Judge upholds two Telephone Hill evictions; third case filed after couple stays past agreed departure date
- Mark Sabbatini
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Civil lawsuit by occupants seeking to preserve historic neighborhood tentatively set for next August; judge rules that case is not relevant to city’s right to evict tenants
By Mark Sabbatini
Juneau Independent
Evictions from two residences on Telephone Hill were upheld by a judge on Wednesday, who said the properties must be vacated next month. Eviction from a third residence is also now being sought by the city because the occupants didn’t move out by an agreed-upon date.
The key issue is the City and Borough of Juneau, as the landlord, has the legal right to evict tenants after giving them proper notice and those requirements were met, Superior Court Judge Amanda Browning ruled during the two-hour hearing at the Dimond Courthouse. The city’s plans to demolish and redevelop the neighborhood — which the tenants argue are illegal — is a separate legal matter in a case now tentatively set for trial next August.
"The issue before the court today is not preservation of these properties," Browning said while presiding over the hearing remotely from Sitka. "The issue is whether the city can take possession of these properties."
She declined the city’s request to grant an enforcement of vacancy by Thursday — which would effectively allow up to 15 days for the occupants to retrieve belongings before the city could remove them — citing ongoing wintry weather and the occurrence of Christmas next week.
She imposed an eviction deadline of 11:59 p.m. Jan. 21 for John Ingalls and Rachel Beck at one residence, after hearing the couple is experiencing medical hardships and Ingalls will be traveling for three weeks starting next week. A deadline of 11:59 p.m. Jan. 2 was set at the second residence for Joseph Karson, who was not at Wednesday’s hearing because he was traveling, and Browning stated he can challenge that date if he feels it is necessary.
Ingalls, testifying during the hearing, said he hasn’t lived at the residence for several years, but he still has an instrument-making workshop there and other people have stayed at the house. He also said he lived at the Telephone Hill address for 49 years and "I’ve been on notice my whole life I might have to leave that residence."
People have been renting homes on Telephone Hill for decades, including from the state, which purchased the property for development purposes in 1984, and from CBJ after it acquired ownership in 2022 when the state’s plans failed to materialize.
City leaders have stated since then the plan is to redevelop the neighborhood. Earlier this year, the Juneau Assembly approved the eviction of 13 residences in seven structures as part of the first step toward a plan that includes building four mid-rise apartments with 155 units, with a planned demolition of the existing neighborhood next year.
Another eviction now pending at ‘Juneau’s oldest residence’
Most of the other occupants departed by a Nov. 1 eviction date, with CBJ soon after pursuing the two evictions considered at Wednesday’s hearing. CBJ initiated a third eviction case at the beginning of December against Maureen Conerton and Jeff Brown. Due to medical disabilities Brown is suffering, they had reached an agreement with the city to move out by Nov. 24.
But as of Wednesday, they are still living at the Edward Webster House, which has a plaque next to its front door declaring it was built in 1882 and is Juneau’s oldest residence. Conerton, who was at Wednesday’s court hearing, said in an interview afterward that there have been delays in work being performed on a home they are planning to move to in Auke Bay.
"I can’t make things move faster at the place we’re moving to," she said.
Browning set an eviction hearing in that case for 9 a.m. on Dec. 31.
Conerton said she doesn’t know at this point what a realistic move-out date might be, given the unfinished work at the Auke Bay house.
Residents are arguing for preservation — and claiming retaliation
Tenants opposing the evictions — and their attorneys — spent much of Wednesday’s hearing and afterward arguing that vacating the homes is unwarranted because the city’s development plans for Telephone Hill are illegal. Arguments were also made that leaving the homes vacant during the winter will expose them to further damage due to frozen pipes and other fixtures.
Fred Triem, an attorney representing the tenants in the eviction cases heard Wednesday, accused the city during court arguments of illegally retaliating against the tenants because of their opposition to the redevelopment plan.
"The residents who are to be evicted have resisted the plan to destroy the historic buildings and so the borough is retaliating against them," he said.
Browning sided with CBJ in declaring the accusation unfounded and that the city properly followed eviction procedures.
She also stated the preservation arguments are issues to be decided in a separate civil lawsuit filed by three Telephone Hill residents — including Ingalls and Karson — against the city. Attorney Mary Alice McKeen, representing Conerton and Brown in their eviction case, told the judge the couple is considering joining the civil lawsuit as well.
The civil lawsuit claims CBJ is using an "illegally phased decision process" and violating historic preservation laws with its redevelopment plan. The city, in a response, stated many of the lawsuit’s claims are factually inaccurate — noting, for instance, Telephone Hill is not an officially registered "historic district" that would be subject to the state and federal laws cited in the lawsuit.
Browning set a tentative trial date at the end of next August and a June 6 pre-trial conference date in the civil case.
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at editor@juneauindependent.com or (907) 957-2306.
