Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

Page 2 -- November 15, 1995 Z.g. Demolition -- City Destroys Building After Owner's Rehab Funds Fall Through Hoeck v. City of Portland, 57 F. 3d 781 (Orego~O 1995 Hoeck owned a vacant six-story building in the city of Portland, Ore. He decided to add four stories and convert it into a 10-story office building. A lender gave him a financing commitment, the city gave him a building per- mit, and he began work. By March 1986, Hoeck had spent about $1 million on the project. Then his lender became insolvent and he could not get replacement financing. Work stopped. In 1989, the city's Bureau of Buildings filed a complaint against Hoeck's building with the city code hearings officer. The bureau said the building was an abandoned structure in violation of the city code. The code authorized abatement of abandoned or dangerous structures and gave the code hearings officer power to order demolition. It defined an "abandoned structure" as one that was vacant for more than six months or that was a public hazard or nuisance. The code hearings officer held five hearings during which the city gave evidence that the building attracted transients and drug users.' The city also showed that the building had structural flaws and a lot of debris. Before the last hearing, Hoeck made the building structurally sound so it was no longer in danger of collapse, and secured it with steel shutters. The code hearings officer found the building to be abandoned and ordered its demolition. The officer noted that any delay of demolition would not do "anything other than inflict this ugly and potentially hazardous building on the neighborhood for some additional, indefinite time." Hoeck twice asked a state court to review the demolition order, but the court held the order was enforceable.- In July 1992, the city demolished the building. Hoeck sued the city in federal court, claiming it violated his federal con- stitutional due process rights by demolishing the building without compen- sating him --he said the' city ~outd not demolish his building just because it was unoccupied. He also asked the court to declare he was not liable to the city for demolition costs, and to determine that the demolition was a taking under state law. Hoeck and the city both asked the court for judgment without a trial. The court granted the city's request. Hoeck appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly granted the city judgment without a trial. The city's actions were not a taking and did not violate Hoeck's due process rights. His request for a declaration that he did not owe the city demolition costs depended on his due process claim, so that was properly denied too. I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I