 of the Act that was added by the 1993 amendment. It held that “just compensation” is the fair market value of the property at its highest and best use on the date the property is condemned. Drury Displays, 327 Ill. App. 3d at 888. According to the Drury Displays court, had the legislature intended that “just compensation” for a condemned sign mean “bonus value,” it would have chosen to use the words “bonus value” in place of “just compensation.” Drury Displays, 327 Ill. App. 3d at 888.

We find this analysis to be directly applicable to the case at hand. “Amortization” has nothing to do with fair market value of the property at its highest and best use on the date the property is deemed condemned. The City’s claim, that amortization is just compensation, fails. To the extent, then, that the City is arguing that its amortization

schedule in its ordinance is the only remedy available to defendants, the ordinance burdens the state judiciary, because it prevents the state judiciary from awarding “just compensation” pursuant to the Act. Moreover, it affects the substance of the Act and not only the procedures. This infringement is significant enough to place it on par with the impermissible infringements identified in Yehling, 96 Ill. 2d at 501-04, Ampersand, 61 Ill. 2d at 542-43, Zwick, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 641, and Lerch, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 583-84.

As a result, the City’s attempt to replace “just compensation” with amortization as the only remedy available to a sign owner required to remove or alter its sign to comply with the City’s ordinance infringes on the state judiciary and is an impermissible exercise of its home rule authority. 2.

Remaining Issues Under Home Rule Analysis As a result of our conclusion that the City’s ordinance impermis-sibly infringes on a statewide issue, namely, the provision of just compensation to advertising sign owners, we need not continue our analysis of the ordinance under the framework set forth in County of Cook, 75 Ill. 2d at 508. C. Unlawful Taking Our determination that the ordinance constitutes an improper exercise of home rule authority obviates a further analysis of the taking-without-just-compensation issue; if the ordinance is invalid, then the signs will be allowed to remain undisturbed.

Consequently, there can be no taking. If the City institutes a new ordinance that does not attempt to foreclose the remedies of the Act and moves to enforce it against defendants, then that may result in a taking under

section 7 — 101 of the Act. That scenario, however, is not before us. IV CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed. Affirmed. BOWMAN, J., concurs. On January 6, 2003, the trial court dismissed Suburban as a party defendant and substituted in its place J.T. Land Group. Viacom, Inc. was substituted for named defendant National Advertising Company.