Lawsuit filed to stop proposed high-rise - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Lawsuit filed to stop proposed high-rise

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:43 pm

COEUR d’ALENE — A group of downtown condo residents who live next door to a proposed 14-story high-rise building filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the city and developer to prevent the $20 million project from happening.

The suit, filed by a group of Coeur d’Alene North Condominium residents called Coeur d’Alene North Home Owners View Preservation, states the proposed project would harm existing residents’ property rights and that the city didn’t protect their rights when they appealed to the governing body.

“The comprehensive plan for defendant city of Coeur d’Alene asserts to protect and preserve private property rights in the development and implementation of land-use policies and regulations,” the complaint states.

It was filed by attorney James Crowe, who also lives in the North Condos, and attorney Scott Reed. The two have said for months they would be prepared to litigate should the project applicant, One Lakeside, be allowed to build a high-rise downtown.

“We think we have a legitimate claim,” Reed said Thursday. “We recognize it’s unusual.”

Colorado-based One Lakeside initially approached the city in the fall about the proposed building.

The 14-story residential building would sit on the corner of First Street and Lakeside Avenue, where the current Mudge building is, and would have commercial space on the ground floor.

The complaint states that its construction would destroy views of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Tubbs Hill City Park and the city of Coeur d’Alene for residents who have lived there for roughly 30 years. It points to a 2013 guideline by Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden on the state’s Regulatory Takings Act that says “government is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons of individuals.”

“I feel a responsibility ... the property rights of Idahoans are enforced,” the AG’s guideline says.

Reed has estimated in previous interviews that property values could decrease by more than $1 million.

After a series of meetings late last year, the city’s Design View Commission approved the project design on grounds that it adhered to the city’s downtown building guidelines. North Condo resident Harold Damiano then appealed that decision to the City Council Jan. 14. The city, on advice of its legal counsel, denied the appeal because it only could judge it on design criteria, which it does fit.

But Reed said Thursday, which is also reflected in the complaint, that the city should offer some avenue where residents could have taken their private property concerns as part of an appeal.

Greg Hills, the Colorado-based developer spearheading the project, couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday, but has told The Press in previous interviews the company has the resources to handle possible litigation and was prepared to go that route if a suit was filed.

Talk of litigation began as far back as November.

He also spoke with some concerned neighbors last year during the design process and altered the design of the building to a taller, skinnier version to impede less of the view. He told The Press during the design review that the developers have been trying “to play nice in the sandbox” with neighbors.

"We always felt, I guess, we had the right to do what we're doing,” he said in January after the appeal was denied and he was allowed to get building permits.

The city’s legal department couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday.

Deputy city attorney Warren Wilson said during the January appeal that the AG’s takings guideline referred to when governments took private property. The issue comes down to a private property owner legally doing what he wants with his own land, and that’s not something with which the city should interfere.

"Frankly, it's not a suit I'm worried about," Wilson said at the time.

Reed estimated about half of the 84 units would be affected by the new construction. He said though the residents never secured airway rights above the Mudge building, that does not act as a waiver of their legal property rights. Crowe said the residents were never offered the chance to buy them.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

10 comments:

  • heatherfeather posted at 10:45 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

    heatherfeather Posts: 297

    How can they claim property values were affected without some proof of this? It would be difficult to find a comparable property to the CDA North condos since the other tower condos are all new, and would fetch a higher price. One needs only to look at the million-dollar condos in Seattle's Belltown whose view includes the Sound and....drum roll....other high-rises.

     
  • charliek60 posted at 10:21 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    charliek60 Posts: 204

    MY road was paved , other houses were built around me , LCDC hooked my house up to sewer , then charged me , sex offenders moved in the area.

    All without my approval.

    Change stops when you die.

     
  • truthful1 posted at 9:39 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    truthful1 Posts: 554

    smirk

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 9:28 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    Seldom agree, but 'live and let live'. If you didn't like the coming vista, maybe you should have moved to Parkside before plans for the updated 'GARDENS' without public vote were released.

     
  • mister d posted at 8:56 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    mister d Posts: 1531

    Crybabies.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 8:33 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5588

    This takes "sore loser" to new heights (pun fully intended)....

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 5:11 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    "Crowe said the residents were never offered the chance to buy them."

    probably believed Bloem's vote was in the bag. Future additions approved only to the east and north of their precious view. What goes around comes around. Eat Crowe and enjoy your NEW view.

     
  • ProIdaho posted at 4:17 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    ProIdaho Posts: 263

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    If you want unobstructed views of the lake forever, then buy lakefront property!

     
  • voxpop posted at 4:05 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    Whenever there are NIMBY lawsuits like this the loser should pay all the costs of both sides. What about the views that were blocked by Cda North?

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 4:05 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    Hypocrisy and NIMBYism? Where was Reed's voice when he was a member of the Gang of 9?

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks