Telephone Hill eviction cases dismissed as judge defers to lawsuit against city by tenants challenging ouster

CBJ says it disagrees with ruling, will seek speedy action in the civil lawsuit

Telephone Hill on Friday, Nov. 21, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Independent)

By Mark Sabbatini

Juneau Independent

Eviction cases against three people living in two residences on Telephone Hill were dismissed Friday morning by a District Court judge, who said she is deferring the matter to a Superior Court civil lawsuit filed against the City and Borough of Juneau by residents challenging redevelopment plans for the neighborhood.

In a hearing lasting only a few minutes at the Dimond Courthouse, District Court Judge Kirsten Swanson said she doesn’t have jurisdiction to rule on issues raised in the Superior Court lawsuit. She also noted eviction cases are "not meant to be a drawn-out process" and said the city can refile its cases against the residents if the outcome of the civil lawsuit — filed before the eviction cases — is favorable to CBJ.

Eviction cases against John Ingalls and Rachel Beck at one residence, and against Joseph Karson at the other home, were filed Nov. 5 after they failed to move out by the Nov. 1 vacate notice date. Swanson was asked at a hearing on Wednesday to merge the eviction cases and civil lawsuit filed on Oct. 31, and her quick decision to dismiss the evictions caught the residents by surprise.

"It’s great," Karson said afterward. "This is what we wanted, to stay in our homes, and for now that looks like what we're going to have, which is going to make life a little bit easier for all of us."

The three residents could have been locked out of their homes within hours of the hearing, had the judge ruled in favor of the city on the eviction cases. Karson said he’s still staying at his Telephone Hill home and plenty of his belongings are still there, but "since everything about this has been so uncertain I do have stuff in a temporary place where that I could move to at a moment's notice."

The city will seek to resolve the issue via the civil lawsuit, Municipal Attorney Emily Wright stated in an email to the Juneau Independent shortly after the hearing ended.

"We understand, but disagree with Judge Swanson’s ruling," she wrote. "We will ask the Superior Court to expedite any consideration to ensure that the City and the tenants receive a quick resolution."

No hearing date has been set for that case, which claims the city is using an "illegally phased decision process" and violating historic preservation laws. The city filed a response Thursday stating the claims in the lawsuit are largely based on false assertions as well as inaccurate interpretations of federal, state and local laws.

Redevelopment of Telephone Hill has been discussed for many years, with current plans taking shape after the state turned over ownership of the neighborhood to the city in 2022. The Juneau Assembly earlier this year approved the first steps toward a long-discussed redevelopment plan that includes four new midrise apartments with 155 residences.

Among those actions was eviction orders for 13 residences in seven structures approved in June of this year that originally were supposed to occur by Oct. 1, but were delayed until Nov. 1 when the notices weren’t properly served.

The city has reached an agreement to postpone an eviction at one other Telephone Hill residence. Maureen Conerton and her husband, Jeff Brown, who has Parkinson's disease, have until Nov. 24 to move out of the Edward Webster House — the oldest residence in Juneau — due to complications related to his medical condition, according to Wright.

City files response to civil lawsuit

The three specific claims in the Superior Court civil lawsuit are 1) the city illegally evicted the Telephone Hill residents without giving them "reasonable options," 2) redevelopment plans are proceeding without city officials knowing if all of the steps involved are practically and legally feasible, and 3) the proposed redevelopment violates state and federal historic preservation laws.

The city, in its response filed Thursday, states many of the lawsuit’s claims are based on inaccurate assertions. The response notes that while the city considers Telephone Hill a "historic neighborhood," it is not an officially registered "historic district" that would be subject to the state and federal laws cited in the lawsuit.

Fred Triem, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said a key reason for filing the lawsuit is if the redevelopment is illegal then the eviction of residents is unnecessary. He also noted city’s deadline for companies bidding to demolish existing structures is Dec. 31, so there’s no immediate need to force people out.

"Our ultimate goal is to preserve the old buildings," he said.

The city is challenging the lawsuit’s claims that insufficient study has been done about the feasibility of the redevelopment project, including questions about slope stability and hazardous materials that might be on the properties.

"Although no study has specifically focused on the environmental impacts of removing the dwellings, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted in May of 2024 ‘to identify potential or existing Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical RECs (HRECs), and/or Controlled RECs (CRECs)’ which focused on the presence of ‘any hazardous substances or petroleum products,’" the city’s response states.

As for slope stability, the response states "although new geotechnical work (including core drilling) has not occurred, previous geotechnical investigations for the Downtown Parking Garage occurred in 2011 and geotechnical engineers from RESPEC inspected Telephone Hill in August of 2025, finding no evidence of instability or compromised soils that would jeopardize future development."

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