Judge sides with couple at Juneau’s oldest house, gives them until Feb. 28 to move from Telephone Hill

City sought Jan. 21 date for eviction originally scheduled last November; Maureen Conerton and husband Jeff Brown argued that was unreasonable due to his disabilities

The Edward Webster House on Telephone Hill on Friday, Jan. 16, 2026. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Independent)

By Mark Sabbatini

Juneau Independent

Maureen Conerton and her husband Jeff Brown will be able to stay in Juneau’s oldest home until Feb. 28, a judge ruled Friday, bringing a likely end to the city’s final eviction dispute with residents of Telephone Hill.

Superior Court Judge Amanda Browning sided with the couple by ruling Brown’s disabilities make it impractical for them to move out by the Jan. 21 date sought by the City and Borough of Juneau. The couple is planning to move to a home in Auke Bay owned by Conerton’s son, Colin, which is still undergoing renovations such as soundproofing to accommodate Brown’s needs.

Browning also rejected the idea of the couple moving from the Edward Webster House, built in 1882, into temporary housing until work on the Auke Bay home is complete.

"I do find that it's necessary for his disability to not have multiple moves, not have these short-term moves," she said. In addition, "there's not been any testimony to the court that the move out would have a negative impact on the city's plans to redevelop Telephone Hill."

Redeveloping the downtown neighborhood has been envisioned for decades, first by state officials for government purposes starting in the 1980s and then by city officials for housing when the state turned the land over to CBJ in 2022. Residents have rented the homes on Telephone Hill for decades knowing of the eventual redevelopment plans.

The Juneau Assembly last year approved the initial phase of a redevelopment plan that would build four mid-rise apartments with 155 total residential units, with demolition of existing structures planned this year once the evictions are completed and properties inspected.

The eviction of 13 people living in seven residences was originally scheduled last Oct. 1, then postponed until Nov. 1 due to legal issues arising with how the notices were served. Most of the occupants moved out on or about that date, but three of the residences remain occupied well beyond then.

Lawsuits by residents of two other Telephone Hill homes challenging their evictions on the grounds that the city’s actions were illegal were previously rejected by Browning, who ruled the right of the city to evict tenants from property it owns is a separate issue from whether the redevelopment plans are legal. One residence was vacated by the ordered date of Jan. 2, the other has an eviction date of Jan. 21.

Conerton and Brown originally reached an agreement with the city to move out by Nov. 24, but remained at the home as other legal disputes played out. In their court case heard Friday they did not dispute the city’s right to evict them, but rather that the timeline given wasn’t reasonable for the family.

"There's not much of Mr. Brown left, and they want to be extremely careful to protect him and not do anything that will worsen his decline," Mary Alice McKeen, an attorney representing the couple, said during oral arguments following testimony in their eviction case. "So you have that on one side and on the other side you simply have the city saying they don't want to be a landlord, and I think it's clear that either under your general equitable powers or as a reasonable accommodation that this should be granted."

Assistant City Attorney Clinton Mitchell said the couple has had a lengthy period of time to make new living arrangements and "no others have been granted an extension like the one being requested here." He also denied McKeen’s assertions the city’s actions violated The Fair Housing Act’s requirements for accommodating people with disabilities.

"The city strongly denies discriminating against Mr. Brown," Mitchell said. However, the city also "acknowledges the practical implications of waiting until today, essentially, to begin the move-out process. So it might be impossible, frankly, for them to move out by Jan. 21."

Browning, in her ruling, stated the city did not violate The Fair Housing Act with its actions.

Conerton, after the hearing, said she was thankful for the judge’s ruling.

"I came in with the idea that you never know for sure what's going to happen and I'm grateful that it turned out the way it did," she said.

A civil lawsuit challenging the city’s redevelopment of Telephone Hill filed by six residents — Conerton and Brown not being among them — is pending. A readiness hearing in that case is scheduled April 17. City officials have stated they will not necessarily hold up their redevelopment plans pending the outcome of the case.

• Contact Mark Sabbatini at editor@juneauindependent.com or (907) 957-2306.