THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, August 6, 1996 TAG: 9608060305
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY TERRI WILLIAMS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: 73 lines
City officials, who are busily preparing to celebrate the ground breaking of the $14 million courts complex on Wednesday, have a new hurdle.
The state Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by the city that would permit Suffolk to quickly condemn and tear down a shop that stands in the path of the complex.
But city officials said the ruling should not delay the ceremony or construction on the court-house.
The Supreme Court's decision, issued Wednesday, is the latest in the nearly yearlong fight between William E. Beamon and Suffolk. Beamon is trying to keep the city from tearing down his Hot Spot Records and Tapes on East Washington Street. The city wants to condemn the store so a Richmond firm can build parking for the courthouse on the site.
By not hearing the city's appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed a Suffolk Circuit Court order that city officials could not ``quick take'' Beamon's property.
The ``quick take'' process would have allowed the city to take immediate possession of the property without having a condemnation hearing.
Last November, Suffolk Circuit Judge Rodham T. Delk ruled that the city had overstepped its condemnation powers by trying to take the property without going through the full condemnation process.
Delk ruled the city must first hold a condemnation hearing.
The city argued that the hearing was unnecessary because obtaining possession of the shop was of a ``public necessity.'' The city appealed.
The matter will now be sent back to the Circuit Court for the condemnation process. No date has been set, but a pretrial hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10.
The latest court action is good news to Beamon and his lawyer, Joseph T. Waldo.
``I feel pretty pleased,'' Beamon said. ``I was skeptical about having to go before the Supreme Court.''
Said Waldo: ``Some people think Mr. Beamon is against the courthouse. That's not the issue at all. . . . He fully intends to be a part of the progress downtown.''
At issue, he said is the city's apparent willingness to turn Beamon's and others' businesses into a parking lot rather than working with them.
City Attorney C. Edward Roettger said the city would proceed with the condemnation hearing. He said Beamon's litigation won't hold up plans for the complex.
Beamon is also battling in federal arenas.
In March, Beamon filed a federal suit alleging racial discrimination by the city. The case will not be heard until the condemnation matter has been resolved, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson has ruled.
``Although plaintiff insists that his claims are not about just compensation, it is evident to the Court that it would be difficult to determine what damages plaintiff has suffered, if any, prior to the resolution of the condemnation domain state court action,'' Jackson wrote.
Beamon's $3.1 million federal suit accuses the city of discrimination when it condemned his shop and a string of other mostly black businesses. Beamon has been the lone holdout. The suit also says that city officials disregarded a design study recommending that Beamon's property not be condemned for courthouse parking because there was ``plenty of parking.''
Jackson also dismissed the city's request to bar Beamon from speaking to the media.
Last spring, Beamon also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development contending that he, and about a dozen tenants who were forced to move, were not offered relocation costs. City officials have argued that they weren't required to reimburse the tenants since the courthouse isn't being funded with federal money.
In a July memo, HUD's mid-Atlantic fair-housing director, Ira J. Goldstein, indicated that his office would conduct an on-site investigation, which should be completed by the end of September. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
William E. Beamon by CNB