Kenyon Hall case will continue into 2007
Temporary ban on demolition to be decided later today
By Scott Rochat
Friday, November 3, 2006
An appeal that could decide the future of Kenyon Hall will go on into the new year.
Judge John Sanderson decided this morning that both sides in the case will be allowed to proffer evidence as to whether the city acted properly in approving a demolition permit for the former College of Emporia building.
“It’s always been my experience that it’s better to have too much evidence than not enough,” Sanderson said.
A hearing that will decide whether to put a temporary injunction on Kenyon’s demolition was set for 1 p.m. today.
Markowitz-Mitchell LLC had requested the demolition permit from the city, maintaining that the building is too expensive to restore. The Lyon County Historical Society and Steve Hanschu appealed the city commission’s decision on the grounds that it was arbitrary and could affect the environment of Anderson Library, a historically-registered building next door.
Attorneys for the city and Markowitz-Mitchell had asked that the appeal only consider the evidence that the city commission had available when it made its decision on Sept. 6. The attorneys for the historical society asked that new evidence be allowed.
“Proffering” evidence means the new information will not be considered to be sworn testimony.
The schedule for the appeal will be as follows:
F Dec. 1 — Attorneys for the historical society proffer evidence.
F Dec. 29 — Attorneys for the city and Markowitz-Mitchell proffer rebuttal evidence.
F Jan. 15 — Attorneys for the historical society submit their brief.
F Jan. 30 — Attorneys for the city and Markowitz-Mitchell submit their brief.
F Feb. 10 — Attorneys for the historical society respond to opposition brief.
F Feb. 20 — Attorneys for the city and Markowitz-Mitchell respond to opposition brief.
F March 1 — Oral arguments in the case will be heard at 1 p.m., after which the judge will make a decision.
The schedule means that the case will drag on past Sanderson’s Jan. 8 retirement. That means the case could either be taken on by the new judge or re-assigned to Sanderson as a retired judge. If it goes back to Sanderson, retirement law would not let him return sooner than Feb. 9.
Complicating things further, City Attorney Blaise Plummer is a candidate to replace Sanderson. If the governor appoints Plummer to the bench, he would likely have to recuse himself from the case.
“If he doesn’t, I’ll always think he should have,” Sanderson said, drawing chuckles from the courtroom.