Lawsuit by three Telephone Hill residents seeks to halt city’s redevelopment of neighborhood

Civil claim asserts CBJ improperly evicted residents, is using an illegal development process, and is violating historic preservation laws; city FAQ rebuts many of the claims

Telephone Hill on Saturday, Nov. 1, 2025, the day set for eviction orders issued by the city. (Mark Sabatini / Juneau Independent)

By Mark Sabbatini

Juneau Independent

A civil lawsuit claiming the city is illegally evicting residents and redeveloping Telephone Hill has been filed by three people who were longtime renters in the historic neighborhood.

The lawsuit filed Friday asserts the residents were evicted without discussing "reasonable options for moving," the city is engaging in an "illegally phased decision process" and is violating historic preservation laws. Occupants of 13 residences in seven structures were supposed to vacate the homes by Saturday, but a few are still there as of Tuesday.

"My hope is that the borough would not bring eviction proceedings this week or this month, but instead would allow the tenants to stay there long enough for us to decide or to litigate the second and third issues in the complaint," said Fred Triem, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, in an interview Tuesday. "Postpone the first issue, which is eviction, by just saying, ‘We're not going to evict them now.’ Let them stay there. They're not going to tear the building down immediately, so why not leave the tenants in there?"

Many of the lawsuit’s claims are rebutted by city officials in a memo and an FAQ discussed during a Juneau Assembly Committee of the Whole meeting Monday night — although they are not in direct response to the lawsuit itself. The documents also address factual claims in the lawsuit such as the site lacking sufficient slope stability for the redevelopment project.

"We have just received the lawsuit and are still reviewing," City Attorney Emily Wright wrote in an email to the Juneau Independent on Tuesday. "The City has complied with all legal obligations and requirements to provide notice to tenants of Telephone Hill that their tenancy was ending. There has been extensive public process and the decision to pursue the development of Telephone Hill is neither a surprise to the citizens of Juneau nor a violation of federal, state, or local law. The City does not believe that the lawsuit will be successful."

No hearing dates for the lawsuit were set as of midday Tuesday. The plaintiffs are Joseph Karson, Robert Sylvester and John Ingalls, all of whom were renting homes on Telephone Hill.

In a separate legal action, Wright stated the city plans to "file a forcible entry and detainer action for all three residences (still occupied) with the courts tomorrow morning." That process can take days or weeks, and Triem said expedited action seeking to halt any such requests may occur if they are granted. At least one of the residences still occupied is by somebody other than the plaintiffs.

The 12-page lawsuit recounts Telephone Hill’s history as one of Juneau’s oldest neighborhoods and the site of the city’s oldest continually occupied home. It also notes the state purchased the area in 1984 as a possible site for a new Capitol and when that didn’t happen the property was turned over to the city in 2022, at which point local leaders proceeded with redevelopment plans already being discussed.

The Juneau Assembly has approved the initial stages of a plan that will demolish the existing homes by next spring and build four midrise apartments with a total of 155 residential units. Supporters of the project say it will be a significant step toward resolving the city’s ongoing housing shortage, especially with hundreds of new residents expected to arrive during the coming years when a U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker is here, and many of the existing Telephone Hill homes are in severe disrepair.

The lawsuit contains three claims of action. Current and/or previous statements by city leaders address many of the points raised.

Illegal eviction

The lawsuit states the city’s actions occurred "Without discussing with holdover tenants of up to 38 years reasonable options for moving related to time of year, length of tenancy, available alternate housing, recognition that current residents include seniors, people with disabilities, low income residents and recognition that these residents have care for, repaired and protected the integrity of these historic homes for over half a century."

The Juneau Assembly voted June 9 to evict the residents on Oct. 1, with that date postponed until Nov. 1 when it was determined the original notices weren’t properly served to ensure the evictions met requirements under state law. Assembly members and city administrators have also repeatedly stated all Telephone Hill residents have been renting their homes over the decades knowing there were plans — by the state and then the city — to redevelop the area.

Triem, when asked if the city’s actions violated a proper notice period or any other law, stated the structures won’t be torn down if the other claims in the lawsuit are upheld and therefore there is no reason the evictions should be occurring.

"We don't need to kick them out if we're not going to tear the buildings out and, furthermore, if we leave the occupants in the building that's actually better to preserve the building because they're not going to freeze up, and the pipes will burst, and the buildings will not fill with condensation and rot, as old buildings do when there's no occupants," he said.

"Illegally phased decision process"

The lawsuit asserts the city is proceeding with the redevelopment without knowing if all of the steps involved are practically and legally feasible. That includes, for instance, "proceeding without knowing whether a competent (or any) developer" will bid to construct the apartments.

The claim cites a 1996 Alaska Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit by the Thane Neighborhood Association challenging the city’s approval of Echo Bay Alaska Inc.'s application for a large mine permit, subject to a set of conditions. The Thane residents asserted the city made compliance with water quality standards one of the conditions without obtaining enough information to know if that was feasible. The court ruled the city could have obtained that information and thus the permit approval was improper.

The Telephone Hill lawsuit asserts "insufficient work has been done (by CBJ) to determine the cumulative environmental impacts and total financial costs of completing all phases" of the redevelopment project. It also claims the city is proceeding "without knowing whether the site is large enough and rock base competent enough to accommodate high-rise buildings sufficient to provide 150 dwelling units."

The city’s FAQ declares "the area bedrock is very strong and previous geotechnical investigations for the Downtown Parking Garage have determined the slopes are stable."

"Geotechnical engineers from RESPEC visited Telephone Hill in August 2025 and did not report any evidence of instability or compromised soils that would jeopardize future development," the document notes. "RESPEC also relayed that they did not observe any stability issues that would bring the project’s feasibility into question."

Also, there will be some unknowns about future phases of the project until initial phases are complete, City Manager Katie Koester told Assembly members on Monday. For instance, hazardous materials assessments of the homes are occurring once occupants move out. Also, she has repeatedly stated a developer for the building— and thus the price that will be charged — isn’t likely to be found until demolition and site preparation occur so bidders have reliable information about the scope of work involved.

Triem said his clients are challenging the city’s reasoning and factual claims — which is why the matter is now in court.

"It's simply a factual dispute," he said. "We do not take as gospel truth the statements that the city manager is putting in her FAQs, so that's the short answer. We simply disagree with that. We contend that that's not correct, and that's something that will have to be explored and developed in a neutral forum in front of a hopefully neutral judge."

Violation of state and federal historic preservation laws

The final claim involves a federal law the city asserts is irrelevant to the redevelopment project.

Cited in the lawsuit is Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which applies if a federal agency, jurisdiction or funding is involved in a project that may affect historic properties. The city’s FAQ states there is no current federal involvement with the Telephone Hill redevelopment, "nor is any future federal agency involvement expected."

The plaintiffs, among others, note that housing Coast Guard personnel in the new apartments is frequently mentioned by city officials. But the city states that’s a separate matter from building the new housing.

"CBJ is collaborating with the USCG to secure housing units for the incoming service members and support staff across Juneau," the FAQ states. "The intention is not for the USCG to purchase or be the developing entity for Telephone Hill. In short, a Section 106 cannot be pursued because CBJ is not in a position to even get the process started."

Triem asserts if the city has entered a formal agreement or understanding with the Coast Guard about making the apartments available for crew housing then the Section 106 provision applies.

He said his involvement in the case stems from his longtime interest in historical preservation, noting his law office is the oldest building in Petersburg "and I've done a lot of work to preserve it." He said he has a similar desire to preserve Telephone Hill as a protected area.

"This area at the top of Telephone Hill should be an historical district as defined in the 1966 federal legislation," he said. "That's what I think should happen to it and I hope in the long run it will, but we'll see."

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