Kenyon Hall appeal begins
Fate remains uncertain as court considers procedure
Friday, November 3, 2006
An appeal to decide the fate of Kenyon Hall wandered into uncharted territory this morning in Lyon County District Court.
The court has been asked to rule on whether the Emporia City Commission acted properly in approving a demolition permit for Kenyon Hall, the former main building of the College of Emporia. The difficulty, Judge John Sanderson said today, is that so far as he could tell, Lyon County hasn’t had a case of this nature before.
“I talked to a previous city attorney, Judge (Merlin) Wheeler, and during his time as city attorney, he had never had an appeal from this statute,” Sanderson said.
That meant the court would have to decide whether a full appeal was necessary or if an abbreviated version would be possible, and whether any new evidence could be introduced.
A full appeal has the advantage of having all the rules laid out in advance, Sanderson said, but could be quite lengthy. Since Kenyon Hall is in poor condition, he said, time could make a difference.
“One thing we don’t want is to have these proceedings overtaken by events,” he said. “The building may demolish itself.”
The building’s demolition has been requested by its owner, Markowitz-Mitchell LLC, which maintains that the building is too expensive to restore.
The demolition is opposed by the Lyon County Historical Society, in part on the grounds that the city’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the demolition may impact the environment of Anderson Library, a historically-registered building next door.
Blaise Plummer, the Emporia city attorney, argued for the standard rules of appeal, with no new evidence to be admitted. LeeAnne Hays, a Johnson County attorney appearing for the historical society, said that both state law and court cases elsewhere would allow her to introduce new evidence for the purpose of showing that the city didn’t consider all the facts.
Larry Putnam, the attorney for Markowitz -Mitchell, noted that the court can’t substitute its own judgment for the city’s and was restricted to deciding three things: Was the decision arbitrary? Was it support by the evidence? And was it within the scope of the city’s authority.
Hays agreed, but said that’s exactly why new evidence has to be available. If the court finds the city acted poorly, she said, the case can be sent back to the commission.
“The question, then that the court must consider is whether or not the decision of the city was supported by substantial evidence,” she said. “And the only way the plaintiffs can show it was not is to submit additional evidence.”