It's the end of the line for the Wayne Hotel building. After taking the matter under advisement for the last week, District Court Judge Michael Kraker handed down his decision Thursday afternoon denying a request for a restraining order that would have temporarily halted demolition.
“With this weight lifted off our shoulders, we can now proceed with our demolition plans,” Polk CountyCounty Coordinator Jack Schmalenberg said this morning. “The contract and notice to proceed will be signed at the county board meeting Tuesday and the contractor will be able to get going on it right away.”
Industrial Builders of Fargo was previously awarded the demolition bid of $340,000. Schmalenberg said the contractor will be onsite Monday to start getting things in order, which could take about a week. This includes developing a traffic control plan with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and City of Crookston along with cleaning the roof of the adjacent JJ's Body Shop and laying plywood over it for protection.
The whole building will be taken down before the materials are hauled away, he added.
“We don't want anything falling down uncontrollably, so we thought it best to take the whole building down first,” Schmalenberg explained.
Five points
The lawsuit was brought by the Prairie Skyline Foundation of Crookston and the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota against the City of Crookston, Polk County and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
In a memorandum attached to the order denying the plaintiffs' motion, Kraker summarized how he came to his decision by taking five factors into account:
1. The purpose of a temporary injunction is “to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits,” he cited, which favors the plaintiffs' position for the time being, until the case can be heard further.
2. Balance of harms – Not granting the injunction would result in permanent destruction of a protected historical resource and “plaintiffs, and by extension all Minnesotans, will suffer a very significant harm.” However, even greater harms would result from granting the injunction. With only a small time window to tea down the hotel, the already-compromised structure could fail further in the winter and potentially damage adjoining structures and threaten lives. This one's for the defendants.
3. Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits of their claims – “The availability of feasible and prudent alternatives to demolition is the crux of this matter. In our view, efforts to restore the hotel would be highly unlikely to succeed, either because of its state of decay or the lack of funding. Delaying the demolition would be imprudent.”
This is what Kraker views as the most important factor. Another one for the defendants.
4. Public interest – “Because of the threat the building presents to public safety and welfare, the most powerful public concern favors defendants' position.”
5. Administrative burden – The burden in enforcing the injunction would be minimal, favoring the plaintiffs.
Kraker concluded that while two factors favor the plaintiffs, three are on the defendants' side, allowing them to prevail. Had the court decided in the plaintiffs' favor, he added, because of the building's state of decay, they would have been required to post a bond in an amount determined by the defendants.
The plaintiffs could file an appeal, Schmalenberg acknowledged, but because of the time element involved, the demolition would probably be done before the makes it across the court's desk.
Note: The Prairie Skyline Foundation and Preservation Alliance of Minnesota are working on a joint press release regarding the decision, which will be posted online once the Times receives it.
