A legal action of importance not only to Skinker-DeBaliviere residents but to residents of all areas threaened by urban blight has been filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis by seven individuals and firms that own property in our local community. The suing property owners charge that the defendants, by failing to maintain their properties, have willfully caused a loss in property values and rental incomes on those properties belonging to the plaintiffs, those who filed the suit.
The DeVille Catering Co., owner of Garavelli’s restaurant; Robert Valentine; Mr. and Mrs. Fred O. Hale; Lemp Forest Estates; Missouri Title Holding Company; Bell Place Associates, Inc.; and E & H Realty Company have brought suit for $248,000 actual and $5,000,000 punitive damages against seven other property owners in the Skinker-DeBaliviere/Central West End area. Punitive damages are those awarded as a penalty for damaging actions.
Those charged in the legal action and their properties are: Meyer Sachs, 5588 Waterman; Nathan Comensky, 5585 Pershing; Mr. and Mrs. Gan Lum, 5743 Westminster; Joseph M. Thaller, 5666 Waterman; Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Goodum, 5809 Pershing; Jessie Binginheimer, former owner of 5604 Waterman and Fred L. Flagg, 5604 Waterman.
Specific charges are that the defendants have encouraged their properties to fall into disrepair; that they have allowed and encouraged violations of city ordinances regarding numbers of occupants and health conditions; that they have allowed violation of the minimum building code requirements and have allowed and encouraged other conditions to exist which encourage vermin, insects, roaches and “other unhealthy and physically harmful beings.”
This particular legal action, which could lead to what is called a landmark decision, is based on the established legal concept that a man may use his real estate in any way he wishes, provided that he does not hurt his neighbor. In previous cases the courts have ruled against landlords who allowed smoke, fumes or loud noises from their property to harm and disturb their neighbors. The case in point presumes that landlords who allow roaches and vermin to breed on their property are liable for damages when these pests spread to neighboring buildings.
In each of the previously ruled-on cases, there has been movement of something objectionable from one property to another. Smoke, fumes or noise has literally moved from one piece of property to an adjoining piece. In the suit currently brought, the plaintiffs listed in the first paragraph of this article are claiming that even though there may not be a physical movement of pests and nuisances from adjoining property to their property, the owners charged in the suit have let their premises become run down, overcrowded and dilapidated to the point that they are blighted. This blight makes the neighborhood a less desirable place to live and may cause greater damage to the value of surrounding properties than those things formerly considered legal nuisances.
Because the legal action asks the court to extend legal rulings from the customary nuisances to include blight and dilapidation, it is seeking to establish a broadened rule of law and is considered a “landmark” case.
At the present time two of the defendants have brought a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that there is no legal basis for it. Both sides have given the court written memoranda on this point and a ruling on the motion to dismiss is expected shortly.
Anthony J. Sestric and James G. Rittenbaum are representing the plaintiffs in this case. The case is supported by Women for City Living, an organization founded to combat urban blight and closely connected with the Women’s Crusade against Crime. Also supporting the plaintiffs is Alderman Henry S. Stolar of the Twenty-Fifth Ward, in whose district the buildings at issue are located.
Mrs. Linda Eyerman, zoning chairman of Women for City Living, remarked on the legal action, “Other property owners in the area maintain their buildings. Those named in the suit have let their buildings deteriorate so rapidly we can only assume the blighting is deliberate.”
Asked about the damaging effects of blight, Mrs. Eyerman said that responsible owners of rental property find that when they wish to borrow money on those properties, banks and other lending institutions are extremely cautious about the loans if there are even a few dilapidated buildings nearby.
The same is true when owners want to sell their property. Lending institutions check not only the building for sale but the surrounding blocks, and the presence of seedy-looking buildings lowers the value all property in the neighborhood.
If the court rules in favor of those bringing suit in this particular case, residents and property owners throughout the state will have a valuable legal tool to use against irresponsible landlords. At present, as many Skinker-DeBaliviere residents and neighborhood groups know, making complaints on specific issues to the proper city departments and getting the offending buildings inspected is a long, slow process. Some landlords do nothing to correct violations until the complaint has gone to court, another slow process. The fines assessed against landlords by the courts are seldom enough to discourage repeated offenses by irresponsible landlords.
In the case of the real slum landlord who has decided to “milk his investment” by overcrowding, overcharging and skipping maintenance expense, the usual legal process is at best an annoyance, not a deterrent. The landlord in most cases gets his capital and his profit from the offending building long before legal process can catch up with him. When legal retribution looms, the slum landlord by sale or transfer sees that someone else owns the building.
If the court rules that an offending landlord must re-imburse neighboring property owners for the loss of value he has caused to their buildings, and if the court awards punitive or penalty damages, irresponsible landlords will have to consider this possibility in their handling of property. Neighboring property owners and neighborhood associations will have legal grounds for action when blight is just starting. It will be a legal landmark if the court rules that a man may not use his real estate to harm others and has some minimal responsibility to other property owners in the immediate neighborhood.
If the court rules against the motion to dismiss this case, it is estimated that the legal action will get to court in mid-June.
Originally published in The Paper, February 1971.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1971_02.pdf, printed page 7.
