The demolition permit was issued. We are still working on this.
As of this morning they were just doing utility work in front, though a big backhoe with crushing jaws on the arm was on site, ready to take a bite out of mid-century International style modern concrete.
Unfortunately, due to an amendment to the ordinance, our fight for the building is going to be tough. However, our fight for the cause, including more court time, is not over. Stay tuned for details.
^ I hope your "fight" will focus less on stopping the demolition in the Courts (because, to be honest, it is very tough to get a Court to overturn a local decision unless it is arbitrary and capricious, which I don't think is the case here) and more on the other two key aspects of this whole matter:
1. Working with the Preservation Board and City to make it explicit that the mid-century structure within the district are historic resources and should be protected as such (along with appropriate design standards for new construction in a mid-century vein); and
2. Mounting support to stop approval of the use variance to construct a parking lot.
1. Working with the Preservation Board and City to make it explicit that the mid-century structure within the district are historic resources and should be protected as such (along with appropriate design standards for new construction in a mid-century vein); and
2. Mounting support to stop approval of the use variance to construct a parking lot.
- 3,762
matt, what amendment are you referring to?
couldn't it be argued that the demolition is capricious considering that the planned parking lot violates ordinance and the AD didn't seek the variance before the demo permit? in other words, they didn't bother to do their homework...?
couldn't it be argued that the demolition is capricious considering that the planned parking lot violates ordinance and the AD didn't seek the variance before the demo permit? in other words, they didn't bother to do their homework...?
Well first, my understanding is that Courts give municipalities a wide latitude and presumption of validity in such matters. It would be on the Friends of the San Luis to clearly demonstrate that the granting of the demolition permit by the Preservation Board was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Even if the Court finds the decision to be arbitrary or capricious the Court may simply return the case to the Board for reconsideration rather than vacate the judgment.
Arguing that the granting of the demolition permit is capricious as the use variance for the parking lot has not been granted cuts the other way as well. When considering the merits of granting a use variance, one of the key considerations is whether the Preservation Board would even be willing to grant the demolition of the structure. Properly, if the Church had sought the use variance first, it would make sense to condition the approval on the granting of the demolition by the Preservation Board (perhaps the converse should be true as well). One might have considered whether a joint-session of the Zoning Board and Preservation Board would be in order for a matter where the decisions of both Board's are so intertwined, however I don't know whether you can do that under Missouri law.
In any case, my understanding is that the Preservation Board's job in demolition review is to apply the appropriate statues and decide whether demolition would harm the intent and purpose of the preservation district . In this case, my understanding is that the Board reviewed the application and found that it was not clear whether the intent of the historic district was to preserve mid-century modern buildings. Therefore demolition of this structure is permitted. The Board cannot and should not (and as far as I can tell did not) make a finding on the appropriateness of a parking lot on Lindell.
The Zoning Board, however, has a much wider view in considering the use variance, balancing the positive (impact on the public good) and the negative (will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the land use plan and zoning ordinances). In my mind, part of this balancing must consider input from the Preservation Board on the appropriateness of this structure for demolition.
Therefore, given the differing roles of the two bodies, I think it was right for the Preservation Board to first decide the more narrow issue of demolition before the Zoning Board takes on the wider question of the use variance.
Arguing that the granting of the demolition permit is capricious as the use variance for the parking lot has not been granted cuts the other way as well. When considering the merits of granting a use variance, one of the key considerations is whether the Preservation Board would even be willing to grant the demolition of the structure. Properly, if the Church had sought the use variance first, it would make sense to condition the approval on the granting of the demolition by the Preservation Board (perhaps the converse should be true as well). One might have considered whether a joint-session of the Zoning Board and Preservation Board would be in order for a matter where the decisions of both Board's are so intertwined, however I don't know whether you can do that under Missouri law.
In any case, my understanding is that the Preservation Board's job in demolition review is to apply the appropriate statues and decide whether demolition would harm the intent and purpose of the preservation district . In this case, my understanding is that the Board reviewed the application and found that it was not clear whether the intent of the historic district was to preserve mid-century modern buildings. Therefore demolition of this structure is permitted. The Board cannot and should not (and as far as I can tell did not) make a finding on the appropriateness of a parking lot on Lindell.
The Zoning Board, however, has a much wider view in considering the use variance, balancing the positive (impact on the public good) and the negative (will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the land use plan and zoning ordinances). In my mind, part of this balancing must consider input from the Preservation Board on the appropriateness of this structure for demolition.
Therefore, given the differing roles of the two bodies, I think it was right for the Preservation Board to first decide the more narrow issue of demolition before the Zoning Board takes on the wider question of the use variance.
For immediate release: Michael Allen, President, 314-920-5680
JULY 22, 2009 michael.ross.allen@sbcglobal.net
FRIENDS OF THE SAN LUIS SEEK DEMOLITION HALT, RIGHT TO APPEAL PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION
On July 17, the Friends of the San Luis, Inc. filed a petition in Circuit Court to obtain a temporary injunction that would prohibit the Archdiocese of St. Louis from proceeding with any demolition work at the San Luis Apartments until our organization has exhausted its legal appeal of the approval of the demolition permit. While we do not have a final judgment, Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. has denied our motion for a temporary restraining order. The Building Division issued a demolition permit on Monday, July 20, and preliminary demolition work is now underway.
Our mission is to preserve the San Luis Apartments, and at this eleventh hour we press onward with that basic mission but also a larger one. After the Preservation Board granted preliminary approval to the demolition by a narrow vote, we intended to appeal that decision through our right under the city’s preservation ordinance. We think that the Preservation Board’s action was made through incorrect application of the law. Furthermore, we think that that the Cultural Resources Office report on the issue misled citizens and Preservation Board members through imprecise legal reasoning that made it unclear what laws were in play. Since the Preservation Board acts only to enforce city ordinances, without clarity of which laws are being enforced there is no due process.
Under the preservation ordinance, however, we have only the right to appeal an approved demolition permit. We filed the injunction petition to ensure that we were still fighting for an actual building rather than a rubble pile. Unfortunately, Judge Dierker is not stopping demolition as well as challenging our legal standing to bring forth an appeal of the Preservation Board decision. Thus begins our larger cause.
Our preservation ordinance allows an aggrieved party to bring forth an appeal. The preservation ordinance was passed by the Board of Aldermen for the benefit of the entire city, and its stakeholders are all citizens who share the duty of protecting the city’s heritage. The law enjoins us to become stewards of our architectural heritage, and the Friends of the San Luis gladly step forward to answer that call.
We contend that citizen right to appeal the decision of the Preservation Board is a fundamental part of due process and essential to the enforcement of the preservation review ordinance. Without the right to appeal, citizen participation has severely limited impact. Citizens must have the right to act when they feel that the preservation review ordinance has been violated by its own custodians. The right to appeal is a basic legal principle, and it must be part of St. Louis’ preservation law.
While we hold out weary hope of preserving the San Luis, we must assert the right of the citizen to bring forth an appeal under preservation law. We believe that future efforts will benefit from legal protection of that right, and that its fundamental sanctity is worth pursuing no matter what happens to the San Luis.
###
JULY 22, 2009 michael.ross.allen@sbcglobal.net
FRIENDS OF THE SAN LUIS SEEK DEMOLITION HALT, RIGHT TO APPEAL PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION
On July 17, the Friends of the San Luis, Inc. filed a petition in Circuit Court to obtain a temporary injunction that would prohibit the Archdiocese of St. Louis from proceeding with any demolition work at the San Luis Apartments until our organization has exhausted its legal appeal of the approval of the demolition permit. While we do not have a final judgment, Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. has denied our motion for a temporary restraining order. The Building Division issued a demolition permit on Monday, July 20, and preliminary demolition work is now underway.
Our mission is to preserve the San Luis Apartments, and at this eleventh hour we press onward with that basic mission but also a larger one. After the Preservation Board granted preliminary approval to the demolition by a narrow vote, we intended to appeal that decision through our right under the city’s preservation ordinance. We think that the Preservation Board’s action was made through incorrect application of the law. Furthermore, we think that that the Cultural Resources Office report on the issue misled citizens and Preservation Board members through imprecise legal reasoning that made it unclear what laws were in play. Since the Preservation Board acts only to enforce city ordinances, without clarity of which laws are being enforced there is no due process.
Under the preservation ordinance, however, we have only the right to appeal an approved demolition permit. We filed the injunction petition to ensure that we were still fighting for an actual building rather than a rubble pile. Unfortunately, Judge Dierker is not stopping demolition as well as challenging our legal standing to bring forth an appeal of the Preservation Board decision. Thus begins our larger cause.
Our preservation ordinance allows an aggrieved party to bring forth an appeal. The preservation ordinance was passed by the Board of Aldermen for the benefit of the entire city, and its stakeholders are all citizens who share the duty of protecting the city’s heritage. The law enjoins us to become stewards of our architectural heritage, and the Friends of the San Luis gladly step forward to answer that call.
We contend that citizen right to appeal the decision of the Preservation Board is a fundamental part of due process and essential to the enforcement of the preservation review ordinance. Without the right to appeal, citizen participation has severely limited impact. Citizens must have the right to act when they feel that the preservation review ordinance has been violated by its own custodians. The right to appeal is a basic legal principle, and it must be part of St. Louis’ preservation law.
While we hold out weary hope of preserving the San Luis, we must assert the right of the citizen to bring forth an appeal under preservation law. We believe that future efforts will benefit from legal protection of that right, and that its fundamental sanctity is worth pursuing no matter what happens to the San Luis.
###
I don't understand, why do you think that citizens don't have the right to appeal the decisions of the preservation board? If that is true, then aren't they operating without any checks and balances? What is the point of having a preservation ordinance or preservation board for that matter if neither are subject to any kind of oversight through an appeals process? Seems strange.
- 181
Dierker is a tool, an ugly combover fool..
he was the deciding judge during the Century fiasco
you are correct in stating he was the worst possible judge to have on this case/appeal
He doesnt care about historic preservation
he doesnt deserve to hold a seat in the circuit court
for a good laugh go to amazon where he is trying to sell a book
The Tyranny of Tolerance
A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault
about this book
Citing not only Judge Dierker’s own experiences but dozens of other recent court cases, in The Tyranny of Tolerance Dierker argues that the courts enable left-wing activists to promote their agenda at the expense of the American people. Dierker asks we consider:
• Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?
• Why is a Christian fired when he voices opposition to his employer’s favoring homosexuals?
• Why are airline pilots sued and sent to “diversity training” for recommending that suspicious-looking people of Middle Eastern appearance be kept off planes?
• Why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
• Why are speech codes imposed on employers, university students, lawyers (and judges!), while “artistic” indecency is protected from even the mildest regulation?
• Why are peaceful abortion protesters thrown in jail, their right to free speech crushed?
• Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of “diversity”?
• Why is an enemy fighter captured in Afghanistan granted access to U.S. federal courts, overturning judicial precedent safeguarding the president’s wartime powers—to say nothing of common sense?
With this passionate insider’s account, Judge Dierker looks at what is at stake for the Constitution, the success of the war on terrorism, the freedom to worship God, the ability to keep our families safe, the institution of marriage, and much more. He also shows how the radical liberals’ tyranny of tolerance may be defeated.
By wresting back control of the courts and restoring the legal, moral, and religious principles embedded in the Constitution, Dierker argues that only then can we ultimately reclaim the republic the Founders bequeathed to us.
he was the deciding judge during the Century fiasco
you are correct in stating he was the worst possible judge to have on this case/appeal
He doesnt care about historic preservation
he doesnt deserve to hold a seat in the circuit court
for a good laugh go to amazon where he is trying to sell a book
The Tyranny of Tolerance
A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault
about this book
Citing not only Judge Dierker’s own experiences but dozens of other recent court cases, in The Tyranny of Tolerance Dierker argues that the courts enable left-wing activists to promote their agenda at the expense of the American people. Dierker asks we consider:
• Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?
• Why is a Christian fired when he voices opposition to his employer’s favoring homosexuals?
• Why are airline pilots sued and sent to “diversity training” for recommending that suspicious-looking people of Middle Eastern appearance be kept off planes?
• Why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
• Why are speech codes imposed on employers, university students, lawyers (and judges!), while “artistic” indecency is protected from even the mildest regulation?
• Why are peaceful abortion protesters thrown in jail, their right to free speech crushed?
• Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of “diversity”?
• Why is an enemy fighter captured in Afghanistan granted access to U.S. federal courts, overturning judicial precedent safeguarding the president’s wartime powers—to say nothing of common sense?
With this passionate insider’s account, Judge Dierker looks at what is at stake for the Constitution, the success of the war on terrorism, the freedom to worship God, the ability to keep our families safe, the institution of marriage, and much more. He also shows how the radical liberals’ tyranny of tolerance may be defeated.
By wresting back control of the courts and restoring the legal, moral, and religious principles embedded in the Constitution, Dierker argues that only then can we ultimately reclaim the republic the Founders bequeathed to us.
Holy sh*t.Doug wrote:Pick up the latest edition of the West End Word.
http://www.westendword.com/NC/0/1211.html
Excellent letter, Doug. If only the Powers That Be in this town would listen to reason.
This battle seems lost, but I really appreciate the time and effort that Doug, Matt, and the rest of you put into it. I gotta hope that some way, some how, people are going to start to have second thoughts about all the wanton destruction of our city's built environment.
- 5,433
Framer wrote:This battle seems lost, but I really appreciate the time and effort that Doug, Matt, and the rest of you put into it. I gotta hope that some way, some how, people are going to start to have second thoughts about all the wanton destruction of our city's built environment.
My sentiments exactly. I applaud all of you who have been on the front lines of this fight.
You've not only stated the case to save the Deville/San Luis eloquently, you've also made a case for a greater awareness of and appreciation for our unique and irreplaceable built environment, and you've exposed the abject hypocrisy of those that claim to represent the best interests of the City of St. Louis.
And don't get me started on Dierker... :hell:
- 479
TGE-ATW wrote:I don't understand, why do you think that citizens don't have the right to appeal the decisions of the preservation board? If that is true, then aren't they operating without any checks and balances? What is the point of having a preservation ordinance or preservation board for that matter if neither are subject to any kind of oversight through an appeals process? Seems strange.
I think that the city's preservation ordinance (64689) as amended (by ordinance 64925) allows an individual or corporation to file an appeal of the issuance of a demolition permit to the Preservation Board. That right is explicit in the ordinance. Yet if that right is not clear enough to be upheld by a judge, then the ordinances should be strengthened with clearer language. The San Luis issue ultimately boils down to the pitfalls of unclear language in our preservation law.
You are absolutely right -- the right of appeal is fundamental to all law, and preservation law specifically. Since preservation laws are designed to govern the public interest, they must allow appeal for all citizens governed by them. If appeal is limited to property owners who have applied for permits, then the laws are ineffective at honoring their own intent to safeguard public interest.
today they knocked all the windows out of the west face of the East tower. Kind of sad looking.
- 137
Doug wrote:Pick up the latest edition of the West End Word.
Very excellent letter Doug.
- 5,433
I commend everyone that's been on the front lines of this effort, but I definitely agree with both of you above. Excellent letter, Doug! 
Was in court today. We can expect a ruling probably either today or Monday.
- 11K
Doug - thanks again for your work on this issue. Really was a good letter in the West End Word. I hope that many of us remain committed to issues like the San Luis. There is zero reason we shouldn't 'survey' much of St. Louis, identify buildings that are not currently designated historic/contributing, advocate for new historic districts, etc. etc. etc. etc. There's a near infinite amount of proactive work we can do so that we will have the upperhand when similar issues surface.
- 479
Grover wrote:Doug - thanks again for your work on this issue. Really was a good letter in the West End Word. I hope that many of us remain committed to issues like the San Luis. There is zero reason we shouldn't 'survey' much of St. Louis, identify buildings that are not currently designated historic/contributing, advocate for new historic districts, etc. etc. etc. etc. There's a near infinite amount of proactive work we can do so that we will have the upperhand when similar issues surface.
That work has been taking place for years and as you type.
Dan Jay (Christner Architects) who "designed" the parking lot (hehe), is a member of the Urban Land Institute. I think Christner Architects should be removed from the group.
ULI's mission:
The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.
Clearly, they went completely against the grain of this organization and shouldn't be allowed to be a member in my opinion.
ULI's mission:
The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.
Clearly, they went completely against the grain of this organization and shouldn't be allowed to be a member in my opinion.
- 10K
JCity wrote:Dan Jay (Christner Architects) who "designed" the parking lot (hehe), is a member of the Urban Land Institute. I think Christner Architects should be removed from the group.
ULI's mission:
The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.
Clearly, they went completely against the grain of this organization and shouldn't be allowed to be a member in my opinion.
I don't trust Clayton-based architects.
Maybe the Archdiocese hired them because they have "Christ" in their name.