Benaroya files suit over the landmark Denny's
The Benaroya Company is contesting the legality of a city of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board decision to designate the former Manning's/Denny's diner in Ballard as an historic landmark. According to a press release sent this afternoon, they have filed suit in King County Superior Court to reverse the decision. The board voted in favor of the diner 6-3 on Feb. 20.
The lawsuit attacks the designation on multiple grounds. It alleges, among other things, that the Landmarks Board action is "illegal and erroneous," that it violated procedure, and that it violated the owner's constitutional rights. Among the complaints is the appearance of bias. It accuses Landmarks Board Chair Stephen Lee of having prejudged the case after comments he made at the designation meeting indicating that he lived near the diner and "always thought it was a visual landmark."
In addition to the specifics of the Ballard case, the suit also claims the composition of the Landmarks Board itself is flawed because it is intentionally made up of people sympathetic with the purpose of landmarking. The suit also argues that the landmark criterion under which the diner was designated is "unconstitutionally vague" and that it constitutes a property "taking."
Louie Richmond, who is handling public relations on the diner controversy for Benaroya, says the suit is "on hold" until the outcome of the administrative process regarding the landmark. Benaroya is pulling together information it hopes will prove that landmarking the diner is not financially viable. If the Landmarks Board and a hearing examiner disagree with Benroya's contention, however, the suit will go forward, Richmond says. He estimates the administrative process could take up to two months.
I will update when I get reaction from the Landmarks Board and others involved in the diner controversy.
The press release on behalf of Benaroya reads as follows:
SEATTLE - Today BCC Mikie Ballard, LLC, a development entity of The Benaroya Company, filed suit in King County Superior Court to challenge the action by Seattle's Landmark Preservation Board to designate the abandoned Denny's building in Ballard, located at 5501 15th Avenue NW, as a Seattle landmark. "The boarded up former Denny's is not an important historic or architectural building, nor the work of a significant architect," said Marc Nemirow, spokesman for Benaroya. "The landmark board agreed with these conclusions, but incredulously decided to designate the building a landmark anyway. This action isn't legal."
Nemirow noted that although the appeal was filed, the applicant continues to work through the process. "Due to statutory deadlines it was necessary to file the court appeal in response to the Board's February 20 decision, but we continue to be focused on the ongoing administrative process." Nemirow said that the board must now negotiate with the land owner regarding the economic implications of the landmark decision. "We are concentrating our efforts on preparing information to assist the Board in a proper evaluation of the economic impacts of its decision," he said.
The lawsuit seeks to reverse the decision of the landmarks board. Nemirow said that no timetable has been set for consideration of the appeal, and it is his desire to pursue the current process with the Landmarks Board, and hopefully avoid the need to pursue the court appeal.UPDATE: I emailed Karen Gordon, the city's landmarks preservation officer, to get her response to the above press release and lawsuit. Here was her reply:
In reading the press release, it appears that the owners are going to continue to work through the landmarks process. Although we haven't received a formal response to our invitation to negotiate Controls & Incentives, we look forward to working with the owners and examining whatever information they submit for consideration by the staff and the Landmarks Preservation Board.







Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 13, 7:37 p.m. inappropriate
Outrageous: This action by The Benaroya Company and their lawyers is absolutely outrageous! Clearly they think they are above the law and that they are separate rules that apply to them simply because of their financial resources. This is highly offensive to the people of Seattle.
It has come out several times in this process that The Benaroya Company knew since last summer that there was a strong likelihood that the building could be designated a Landmark; hearing that they fired the consultant they hired to do the research.
I believe it has also been demonstrated that they could achieve their financial objectives and still preserve the restaurant by approaching their planned development creatively. They have clearly refused to look at anything other than their original plans; I believe someone from Benaroya even stated: "there is now Plan B" at one point during this entire process. What's wrong with a "Plan B" if you can still make the same money?
If The Benaroya Company had done proper research before they bought the property, then they might have learned the building was a potential Landmark. They failed to conduct due diligence, and now want us, the tax payers to pay for it; this does not speak well of their own citizenship. I find it interesting that Rhapsody, the developer who wants to purchase the land from Benaroya, required The Benaroya Company ensure the building and sight was not a Landmark, hence their Landmark submission. Clearly Rhapsody, a Las Vegas-based company, did their due diligence. One would think the Seattle-based Benaroya Company would have known better. Perhaps they were too anxious to make a quick buck. What ever happened to buyer beware.
Rather than suing the City for an unesireable outcome of a fair and legal process, this project could be moving forward if only Benaroya and Rhapsody would put their stubbornness aside, follow the law, and listen to the people of this City.
With this action, they have not just taken on the City; they are threatening the citizens of Seattle, our treasured Landmarks (such as the Pike Place Market, the Smith Tower, the Space Needle and all other City Landmarks) and the quality of life we all enjoy. That's right people, they are challenging our City's Ordinance and they are asking us to foot the bill! Why do they think they are above the law?
Posted Thu, Mar 13, 11:33 p.m. inappropriate
Sly Strategy: Land Developers and their attorneys have been undermining our case law for years by setting up test cases to promote their selfish interests. We used to say that "Bad facts make bad law". How it works is that an environmental or growth management law is targeted by the industry for challenge. A test is prepared with facts that invite a court interpretation that is favorable to the industry. A friendly court is asked to hear a case in which the governmental jurisdiction is on weak ground, or even complicit in the challenge. The judge rules in favor of the developer, and an appeals court review locks the precedent in for everyone, even in cases where the law is more appropriate.
In this way, our case law has been riddled with anti-environment, anti-neighborhood cancer. It's an insidious practice that may well be at work here.
Brian Derdowski, King County Councilman 1990-2000.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 8:30 a.m. inappropriate
Agenda litigation: Derdowski is right. These are laws that would probably survive a direct constitutional attack. In other words, they are not on their face unconstitutional.
But if you cannot defeat a law in the legislature or by a direct legal challenge to the law itself, you can attack it "as applied" to a carefully selected set of "bad facts." The effect is to pull the teeth of the law one at a time until, in the end, the law is toothless.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 12:45 p.m. inappropriate
YOU BOUGHT A WETLAND: The Landmarks Preservation Board has a lot of power. They can, with their designations, remove significant market value from property belonging to anyone. It is a power that one would like to see wielded with visible and reassuring discretion.
Does anyone see discretion here?
The "googie" category is, of course, an invitation to capricious designation but the Twin Teepees and the Hat 'n Boots are/were much better candidates for salvation under that particular theory of historical preservation. One is gone and the other is (I believe) still in existence, no thanks to the Landmarks Preservation Board.
It has been pointed out that Mannings Ballard was expendable as long as it was owned by the Seattle Monorail Project. When a developer purchased the property it became a treasured resource, they even found a special name for it and a California precedent. Up until a developer bought the property One West Highland Drive was regarded with disinterest. Now a relatively banal large house (divided into thirteen or fourteen, quasi legal apartments) is a permanent "landmark" on Queen Anne Hill. Someone's albatross. Meanwhile a multitude of houses on Capital Hill and Queen Anne with greater historic interest and beauty are left undesignated. They are blessed with non-developer owners.
Benaroya has a legitimate grievance. You and I, the taxpayers of Seattle, will pay to defend this suit and then pay the award should Benaroya prevail. Landmarks Preservation Board does not deserve any thanks for this.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 12:48 p.m. inappropriate
clarification: I'd like more clarification from Derdowski on this.
Is he saying that the Denny's landmark was not a good building to landmark because it is so vulnerable to challenge that it sets up 'bad facts'?
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 12:52 p.m. inappropriate
Comment from Karen Gordon: I have posted an update to the story, which is Karen Gordon's email to me this morning in response to the Benaroya press release.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 3:28 p.m. inappropriate
RE: clarification: I recall reading that Benaroya submitted the landmark status application themselves in order to preempt anyone else from doing it later. Thus, the developer was able to frame the initial issues according to their own interests.
The Denny's building is probably not the best example to lead a broad public discourse about the landmark laws. Moreover, Benaroya has deep pockets for legal expenses, the board was split, and the background facts are not all helpful. A bad court decision, or an orchestrated "public backlash" could hurt the cause of landmark and historic preservation. I am hopeful that the Ballard community will vigorously defend the designation in a comprehensive and sophisticated way, bearing in the mind the potential long term consequences.
Posted Sat, Mar 15, 5:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: YOU BOUGHT A WETLAND: You can't blame the Landmarks Preservation Board about the Twin Teepees.
http://www.historicseattle.org/advocacy/twinteepees.aspx
A quick look shows that Hat n' Boots is on the landmarks list.
http://www.cityofseattle.net /neighborhoods/preservation/h.htm
The reason you don't see many landmarks until a developer buys the property? Read the following which is directly from the nomination.
The City of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development (DPD), through a 1995 agreement with the Department of Neighborhoods, requires a review of "potentially eligible landmarks" for proposed commercial projects over 4,000 square feet in area. As any proposed demolition of the subject building described within this report will require a permit from DPD, we are providing the following report to the staff of the Seattle Landmarks and Preservation Board (L&PB;) to resolve the property as a potential City of Seattle Historic Landmark.
There has been several survey/studies done on what buildings/homes may be considered historical. However, it would be ridiculously expensive to nominate all of them at once. Which is why there are rules that require developers to go through these steps. If you read the cities Department of Neighborhoods site you will see plenty of nominations that do not go through allowing developers to build.
Posted Sat, Mar 15, 5:39 p.m. inappropriate
RE: clarification: Not just that but they also fired the individual who was originally setting up the landmark status application because they themselves thought that it deserved the status.
There were plenty of signs from the beginning that it would be approved.
Posted Sat, Mar 15, 6:51 p.m. inappropriate
YOU BOUGHT A WETLAND: AZChristopher, thank you for the information and the links.
According to the linked site, Twin TeePees was not "saved" for the following reason:
"Ultimately, the owner couldn't afford the repairs and upgrades, and has been attempting to sell the land since 2003"
OK, if the owner can't afford the repairs then the designation is abandoned. So only those owners with sufficient funds are to be saddled with this public service.
Motto:
"we'll save all the historic buildings that owners can pay for (others we will just harass)"
The money to repair Twin TeePees would have been a small fraction of the money Benaroya has lost on the Mannings
designation. And the TeePees was worth something. I think you can see that there is a moral void in these designations if they can only be applied to a financially strong owner (and who defines that? did they run a net worth on the TeePees owner? any hidden assets?)
I could not raise your other link but, even if the Hat 'n Boots is on the "landmarks list" I believe it was not saved through action of the Landmarks Preservation Board.
I do have a question: did DPD alert the Landmarks Preservation Board that something of historic significance was at Manning's Ballard? if so, when? when the Monorail people had it?
Posted Sun, Mar 16, 7:33 a.m. inappropriate
RE: YOU BOUGHT A WETLAND: http://www.docomomo-wewa.org/endangered_detail.php?id=6
A more detailed explanation. Basically demolished with no notice after the owner told the public he intended to save it. His excuse was the cost.
Answer to you question is no. Only the buildings that were purchased for the monorail that were 50 years+ were examined. At the time the Mannings building was less than 50 years old.
Posted Sun, Mar 16, 10:16 a.m. inappropriate
WETLAND: AZChristopher, thank you for the link and the information.
Your explanation of the timing, Monorail vs. Benaroya is helpful. Again, I cannot raise your link; tried my usual tactics.
I did google Hat 'n Boots, Seattle. A May 31, 2000 ST article
describes the situation, efforts to save, background. There is no mention of a Historic designation.