.png)
Both sides in Telephone Hill lawsuit ask judge to decide case before a jury trial occurs
- Mark Sabbatini
- 2 hours ago
- 4 min read
Former residents say CBJ is illegally demolishing neighborhood; city’s attorney says accusations are based on emotion rather than law
By Mark Sabbatini
Juneau Independent
Attempts to resolve a civil lawsuit about the future of Telephone Hill without a jury trial were made in a Juneau courtroom Tuesday, with attorneys for both sides asking the judge for rulings that would decide the case in their favor.
The lawsuit filed last October by former residents of the downtown neighborhood seeks to halt the city’s plans to demolish seven existing residential structures there and build new higher-density apartments. City attorneys argue the lawsuit full of legal flaws and the residents are making largely emotional appeals to preserve the properties on city-owned land.
A jury trial scheduled to start Monday was postponed and motions by both sides for a direct ruling from Superior Court Judge Amanda Browning were argued on Tuesday. She said while she will try to issue a decision —including whether there are unresolved issues that need to be addressed by a trial — "I don't want the parties to expect an order in the next week or two."
Telephone Hill is one of Juneau’s oldest neighborhoods and the site of the city’s oldest continually occupied home. Residents for decades have rented the homes on land that was owned by state from the mid-1980s until it was turned over to the city in 2022, with both state and city officials stating their intent was to redevelop the property.
People living in 13 residences in seven structures were served eviction notices last fall, with the last of the residents moving out in February. The next major step for the city may occur in October, when information from prospective developers can be assessed.
The argument that the city is taking a phased approach to the redevelopment process that doesn’t detail the project’s cumulative impacts to the area was among those presented Tuesday by Fred Triem, the attorney representing the former residents. He noted, for instance, the city is moving ahead on plans to demolish the homes without knowing if there is a developer who will be willing to build new ones on the properties.
"What we want, what the law requires, is a PowerPoint presentation of A to Z," he said. "But that's not what we have. What the borough has presented is only A to D, where D stands for ‘demolition,’ and the whole thing stops there. We have to just hope and pray that after the buildings are demolished that someone competent will show up and does not renege."
That argument is an incorrect interpretation of the law as it applies to the Telephone Hill project, said Clinton Mitchell, an assistant attorney for the City and Borough of Juneau.
"If the plaintiff's argument were true that the law requires an A to Z from the very beginning…CBJ wouldn't have been able to install HESCO barriers in the interim while a permanent solution to the glacial outburst flood is determined," he said. "This is just one example of the absurdity of plaintiffs' arguments. We wouldn't be able to start painting a garage until the entire renovation is laid out in clear steps and plans."
Triem is also arguing local leaders are acting against recommendations made by the city’s Historic Resources Advisory Committee and the redevelopment would negate a pending application to protect the neighborhood under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In wrapping up his arguments to the judge, he said, "The ultimate issue here is really the fear over here."
"There's a room full of people behind me and they're all afraid," he said. "They're afraid that these historic ancient buildings are going to be smashed down and there'll be no replacement for them. Nobody will come to build anything new and we'll have what the city of New London has, and that's a couple of acres of vacant gravel suitable for weeds and feral cats, and we don't want that."
Mitchell, in response to Triem’s arguments, said actions by an advisory committee don't bind Juneau’s government and the historic preservation arguments are misapplied in the case of Telephone Hill. The city attorney also noted the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction against redevelopment work in the neighborhood is excessive, arguing a temporary hold on work is the appropriate remedy if the city needs to correct any administrative actions that were illegal.
"I feel like plaintiffs have been unable to support any of their argument by citing any case law, statute, municipal code, or anything that supports their claims in this case," Mitchell said. "And frankly I feel like the rest of the arguments are more based in feeling and nostalgia, and a desire to preserve historic homes, which I can appreciate. However, these are not legal arguments and should not support their claims made against the defendant."
After the hearing, John Ingalls, one of the six former residents who are plaintiffs in the case, walked back to the Telephone Hill neighborhood a few blocks from the courthouse. He looked at his former home and a separate garage that stored many of his belongings, now boarded up. He said he felt Triem did an exceptional job arguing the case, but also talked to another attorney observing the case who expected a ruling in the city’s favor.
"I really don't know," Ingalls said when asked what his expectations are for what occurs next. "If I were in the city’s position I’d be pretty worried because it could end up being really a horrible mess up here forever after. It's very likely that that could happen and I think that it's not going to make the city look very good if that happens."
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at editor@juneauindependent.com or (907) 957-2306.
