YOUNGSTOWN — The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Youngstown’s argument that it can’t be sued over the controversial 2020 demolition of the former Anthony’s on the River building.

The city argued it had “statutory immunity” from the 14th Amendment’s due process provision and couldn’t be sued for demolishing the building on Aug. 22, 2020, without first informing the owners, Two Bridges LLC.

The demolition also was done without first informing city council, which was going to vote four days later on the emergency demolition. Several council members learned about the demolition after being contacted about it by a Vindicator reporter.

The issue so greatly upset council members that they refused to pay the $48,000 demolition cost until June 2, 2021, when Law Director Jeff Limbian said Steel Valley Contractors, which did the work, was going to sue over nonpayment.

Two Bridges is seeking $212,000 in damages — the value of the demolished building — as well as attorney fees and costs, said Charles Dunlap, its lawyer.

Two Bridges first sued on Nov. 13, 2020, in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court.

The company contends the city’s emergency demolition ordinance, which allowed the building to be taken down, violates the Ohio Constitution — and that Youngstown deprived the company of its property without due process in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

FEDERAL COURT

The case went from local court to federal court Dec. 14, 2020.

U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson dismissed the claim that the city’s emergency demolition ordinance violates state law.

But she refused in that same May 10, 2022, ruling to grant summary judgment to Youngstown on the federal due process claim.

That resulted in the city appealing that decision June 2, 2022, to the 6th Circuit.

The appeals court agreed with Pearson in a recent ruling and sent it back to her for the trial to proceed in her court.

“Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” the court ruled.

The city’s emergency demolition ordinance “deprived Two Bridges of its right to due process,” the decision reads.

The city states its law requires no notice to a property owner before an emergency demolition, yet the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, the decision reads.

It adds: “Viewing these allegations in context, it is apparent that the claim focuses on Youngstown’s alleged failure to afford Two Bridges appropriate procedural safeguards before destroying its property.”

RETURNING FOR TRIAL

Limbian said the case will return to Pearson “and we anticipate we’ll be victorious at trial.”

Dunlap said: “I’m very satisfied with the 6th Circuit’s decision. It was based on previous law. It clears up a number of issues with immunities municipalities enjoy when they do demolitions. I pleaded a case based on failure to give notice before or after a demolition.”

Appealing the 6th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court is an “option,” Limbian said. But it is more likely the city won’t do that and instead have it heard by Pearson, he said.

Limbian said the city has “always contended” that fire Chief Barry Finley “had the ability and the power to use an emergency demolition” order.

“The city has sovereign immunity,” he said. “We can’t be sued for acts like this.”

But Dunlap said this wasn’t an emergency and the city relies too often on the fire chief saying a building is not safe for his firefighters and declaring an emergency demolition.

Instead, the city should be having hearings to give property owners the right to appeal emergency demolition declarations, he said.

BACK TAXES

Two Bridges owes $83,066 in delinquent property taxes. That includes $48,000 assessed against the company by city council on Jan. 5, 2022, for the demolition costs.

“The building was never taken off the property taxes,” Dunlap said. “They are being assessed taxes on a building that isn’t there.”

The structure was built in 1910 and opened as Anthony’s on the River in 1997, closing about a decade later and stayed vacant. Two Bridges bought it for $100,000 on Feb. 20, 2019, with plans to use it for a restaurant, offices and housing.

In its lawsuit, Two Bridges said it had repaired the roof, removed debris from the building and moved in an antique bar before it was demolished.

By the time of the emergency demolition, several municipal code violations and related complaints were filed against Two Bridges, according to the appeals court decision. The city mailed multiple notices to Two Bridges in 2019 advising the building was in unacceptable condition, but sent them to the vacant building with no one from Two Bridges receiving any, the court decision reads.

Finley and Michael Durkin, the city’s code enforcement and blight remediation superintendent, inspected the building on June 12, 2020, to determine if it posed a fire hazard.

They observed the roof apparently had sunk about 6 to 12 inches on all sides and Finley, on June 12, 2020, concluded it was a fire hazard and danger to human life.

But Dunlap said no danger existed and the public made no complaints about the building’s condition.

The city didn’t have Steel Valley Contractors do the demolition until Aug. 22, 2020.

“This wasn’t an emergency,” Dunlap said. “If it was, why did they wait so long?”

Limbian said: “It was the result of manpower. We were still within our right to take it down.”

In its legal filings, Two Bridges wrote that Finley “was wholly unqualified to adjudge whether a structure posed an imminent danger warranting emergency demolition.”