Appendix — Hancock v. City of Davenport

Supreme Court brief1989

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

& J 4 AL & Supreme Court, U.S.

No. i F | LL E D

JUN 27 1989

JOSEPH F, SPANIOL, JR.

CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term , 1988

GLEN OSWIN HANCOCK

"Petitioner”

Vv.

City of Davenport

An Iowa Municipal Corp.,

ET AL.

”"Respondent”

Appendix:

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

IOWA COURT OF APPEALS

GLEN O. HANCOCK

P.O. BOX 1106

DAVENPORT, IOWA 52805

(319) 323-1208

Pro Se Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

(Filed December 22, 1988)

GLEN O. HANCOCK, )

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

vs. )_ 8-461

CITY OF DAVENPORT, )87-1022

et al., )

Defendants- )

Appellees. )

Appeal from the Iowa District Court

rer Scott County (70078), J.L. Burns,

Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment

in his favor ona jury verdict in t:2

district court. AFFIRMED.

Glen O. Hancock, Davenport, pro se.

John R. Martin, Corporation

Counsel, and Michael J. Melroy, City

Attorney, Davenport, for

defendants-appellees.

George B. Norman of Dircks,

Ridenour, Norman & Macek, Davenport,

for defendant-appellee James Conway.

Considered by Schlegel, ®.3:, ene

Hayden and Habhab, JJ.

PER CURIAM

The plaintiff appeals froma jury

verdict in his favor against the City

of Davenport, eight members of the city

council, two city officials, and one

private individual, for damages

suffered when he did not receive

adequate notice or a hearing prior toa

decision that his property be declared

a public nuisance and should be

demolished. For the reasons set out

below, we affirm the decision of the

trial court.

eo The plaintiff owned a building

in downtown Davenport known as the Vale

Apartments. The building was built in

about 1875 and is currently listed in

the National Register of Historic

Places. The building at one time was

an elegant hotel which could apparently

boast President Ronald Reagan as an

occupant when he worked for a Davenport

radio station. The city vacated the

building in 1982 because of numerous

housing and fire code violations. It

now sits vacant and boarded up.

Plaintiff purchased the building with

plans to refurbish it to its original

splendor. Beginning in 1983 the City

took various actions to get the Hancock

family to repair the building or

demolish it. In 1984 the city council

passed resolution

finding the building substandard to the

extent it should be demolished as a

public nuisance.

Hancock filed this suit seeking

damages and another suit seeking a writ

of certiorari and injunctive relief.

The latter case was the subject of

Hancock v. City Council of the City o

Davenport, 392 N.W. 2a 472 (Iowa

1986). The supreme court concluded the

City did not provide Hancock meaningful

opportunity to be heard which its

ordinances contemplated and

constitutional due process’ requires.

Id. at 479. Following the supreme

court decision, Hancock went forward

with his damages action pursuant to 42

oe. 856. section 1983, which alleged

violations of this constitutional

rights. Prior to the trial date,

Hancock's attorney sought permission to

withdraw as counsel because he believed

he would have to appear as a witness at

the tciai. Plaintiff then hired

another attorney. to withdraw. Also,

prior to the ‘trial, Hancock had

requested a change of venue because of

adverse press coverage of his struggle

with the city council. This request

was denied. The jury ultimately

returned a verdict against all the

defendants except James Conway,

awarding Hancock $17,225 in

compensatory damages, but not punitive

damages. The court awarded Hancock's

attorneys $13,000 for attorney fees.

Hancock then filed this pro se appeal.

hes As grounds for appeal Hancock

claims he was denied a fair trial

because the district court did not

Grant his request for change of venue;

that he was denied equal protection

under the law due to the questionable

methods of the judiciary and the

attorneys in this case; and he argues

numerous theories as to why the damages

determined by the trial court were not

sufficient to make him whole.

This case was initially filed as a

petition in equity. However, the

plaintiff filed a jury demand which was

captioned as a law action. Apparently

all or most subsequent documents filed

and proceedings were at law. A case is

generally reviewed as tried in the

court below. Schroeder v. Buegel, 371

N.W.2d 178, 179 (Iowa App. 1985).

Therefore, our review of this case is

on assigned error. Iowa R. App. P. 4.

III. A. Change of Venue.

Plaintiff first asserts, he was not

given a fair trial because local media

attention to the case biased jurors,

thus he argues the trial court

incorrectly denied his motion for

change of venue.

Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 167

outlines circumstances under which a

venue may be changed:

If the trial judge, or the

inhabitants of the county,

are so prejudiced against

the moving party, or if an

adverse party has such undue

influence over such

inhabitants, that the movant

cannot obtain a fair trial.

The motion in such case

shall be supported by

affidavit if the movant and

three disinterested persons,

none being his agent,

servant, emplo-ree or

attorney, nor related to him

by consanguinity or affinity

within the fourth degree.

The other party shall have a

reasonable time to file

counter affidavits.

Affiants may be examined

pursuant to R.C.P. 116.

Decision to grant or deny a motion

for change of venue rests in the sound

discretion of the trial court.

Locksley v. Anesthesiologists of Cedar

Rapids, 333 N.W.2d 451, 454 (Iowa

1983). In civil cases the trial

court's decision is reviewed for an

‘abuse of discretion. Id. Despite the

difference in the court's review, cases

discussing the impact of publicity in

criminal cases are instructive, the

supreme court has stated:

"Exposure to news accounts

does not establish ipso

facto substantial likelihood

of prejudice in the minds of

prospective jurors.

Examination of the pretrial

publicity discloses that it

was, on the whole,

objective, factual

reporting. The media

expressed no view on

defendant's guilt or

innocence, nor was the

pretrial coverage

inaccurate, misleading, or

unfair. , -. no attempts

were made to inflame the

public mind Or to

sensationalize the event

(citations omitted).

State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 422

(Iowa 1982). 9

Plaintiff provides us with only

excerpts from a pair of articles and a

list of other stories which allegedly

prejudiced the jury against him. There

is no evidence the articles were

inaccurate, misleading or unfair. We

do not believe these articles even

remotely inflame the public senses or

sensationalize the event to the extent

prejudice could befall a juror's mind.

We find no prejudice to the plaintiff

as a result of the newspaper articles

shown in the record here. Thus, we

find no abuse of discretion.

We also determine plaintiff's

allegation that he could not get a fair

trial because as taxpayers, the jury

would have to foot part of the bill for

any judgment he may receive. The trial

court denied plaintiff's motion stating

no proof existed showing

plaintiff could not select an impartial

jury. As we have stated, a decision to

grant a change of venue lies in the

sound discretion of the trial court.

Locksley, 333 N.W.2d at 454. There was

no abuse of discretion.

B. Equal Protection. Plaintiff

asserts he was denied equal protection

of the law because of the actions of

the trial court and attorneys in this

matter. His argument apparently hinges

on complaints the bar and the district

court of Scott County are inextricably

tied to the whims of the Davenport City

Council, thus plaintiff at the very

leaSt was not given a fair trial.

We observe plaintiff did not raise,

in the trial court, any equal

protection arguments under the state or

federal constitutions. Although the

argument is attempted on appeal, it is

too late. The question was not

preserved. Lennon 7. City of

Muscatine, 272 N.W.2d 429, 430 (Iowa

1978). However sympathetic we may be,

we will not address issues, even of

constitutional magnitude, not presented

to the trial court. In re Staros, 280

N.W.2d 389, 410 (Iowa 1979).

Plaintiff's primary grounds’ for

making his allegations stem from his

attorney's failure to object to certain

evidence. Also, he complains his

attorney failed to present evidence

which plaintiff believes was necessary

for the proper adjudication of this

case. Even if we believe plaintiff's

assertions are valid, we cannot now

involve ourselves in the

second-guessing of plaintiff's

attorney's trial strategy. Plaintiff

here is bound by the tactical or

oe ys:

strategic decisions made by his trial

counsel. State v. Jackson, 387 N.W.2d

623, 625 (Iowa App. 1983). Plaintiff

did not raise this issue in the trial

court and thus’ we are foreclosed from

addressing it here.

Cc; Damages. Plaintiff argues

mumerous errors regarding damages. In

abridged form, plaintiff alleges he was

damaged in a myriad of ways which he

was not compensated for " the jury's

award. Plaintiff asks this court to

circumvent the jury's determination

regarding replacement value of the Vale

Apartments and the jury's’7 refusal to

award him punitive damages.

Plaintiff's arguments are without

merit.

The trial court did not err to the

detriment of the plaintiff in its

instructions to the jury. Plaintiff

believes he was not properly

compensated for both the taking of his

property and for unfair treatment by

the City. We do not agree. The trial

court propounded instructions which

adequately informed the jury as to the

damages which could be awarded to

plaintiff. The court issued

instructions which made it clear the

jury could award damages ror:

depreciation of the building; emotional

distress; loss of earnings from the

developmental potential of the

building; the City violating the

plaintiff's constitutional rights; and

punitive damages could be awarded

against individual defendants.

Paring plaintiff's argument to its

Simplest form, he claims he should have

been awarded greater damages. The

determinative question posed is whether

under the record, giving the jury its

right to accept or reject whatever

portions of conflicting evidence it

chose, the verdict affects substantial

justice between the parties. Kaufman v.

Mar-Mac Community Schools, 255 N.W.2d

147, 148 (Iowa 1977). We hold in this

case the jury obtained substantial

justice and we do not disturb its

verdict.

AFFIRMED.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

(Filed February 02, 1989)

No. 87-1022

Scott District Court No. 70078

ORDER

GLEN O. HANCOCK, “é

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF DAVENPORT,

ot Bl««

Defendants-Appellees.

Plaintiff-appellant's motion to

consolidate actions is hereby denied.

Dated this day of February,

1989.

Bruce M. Small

Justice - Supreme

16 Court of Iowa

Copies to:

Glen O. Hancock

P.O. Box 1106

Davenport, IA 52805

Michael J. Meloy

City Attorney

Legal Department, City Hall

226 W. Fourth Street

Davenport, IA 52801

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

(Filed January 26, 1989)

No. 87-1022

ORDER

GLEN O. HANCOCK

Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF DAVENPORT,

a ae

Appellees.

The application for further review

filed by plaintiff-appellant is hereby

set for consideration by this court

without oral argument on Friday, March

3, 1989.

Dated this 26th day of January,

1989. 18

THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief

Justice

Coples to:

Glen O. Hancock

P.O. Box 1106

Davenport, IA 52805

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

(Filed March 03, 1989)

No. 87-1022

ORDER

GLEN O. HANCOCK,

Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF DAVENPORT,

et al.,

Appellees.

The application for further review

filed by plaintiff-appellant is hereby

overruled and denied after

consideration by this court’ en banc,

Neuman, J., not participating.

Dated this 3rd day of March, 1989.

THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief

Justice

Coples to:

Glen O. Hancock

P.O. Box 1106

Davenport, IA 52805

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 87-1022

Iowa District Court for Scott County

No. 70078

PROCEDENDO

GLEN O. HANCOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF DAVENPORT,

et a2. ,

Defendants-Appellees.

To the Iowa District Court for

Scott County:

Whereas, there was an appeal from

the district court judgment in the

above-captioned case to the supreme

court, which transferred the case to

the court of appeals, and on the 22nd

day of December, 1988, the court of

appeals affirmed the judgment of the

+ 4

district court.

Therefore, you are directed to

proceed with diligence and according to

law in the same manner as if there had

been no appeal.

In Witness whereof, I have

hereunto set my hand and

affixed the seal of the court

of appeals.

Dated this 10th day of March,

1989.

Clerk of the Court of Appeals

eA ASN ERA SS St TASS NN ESA A TEE EI EAE TEED EAL EDE = es

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF

No. 87-1022

Iowa District Court for

No. 70078

BILL OF COSTS

GLEN O. HANCOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF DAVENPORT,

et @1.,

Defendants-Appellees.

IOWA

Scott County

On the 22nd day of December, 1988,

the court of appeals

affirmed the

judgment of the district court.

Clerk's fees incurred

Amount of clerk's fees

already paid by

appellant

$ 75.00

= § 15.090

Balance due the

OSPR 46 ee ee eee $ -<

Printing costs of

appellee .......+§ 38.65

(Computed pursuant

to Iowa Rule of

Appellate Procedure

16.-(e))

TOTAL $ 38.65

The above costs of $ 38.65 are

hereby taxed against the appellant, and

judgment is entered accordingly. The

costs must’ be paid to the clerk of the

district court, who shall pay them to

the persons entitled thereto. See Iowa

Code Section 625.19. The district

court clerk shall pay them to John R.

Martin. 12°

Dated this 10th day of March, 1989.

Clerk of the Court of Appeals

‘2A

IN THE

SCOTT COUNTY,

IOWA

(Filed February 24,

GLEN O. HANCOCK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF D..VENPORT,

an Iowa

Municipality,

et al,

Defendants.

) Law No.

IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

1987)

70078

) ORDER ON:

)

Plaintiff's

First Motion

for Separate

Adjudication of

Law Point;

Plaintiff's

Motion to

Exclude Members

from Jury

Panel ;

Motion to

Withdraw by

John Flynn and

Alternate

Motions to

) Continue Trial

The Motions pending on or before

February 19, 1987, were set for hearing

on February 24, 1987. Plaintiff

appeared by John Flynn, his attorney.

The Defendant, City of Davenport, and

the Defendant Aldermen, Defendant Bruce

Romer and Defendant Phillip Testa were

represented by John Stonebraker and

Michae! Maloy. Defendant James Conway

appeared represented by George Norman.

After hearing arguments of counsel and

reviewing the motions’ and resistances

submitted, the Court enters the

following rulings:

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION FOR SEPARATE

ADJUDICATION OF LAW POINT

In his motion under Rule of Civil

Procedure 105, Plaintiff asks the Court

to determine that comparative fault is

not a defense to Defendant's alleged

violation of Plaintiff's constitutional

rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Plaintiff's petition alleges from the

Defendants based upon ae violation of

his due process rights to notice anda

hearing prior to determination that his

property was a nuisance and should be

demolished. See Hancock v. City of

Davenport, 392 NW2d 472 (Iowa 1986).

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's

answer in this matter raises as an

affirmative defense that Plaintiff's

damage "if any, were caused by his own

actions and by his own negligence."

In resistance, the Defendants argue

that Plaintiff has alleged negligence

in his petition, and therefore they are

entitled to defend based upon

comparative negligence, in Chaepter 668

of the Iowa Code.

The recent U.S. Supreme Case of

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 88

L.Ed.2d 662 (1986) satisfactorily

answers both of those issues. That

case stands for the proposition that

"merely negligent conduct may not be

enough to state a claim" under 42

U.S.C. Secticen 1983. 88 L.Ed.2d at

667.

Defendants however point out that

one of their defenses is that the

Plaintiff did mitigate his damages.

This point is well taken. It is clear

that when considering damages, the

finder of fact may determine and take

into account whether the Plaintiff

mitigated his damages. Mitigation is

relevant to determining the amount of

damages Plaintiff has actually suffered

because of the alleged violation of his

constitutional rights. O'Neal _v.

Gresham, 519 Fed2d 803 (4th Cir. 1975);

Gieringer v. Center School Dist. No.

58, 477 Fed.2d 1164, at 1167 (8th Cir.

1973).

The Court therefore ORDERS that

comparative negligence is not a defense

or involved in this case, but that

Defendant is entitled to prove that

Plaintiff failed to mitigate his

damages as it relates to the issue of

the amount of damages, if any,

Plaintiff is entitled to recover.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE MEMBERS

FROM THE JURY PANEL

Plaintiff has asked this Court to

exclude from the jury panel residents

of the city of Davenport. He claims

that such persons have "some potential

contlict of interest” in sitting as

jurors, since any decision awarding

Plaintiff damages could have some

affect on the amount of taxes liable to

be paid by the residents of the city of

Davenport.

Plaintiff's argument seems to be

taken from Section 609.45 of the Code

(1985). However, that Section was

repealed as of July 1, 1986, by Chapter

1108, Section 58, Laws of the /7lst

General Assembly, 1986 Session. — In

order to rule in Plaintiff's favor on

his motion therefore, this Court would

have to find that all Davenport

residents could not be impartial as

jurors in this case due to the alleged

conflict of interest. The Court cannot

do that. No juror is presumed to be

bias until the answers to questions on

voir dire indicated the juror's

inability to be impartial.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff's motion

to exclude members from the jury panel

in denied.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR

CONTINUANCE

Attorney John T. Flynn has asked to

withdraw as attorney of record for

Plaintiff. As grounds for the

withdrawal, he states that it has only

recently come to his attention that he

ought to be called as a witness on

behalf of his client. Defendants

strenuously resist. Attorney Flynn

responds by pointing out that the Iowa

Code of Professional Responsibility for

Lawyers requires him to withdraw.

The procedural context is important

to this argument. On August 20, 1986,

the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the

city of Davenport violated procedural

due process when & 2 ordered the

Plaintiff's apartment building to be

demolished. See Hancock v. City of

Davenport, supra. The case presently

before the Court had been filed in

March of 1985 and was not active until

after the Supreme Court ruling.

Plaintiff through his attorney filed a

motion for summary judgment on

September 12, 1986. Previously, on

August 1, 1986, the case became subject

to Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1.

Under the local rules of this district,

if no motion for continuance was filed

before October 1, 1986, the case would

be set for trial setting conference.

That conference was held on October 16,

1986, and a trial date of March 2,

1987, was set. The hearing on

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

was held on October 29, 1986. The

motion for summary judgment, if granted

in full, would have obviated the need

for atrial, except as to the amount of

damages. However, on January 2, 1987,

the order partially sustaining the

motion for summary judgment was filed

which left open questions of liability,

damages, and defenses of good faith

action and immunity. Plaintiff filed

an application for interlocutory appeal

from that ruling, which was denied on

February 14, 1987. Mr. Flynn filed his

motion to allow withdrawal on February

17, 1987, less ‘than two weeks before

trial.

In this case three different public

policies conflict. If the Court allows

the withdrawal of counsel, then the

case must be continued to allow new

counsel sufficient time to prepare for

oot vam That may compromise the policy

of efficient conclusion of litigation

as embodied in Rule of Civil Procedure

215.1 and the time standards adopted by

the Iowa Supreme Court. Refusing to

allow Mr. Flynn to withdraw would

compromise the policies implicit in

Cannon 5 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility tor Lawyers,

specifically ethical considerations 5-9

and 5-10, embodied in Disciplinary Rule

DR5-102(A). Either way, some persons

Or parties might complain about the

apparent fairness of the Court's

procedures.

In coming to a decision, this Court

is mindful that the allegations made by

Mr. Hancock are that he has been

damaged due to a violation of his

constitutional rights to due process

relating to his property. The judicial

system in this’ state will jealously

guard the rights of individuals against

unfair governmental intrusion through

unconstitutional actions. Such an

attitude is implicit in the doctrine of

separation of powers upon which our

form of government is. based. The

judicial process must be fair, both in

its operation and its appearance. It

is not fair to force a lawyer to be

both witness and advocate in the same

case, for it is only in "the

exceptional situation where it will be

manifestly unfair to the client for a

lawyer to refuse employment or to

withdraw when he will likely be a

witness on a contested issue." EC

2720, Coded of Professional

Responsibility for Lawyers. In this

case, the doubts will be resolved in

favor of the lawyer testifying and

against his continuing as an

advocate. The Court will allow Mr.

Flynn to withdraw and will continue the

case for a reasonable time in which the

Plaintiff can obtain new counsel to

represent him.

The Court next moves to the

question of whether some limitations on

pre-trial discovery should now be

entered. The Court notes that there

are at least two motions’ presently

pending. Those motions should be

considered and will be set for hearing.

ORDER

It is ORDERED that Attorney John T.

Flynn is hereby authorized to withdraw

from representation of Plaintiff. It

is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall

have until March 3, 1987, in which to

have another attorney enter an

appearance for Plaintiff, or the Court

will reconsider the effects of

Disciplinary Rules 5-102(a) and DR

S-101(C) (4).

The Court ORDERS that all motions

pending as of February 26, 1987, at 5

o'clock p.m. shall be heard upon oral

argument commencing at 10:30 a.m. on

March 12, 1987. It is further ORDERED

that no further interrogatories,

requests for production of documents,

or requests for admissions’ shall be

filed on or after February 26, 1987, at

5 o'clock p.m. It is further ORDERED

that all depositions shall be concluded

not less than three weeks prior to the

start of the trial in this case.

The Court ORDERS that protective

motions or objections to discovery must

be filed on or before March 1l, 1987,

at 5 o'clock p.m., and any such motions

will be heard at 10:30 a.m. on March

19, 1987.

It is further ORDERED that all

evidentiary motions under Rule of

Evidence 104 must be filed on or before

April 21, 1987, at 5 o'clock p.m. and

will be heard at 10:30 a.m. on May l,

1987.

It is further ORDERED that trial of

this case is continued to the 8th day

of June, 1987, commencing at 9 o'clock

a.m.

Dated this 24th day of February,

1987.

———

James E. Kelley, Judge

Seventh Judicial District

=. RPO 2 PP BPs 2 Be: ae

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT

COUNTY

(Filed May 19, 1987)

GLEN O. HANCOCK, )

Plaintiff, ) Law No. 70078

vs. )

CITY OF DAVENPORT, ) ORDER ON

ot 82 <5 ) PLAINTIFF'S

oa ) MOTION FOR CHANGE

Defendants. ) OF VENUE

Plaintiff's motion for change of

venue was presented to the Court with

oral argument on May 18, 1987.

Plaintiff appeared by Mark Liabo, his

attorney, and Defendant, city of

Davenport, appeared by Mike Meloy and

John Stonebraker, its attorneys.

Defendant, James Conway, appeared by

George Norman, his attorney.

The Plaintiff's motion for change

venue indicates this is a civil rights

trial regarding a highly publicized

controversy over the demolition of the

Vale Apartment Building in Davenport.

Plaintiff argues that the controversy

was extensively reported upon in the

newspapers and television in the

Quad-Cities. The motion states "it is

inconceivable that any person from

within the area served by the

newspapers and televisions stations

covering the Vale would not have heard

or been exposed to coverage concerning

the controversy." However, that

conclusion does not mean that an

impartial jury cannot be selected in

this case. No evidence has_ been

submitted by affidavit or otherwise

that an impartial jury cannot be

selected.

In addition, the Plaintiff cannot

satisfy the vrovisions of Rule of Civil

Procedure dl68 (d). That rule limits a

change of venue by preventing a change

Wettee a continuance except for a cause

arising since such continuance or not

known movant prior thereto." In this

case, the trial was continued on

February 24, 1987, by order of this

Court. No cause has’ occurred since

that date which would require a change

of venue.

The Court ORDERS that the

Plaintiff's motion for change of venue

is DENIED. =

Dated this 19th day of May, 1987.

James E. Kelley, Judge

Seventh Judicial District

RESOLUTION NO. 84-51

RESOLUTION CAUSING FINAL CONDEMNATION

OF A PARTICULAR BUILDING LOCATED AT 210

EAST 4TH STREET

Where, the City Council of the

City of Davenport, Iowa believes that

the following described property is

substandard as to the condition of the

building located thereto to the extent

that it endangers the life, health,

property, safety or welfare of the

property pursuant to Chapter 10 of the

Uniform Housing Code.

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes

to alleviate the substandard condition

by instituting action to demolish the

building on the above described

property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE, AND IT IS

HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, that the

above described building is in a

substandard condition to an extent that

it endangers the life, health, safety

or welfare of the public, all

accordance with Chapter 10 of the

Uniform Housing Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the

building reports of roe. City... oF

Davenport Fire and Housing departments

be incorporated and made a part hereof

of this resolution as to the

substandard conditions existing in this

building.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all

objections to the proposed demolition

Or repair of the building are hereby

overruled,

BE i FURTHER RESOLVED THAT

NOTICE, be sent to all of the parties

having a valid legal interest in the

property of the demolition order,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT SAID

building on the above described

property be demolisned according to all

city code standards.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the

Director of the Building Safety

Services department is hereby

authorized to take competitive bids to

demolish said building on March 22,

1984 unless a Two-hundred Thousand

($200,000.00) Dollar Bond is posted and

a Demolition Deferral Agreement is

executed.

Passed and Approved February 15, 1984.

Charles Peart, Mayor

Attest:

Ruth Reynolds,

Deputy City Clerk

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT

FOR SCOTT COUNTY

CASE NO. 70078

(FILED: July 26, 1988)

GLEN O. HANCOCK )

Plaintiff

vs. ) Law No.

CITY OF DAVENPORT, et al )

Defendants )

On June 24, 1988, plaintiff filed

motion for new trial. The only statute

Or rule which would authorized such a

motion at this point in time is I.R.C.P.

252 ang. 2353. Rule 253 requires’ the

petition to be filed within one year

after the rendition of the judgement or

order involved, and the serving of that

petition also within that one year.

Final judgment in this case was entered

on June 26, 1987. Plaintiff's motion

was timely filed, but there was no

service of original notice on any party

within the one year period, nor were

there any directions left with the Clerk

therefor. The defendants have now filed

motion to dismiss, and the Court finds

that the failure of service of original

notice is jurisdictional, and that

therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction

to proceed further with the motion for

new trial.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the motion for new trial is denied

on the ground that the Court lacks

ee ee ee ee eee ee

jurisdiction to entertain it.

Judge Seventh

Judicial District

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT

COUNTY

(Filed: June 26, 1987)

GLEN O. HANCOCK, )

Plaintiff, ) EQUITY NO. 70078

vs. )

CITY OF DAVENPORT, )

et al., ) JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendants. )

On this date, the Jury returned a

verdict in favor of plaintiff and

against all defendants except Defendant

James Conway in the sum of $17,235, for

compensatory damages.

Therefore, it is the JUDGEMENT OF

THE COURT that judgment should enter

against said defendants and in favor of

plaintiff for the sum of $17,235 plus

interest as allowed by law and for the

costs of this action.

The Clerk shall mail copies to

attorneys of record.

Dated this 25th day of June, 1987.

J.L. Burns

JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH

JUDICIAL

DISTRICT OF IOWA

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT

FOR SCOTT COUNTY

Filed February 11, 198?

Glen O. Hancock,

Plaintiff

Vs.

CITY OF DAVENPORT, et al.,

Defendants.

LAW NO. 70078

ORDER RELEASING EXHIBITS

Now on this 11 day of February,

1987, the Joint Motion of the parties

being presented to the Court relative

to the removal of exhibits from the

Clerk's office, the Motion is hereby

granted.

WHEREFORE, & is ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED, that the Clerk

of the Scott County District Court is

ORDERED to release to John D.

Stonebreaker all exhibits filed in the

matter of Glen Hancock vs. City of

Davenport, et al., Law No. 68966, at

once,

David J. Sohr

JUDGE, Seventh Judicial District

of Iowa

Received exhibit this date 2-11-87

John D. Stonebreaker

Notice of Sale

Sheriff's Office, Davenport, February 6,

1987 to Glen O. Hancock, you are hereby

notified that on the 6th day of February,

1987, z levied upon the _ following

described Real Estate, situated in said

county, to wit;

[parcel description]

By virtue of an execution in favor of

Denver National Bank and against Glen O.

Hancock, Defendant That The Same Is

Advertised and that the sale will take

place at the Courthouse Door in Davenport,

In said county, between the hours of 9am

and 4pm, sale to commence at the hour of

2pm on Friday the 3rd day of April 1987

Forrest F. Ashcraft-Sheriff by Charles Kk.

Vollmer-Deputy

Sheriff's Sale

In the District Court of the State of

Iowa, in and for Scott County

By virtue of a general execution issued

from the office of the clerk of the

District court of Scott County, State of

Iowa, in favor of Denver National Bank and

In REM: against a piece of intangible

property described as _ follows dated

February 2, 1987 and to me directed,

commanded me that of the _ property

hereinafter described, of the said Glen Oo.

Hancock I make or cause to be made the sum

of $17,561.31 dollars debt $750. dollars

attorneys’ fee, $38.21 dollars costs

sherriffs fees with interest and cost. I

levied upon the followiry; described

property lieing and being situated in the

County of Scott and State of Iowa, viz;

Levied upon any cause or chose inaction

maintained or claimed by the judgement

—

debtor against the city of Davenport Iowa

{all defendants named], as presented by

cause 70078 in the District Court of Iowa

Scott County or as otherwise exists,

including, but not limited to his claim

for general and specific damages,

puinitive damages, or attorneys fees. And

I hereby give public notice that I shali

offer for sale at public outcry at the

courthouse door in the City of Davenport

County of Scott State of Iowa of Friday

ther 27th day of March 1987 between the

hours of 9am and 4pm of said day sale to

commence at the hour of 2pm of said day

and I will sell to the highest and best

bidder therefore in cash, the above

described property, or sufficient thereof

to satisfy the above debt with interest

and cost. Dated 6th day of February 1987

Ottesen, Hoffman & Priester Attorney for

Plaintiff Forrest F. Ashcraft-Sheriff by

Charles K. Vollmer-Deputy

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

The following pages are unavailable for filming:

ae Pt rar, F Lalo, CG /

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT I

SL 5-11-84

CASE # 68966

Mr. Glenn O. Hancock

#7 42nd Street Court

Davenport, IA 52806

January 16, 1984

Attn: Maycr Charles Peart

Committee of Davenport City Council

City Hall

Davenport, IA 52801

Gentlemen:

I would like to introduce myself

to you. I am the owner of the Vale

Apartment Building as well as several

other properties within the city limits

of Davenport. Despite what you may

have thought in the last few months, I

do exist and I am pleased to be with

you today to discuss my plans for the

Vale property. As a point of

information, I would

like to give all members cf the

committee some background information

on myself and my family since we do go

back several years within the community

of Davenport and we are not

out-of-towners trying to take advantage

of a situation.

I was born and raised in

Davenport, graduating from Sacred Heart

Cathedral Grade School, Assumption High

Schoel and St. Ambrose College.

My father operated Hancock

Insurance Company, Hancock Construction

Company and Hancock Real Estate

Company, as well as owning and managing

over 200 rental properties for over 25

years within the eity. When my

father's health began to fail, he sold

the business as well as all properties

and moved to Sun City, Arizona, on the

advice of his physician. I was offered

an opportunity at that time with a

property management firm in Denver,

Colorado, and I readily accepted, since

it offered new challenges and I was out

of a job after having worked with my

father for 15 years in his business.

For the past 23 years I have managed

properties with an approximate value of

$250 million.

My father was presented with

numerous problems due to people

"bleeding" the properties that he had

sold on contract, but due to his

failing health and my inability to

leave my full-time position in Denver,

we were unable to travel to Davenport

to correct them. My father passed away

in December of 1983 and I became faced

with the responsibility of assisting my

mother in correcting the problems she

is faced with, as well as my own with

the Vale. Therefore, as of January 13,

1983, I have permanently relocated

in Davenport, having left my position

in Denver. Effective immediately I

will be overseeing all operations, as

well as expanding the Hancock Companies

on a full-time basis.

I would at this time like _ to

familiarize you with my plans for the

Vale, as well as to respectfully

request a 6-month extension on any City

Council action. I would propose the

following sequence of events and try to

outline a time frame that I _ can

realistically commit to.

1. I have a verbal commitment from

a not-for-profit corporation to

joint venture with me_ should

the Vale Apartment refurbishing

prove to make economic sense.

That was obtained at lunch on

January 16, 1984.

2. I have contracted with Ted

Fisher to conduct an appraisal

which is in its final stages.

I have contracted a certified

public accountant to do

pro-formas for the_- possible

sale of condos as well as tax

shelters to investors who would

be interested in participating

in some of the numerous tax

incentives that are offered by

national historic sites.

Now that I have affiliations

with a not-for-profit

corporation, I am negotiating

with architects and engineers

to develop plans so that once

we receive a grant from the

National Historic Society, we

can proceed to obtain bank

financing as well as individual

investor financing.

I have on my own contacted

three demolition companies for

their prices to demolish the

property so that I could control

the demolition myself should

items 1-4 prove not to be

financially feasible.

Within 90 days I will have firm or

written plans as well -as cost

projections for renovation of the Vale.

It would be my intention within 90

days to be able to determine whether or

not I will be able to obtain financing

to do what I feel would benefit the

City of Davenport and myself the best.

If we should determine that

demolition would make the most sense,

then I would oversee the demolition

myself and hopefully would be able to

turn the 19,000 square foot lot inte

approximately 73 parking spaces.

Gentlemen, I appreciate the time

you have given me today and I would

appreciate any consideration you could

give me with regard to this extension.

I want to apologize for any

inconvenience and delays that have been

caused by my not being within the city.

However, hopefully by my moving back

into the city that has been corrected.

If you should have any questions,

please feel free to contact me at my

home.

I have contracted with Per Mar

Security & Research to make a fire

protection survey and the results will

be back to me by January 29, 1984.

Respectfully Submitted,

Glen O. Hancock

iia:

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 29

JD 1-18-85

CASE #68966

United States Department of the

Interior

Heritage Conversation and Recreation

Service

Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Mr. Hancock

Re: The Burtis Kimball House

Thank you for your letter supporting

the proposed listing of the above

property in the National Register of

Historic Places. We are pleased to

advise you that this property was

entered in the Naional Register on

April 2, 1979:

We appreciate your participation in the

National Register commenting process

and are enclosing a leaflet describing

the National Register program.

Sincerely yours,

William J. Murtagh

Keeper of the National Register

Enclosure

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10

JD 1-17-85

CASE #68966

DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT DEVELOPMENT CORP.

1979 - 1980 - 1981

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Executive Committee

James V. Hancock - President

Thomas Midkiff - Vice-President

Edward L. Carmody - Sec./Treasurer

1979 - 1980

_ Members of the Board

George Norman

James K. Figge

Charles A. Ruhl, Sr.

Charles R. von Maur

Mel Foster, Jr.

Ron Rickman

David A. Shern

David Koenig

Ray Phillips

_ 71

Barry O'Brien

Michael Crawford

James Ingram

1980 - 1981

Members of the Board

Frank Folwell

James K. Figge

Coerses A. Ruhl, Sr.

Charles R. von Maur

Mel Foster, Jr.

Ron Rickman

David. Koenig

Ray Phillips

Barry O'Brien

Michael Crawford

James Ingram

David A. Shern

1982 - 1984

Members of the Board

Same as 1980 - 1981

with the exception of

Mr. Shern who's resignation

left a vacancy.

INSTANT CASE 70078

EXHIBIT 61

RERC

REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORPORATION

72 West Adams Street

Chicago, Illinois 60603

June 26, 1981

Mr. Robert J. Mulready

City Administrator, City Hall

226 West 4th Street

Davenport, Iowa 52801

Dear Mr. Mulready:

In conformance with your authorization,

we submit our economic feasibility

study for a proposed Community

Activities and Performing Arts Center

which would meet current and future

needs of the City of Davenport.

Respectfully submitted,

REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORPORATION

John W. Diamond

Vice President and Director of

Hotel/Motel Studies

Eugene E. Krell

Senior Analyst

JWD:EEK:lcm

RERC STUDY

PAGE 4

Vie

Although one-way traffic east on

Third Street makes it inconvenient

to unload passengers at the

Center, safety islands will help

to solve this problem.

Some remaining undesirable

surrounding land uses are expected

to be removed or upgraded.

The Activities Center lobby will

offer an attractive vista of

the Mississippi River and Rock

Island.

A number of good restaurants and

other Center support facilities

are within walking distance.

RERC STUDY

PAGE 8

3. Demand for hotel rooms stimulated by

other events in the Performing

Arts Center and the Community

Activities Center will create an

expenditure of another $105,000 for

hotel rooms in or near downtown.

Increase bn hotel room demand would

justify the addition of 90 to 100

rooms to the Blackhawk Hotel or

renovation of the Mississippi

Hotel and conversion of rooms

to transient use.

Downtown and near-downtown =

restaurants, clubs, and bars could

expect to receive more than

$800,000 annually from users of the

Center.

RERC STUDY

PAGE 12

The Parking

A supporting element vital to the

success of this proposed center is a

six-level parking ramp providing 504

convenient parking spaces. For

comfort, convenience, and security,

it is proposed that this structure

be connected by enclosed ramps and

arcades with the hotel, activities

center, and performing arts center.

This parking structure is

particularly important for events or

meetings not attracting capacity

crowds. People recognize that they

may have to park at some distance if

many others are attracted to an

event, but they expect to be able to

park at a convenient location at

other times.

The recent traffic study completed

RERC STUDY

PAGE 12 (continued)

by Wilbur Smith and Associates

shows that in 1980 there is a

daytime deficiency of more than

800 parking spaces for the blocks

immediately surrounding the _ site

chosen for development of the

parking ramp. Of course, not

all of that demand needs to be

met on the site of the Activities

Center Ramp, but it does point to

the great need for parking

to meet the additional demand

generated by the new Community

Activities Center. With the

addition of the Activities Center,

Wilbur Smith and Associates estimate

that there would be a deficiency of

over 2,000 daytime parking spaces on

the block located within 600 feet

walking distance of the site. With

RERC STUDY

PAGE 12 (continued)

this level of potential demand

it may be desirable to limit

parking ramp usage to persons

attending major events in the

Performing Arts and Community

Activities Center.

It is expected however, that there

would-be little competition in

evening hours for persons other than

those attending events in the

Center and that the parking ramp

would be available to conveniently

serve about 1,200 people (assuming

that there will be 2.5 persons per

automobile). If fees are

competitive, we expect the facility

to be the preferred parking location

for persons coming to the Center

because of its convenient location.

aaa

RERC STUDY 2

PAGE 22

Direct, protected access to the

Sundance Social Club at the ground

level and to the hotel, Activities

Center and the Performing Arts theatre

at the second level would expand use of

the parking facility and increase the

attraction of the Center for many

potential users and attendees. As

stated initially, we are convinced that

usage of each element included in

the center is closely related to the

presence of each of the other elements.

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2

JD 1-17-85

CASE #68966

(EXHIBIT 71 - CASE #70078)

PARKING PROGRAM STUDY

prepared for the

CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA

WILBUR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES

October, 1981

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 20

Surplus and Deficiency - Upon

completion of the calculations

determining adjusted supply and parking

demands, a comparison of these figures

may be used to indicate where parking

is needed. The numbers are compared on

a block-by-block basis, and the

differential of the comparison is

commonly referred to as parking

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 20 (continued)

"surplus or deficiency." It should be

noted that these numbers cannot be used

as a quantitative figure for

determining required parking spaces or

the existence of too many parking

spaces.

The completed analysis of parking

spaces in terms of surplus and

deficiency is shown in Figure 6. As

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 20 (continued)

indicated in Figure 6, the area

around the proposed Activity Center was

identified as having more parking

deficiencies than surpluses, indicating

a probable need for parking. The

irregular outlines shown for these two

sites encompass areas which are 600

feet from the proposed facilities and

represent an individual's normal

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 20 (continued)

walking distance.

Parkers will tolerate longer

walking distances in certain

circumstances, depending, of ecteke; on

area characteristics, space

availability, parking rates, and the

environment. Parkers now using the

parking lots located south of River

Drive and walking to the Orpheum

Theatre are exceeding the 600-foot

walking distance either because other

space is not available at

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 21 /

night for special events, or they are

taking advantage of low parking rates

during work days. However, the same

daytime parkers will pay a higher

-parking rate on a cold rainy day in

order to park closer to their place of

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 21 (continued)

employment.

Projected Parking Needs

Future parking needs were

investigated through a study of the

proposed downtown projects to determine

additional parking demands. The

parking demand adjustments were made

for the blocks on which the area

developments will be located.

There are three proposed

developments that are being considered

for the study area. These developments

are:

1. Activity Center

2. Ground Transportation Center

3. LeClaire Park improvement

Activity Center - The proposed

Activity Center complex will be located

in Block 10 of the study area. For

parking demand gar yerse the

’ > ]

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 21 (continued)

development criteria used were (1)

theater; (2) exhibition/activity

center; and (3) retail. Parking

requirements may change depending upon

ultimate development design and the mix

of the three criteria on the _ site.

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 25

Parking Needs Comparison

The anaylsis results of projected

parking surplus and deficiency in the

respective project areas were used to

make a comparison. of the expected

parking needs. A comparison of the

surplus and deficiency findings for

blocks within a 600-foot walking

distance of each proposed site was

made, as shown in Table 9.

The comparison of these figures

indicates a greater need for additional

spaces in the Activity Center area than

in the GTC area, although additional

parking should be provided in both

areas.

The blocks in the Activity Center

area experience a parking space

deficiency in 8 of the 10 blocks within

the 600-foot walking distance used for

187

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 25 (continued)

comparison purposes. The construction

of the Activity Center will eliminate

some existing parking spaces, thereby

increasing the parking space

deficiency, and, in addition, the use

of the facility will create additional

parking demand. The Ground

Transportation Center area analysis

indicates deficiency of parking spaces

in 4 of the 10 blocks within the 600-

foot walking distance.

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 51

Activity Center Parking

The economic assessment of the

Activity Center did not result in a

favorable coverage factor. However,

additional parking to be included as

part of the center will be required to

make such development of the project

feasible. it is recommended,

therefore, that the City actively

pursue a combination of funds to result

PARKING STUDY

PAGE 52

in the development of the proposed

904-space parking garage. This funding

may be realized from UDAG, Parking

Revenue Bonds, and other sources, as

previously discussed.

EXHIBIT F~

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

SCOTT COUNTY (FILED JULY 17, 1985)

GLEN O. HANCOCK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVENPORT

and THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA,

Defendants.

FINAL ARGUMENT NO. 68966

The Plaintiff, in his Trial Brief,

filed previously with the court,

reviewed the history of the case before

the Court. For the sake of brevity,

the Plaintiff will not review this

material in the closing argument.

The Plaintiff also stated to the

court in his trial brief that’ the

evidence would show that the Vale

Building is vacant, secure,

structurally sound and is being

monitored 24 hours 2 day for fire

protection.

In support of these facts, the

Plaintiff cites the testimony of Dan

Palmer, the President of Tri-City

Electric, who has over 10 years

experience in construction and

commercial remodeling. Tri-City

Electric ieee the building

adjoining the Vale. Mr. Palmer

testified from his own personal

observations that the building was

sound.

The Plaintiff also cites’ the

testimony of the Plaintiff's expert

witness, William J. Knapp, P.C., of

Shive-Hattery Engineers, who testified

that after studying the structural

Support system of the building his firm

concluded that the building was sound.

He also testified that Shive-Hattery

has independently and voluntarily

contracted to continually observe the

building to monitor any structural

changes.

Glen Hancock testified that he had

installed a functional fire alarm

system in the building and had

contracted with a security firm to

monitor it 24 hours a day. He also

testified that he had contracted to

install a burglar alarm system with the

same security firm. Mr. Hancock also

teatities that he inspected the

building daily to check on its

condition and to prevent break-ins.

Testimony was introduced by Chief

Vandemark that on October 15, 1984, an

alarm was received from the Vale Fire

alarm system and that the Fire

Department's response time was two

minutes. He also testified that a two

minute response time is standard for

the Central Fire District. Chief

Vandemark also testified that the Fire

Department has contingency plans for

fighting fires in all downtown

buildings, including the Vale Building.

From all of these facts, the Court

should conclude that the building poses

no danger. to the general public.

Furthermore, as Mr. Hancock testified,

he was prepared to offer this evidence

on September 4, 1984 at the court

hearing scheduled by Judge Newman to

review Hancock's progress. Therefore,

the building posed no danger to the

general public on September 4, 1984.

At the first hearing in May of

1984, Judge Newman heard testimony of

Mr. Donald Stevenson, the Plaintiff's

architect. Mr. Stevenson outlined

phases of work and schedules’ for

completing the work. This information

has been reintroduced in this hearing.

As Mr. Hancock testified, he had

completed all of the steps outlined by

Mr. Stevenson to be completed by August

31, 1984. Mr. Hancock met the intent

of Judge Newman's temporary injunction

and was prepared to prove his

compliance on September 4, 1984 at the

court hearing. If that hearing had

proceeded, Mr. Hancock would have been

entitled to either an extension of his

temporary injunction or a permanent

injunction prohibiting the City from

proceeding with the attempted

demolition of his agreement.

What happened at the September 4,

1984 court hearing? The Court has the

transcript of this hearing (Joint

Exhibit #2). The City waived oor

dropped their first demolition action

in open court. Did this mean that no

injunction was needed or that’ the

Plaintiff had won? Unfortunately, the

City's action left the legal status of

the dispute in limbo and the Plaintiff

inadequately protected.

The City's decision to drop the

first demolition proceeding suggests

that it feared that it would lose

September 4, 1984 in court. The city *s

course of conduct suggests +

suspected an injunction would prohibit

it from demolishing the plaintiff's

oroperty. So the City took this matter

out of the hands of the Court and

dragged the Plaintiff back to City

Hall.

At the Council Hearing on

September 4, 1984, there was no pretext

of judicial process. It was evident

even to the casual observer that the

whole approach of the City Council was

based upon the City's determination to

demolish the Plaintiff's building. On

September 5, 1984, the City voted,

Fivst, to condemn the Plaintiff's

property and, second, to award a

contract to tear it down. The City

scheduled the demolition to begin

September 10, 1984. (See Answer) This

is further evidence of the City's

predisposition.

Without discussing the due process

issue which is addressed in the

Plaintiff's Trial Brief, the entire

procedure utilized by the City, as

demonstrated by its conduct, was a

deliberate attempt to take the

Plaintiff out of court (where it is

likely he would have been successful)

and to tear his building down 6 days

later. This conduct is so shocking and

outrageous, st alone should be

sufficient grounds to stop the City

from persecuting the Plaintiff.

This problem was pointed out by

the Court on Spetember 4, 1984 on page

20 of the transcript (Joint Exhibit

#2). 96

Ta ie a _ . he ee — os ”“) 4 dn .

The Court stated on page 21 of the

P2 ;

transcript:

A } T 7 mic me i- OVW

The Court: How much time do the'

r ial

have to give?...

ing Min | - e m ~, “Ts ss > }

ir. Meloy: There is no specified

» TY) VW 73> T t!

time, Your Honor.

tm 7 .

Tne Court: So they coulda order

it torn down next week, is that

what < neh ceawin to r¢ "

what your re saying Oo me:

tt - AA } O er Vy ¢ ~ VO)) r H¢ ne a te 1!

i. @ it st / y 7 L - 7 y JU ii JilVWJIL eo

x x e * 4

Pade 22

itr} ae . . ; , ps

tne Court: D< nat \ re

telling me is, in light of the

” 2 2 , ! ~ ro “) 7 aw

Tact tnat you re redoing it, tne

pay ON

first procedure 1S waived:

tlasg A ae — T - M L- | , +

yk ae lie LOYy 1 Eni nk tCnat L a

~ ~at _ sman + "

correct statement.

Tb 7 9 ] } - 34 y - ~ _ + } “

Why would the City act as 1 has

"QCD? Wh y< + { lTlingag tc IC

, wD Law. é Wily Wa S » & os WL LLLIG ee YO

~ } ~ ~ = ~ J ¢ Y —

lmost any lengths to tear down the

~ + _ ~ t+ a7 4 hlh - TLIaAc ]

Iwate 6 S property? That Nas the

I )

motive?

The

city’ evidence

allegation that his

danger to the public

properly scrutinized,

Che 4

underlying

demolish his building

reason

regarding

building was

not be

it could

for the

At trial the City introduced eight

photographs taken January a, 1985

showing cilings and walls where plaster

has fallen and two broken windows and

two holes t the exterior on the east

Side of the fifth floor of the

building. This is 1 building vith

almost 19,000 yuare feet of ground

ace, 80, ) square feet of interior

se, floors, 2 wings, 3 interior

tairways, levators and 257 windows.

t trial an Vandemark and Mr.

Cervantes testified they spent about

yne and one-half hours in the building

January 9, 1985, and took no notes

during their inspection.

The City's condemnation

proceedings apparently rely upon an

inspection whcih purportedly occurred

August 25, 1983. The Plaintiff and the

Court have never seen this inspection

report. It was not served on the

Plaintiff. It was never introduced

into evidence against him at the

"hearing" before the City Council on

September 4, 1984. It was not provided

to the Plaintiff in response to his

Request for Production. It was not

attached to the City's Return to the

Writ of Certiorari and, it was not

introduced at trial. Simply. stated,

there is no evidence before the Court

regarding the alleged inspection which

occurred August 25, 1983. The City has

offered nothing to support its

contention that the building was a

danger to the public on August So

1983. Yet, the City Council purportedly

relied on this inspection in concluding

that the building presented a danger to

the public. This inspection may have

supported a "charge" that the building

was a nuisance, but this "charge" has

never been proven by substantial

evidence. Therefore, the resolution

condemning the building is a nullity.

It has no basis in fact.

The City's case, standing alone

and unrebutted, would not justify

demolishing the Plaintiff's building.

There is ample evidence before the

Court that the building is of great

historical value and that demolishing

it would cause irreparable harm to the

Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff contends that the

City's evidence regarding nuisance is

so weak and that its procedure was so

100

confiscatory, that the Court is forced

to look at another motivation for

demolishing the building.

The Plaintiff believes that the

City wanted the ground upon which the

Vale sits for parking for its new Civic

Center. Furthermore, it wanted this

ground without paying for it.

The Plaintiff believes that if he

establishes by a preponderance of the

evindence that the City's actions were

based upon an improper motivation, that

he is entitled to his expenses of

defending his interests ana a permanent

injunction against the City.

A reasonable City Council should

have, in the exercise of ordinary care,

realized that the building was not a

danger on September 4, 1984, that the

Court is entitled to question the

appropriateness of the Council's

actions. 101

Why did the Council order the

Vale demolished? The City Council had

just recently puchased the Courtland

apartment building within 6 blocks of

the Vale. The Council bought this

building to remodel it. The Court can

compare the Vale and the Courtland by

the photographs taken of both buildings

on January 12, 1985. The buildings are

both brick, multi-storied apartment

buildings. The Court can see the

numerous broken windows in the

phetographs of the Courtland. The

Court heard that the doors of the

Courtland were open and that ground

level windows were broken.

Why did the City buy the Courtland

to remodel, yet seek to demolish the

Vale? Such an obvious’ inconsistency

forces the Court to look at other

motivations besides age and condition

of the buildings. One is forced to

look at location and money.

- There is ample evidence that the

City needs the ground upon which the

Vale stands for parking for the Civic

Center.

The Parking Program Study,

Plaintiff's Exhibit #2, shows an

approximate 900 car-a-day deficit for

parking within 600 feet of the Civic

Center (page 23). This distance of 600

feet from the Civic Center includes the

Vale location.

The Study proposes a 504 car ramp

to be built on the half block North of

the Blackhawk Hotel from Perry Street

to Pershing Street (page 28).

The Study indicates a site

acquisition cost of $840,000.90 for the

ground to build this ramp (page 35).

The Economic Feasibility Study for

the Civic Center and the RKO renovation

(Plaintiff's Exhibit #3) relies on this

103

parking study (page 1). The Study

concludes when the Civic Center is

completed there will be a 1,000

car-a-day parking deficit within 600

feet of the Civic Center and when the

RKO theater is renovated there will be

a 2,000 car-a-day deficit within 600

feet of the Civic Center (page 12).

This Study indicates that the

proposed parking ramp is critical to

the success of the Super Block, but

that the ramp alone would not provide

enough parking space (page 12.)

The study indicates that

undesirable surrounding land uses will

be removed (page 4).

Furthermore, the feasibility study

indicates that the Center will operate

at a loss (page 52).

The Parking Study showed that the

ramp, when built, would operate at a

loss also (page 51).

104

These two studies were completed

in 1981. But going back to 1979 we

find the Resolution creating the

Downtown Urban Renewal District which

approved an Urban Renewal Plan.

(Resolution 79-580, Plaintiff's Exhibit

#9)

As part of this Resolution is the

"City of Davenport Urban Renewal Plan".

On the 8th page of this Plan is a map

of the district which includes’ the

Vale. Under Section 10(c)(2) Land

Acquisitions for the project known as

the "Super Block" is listed:

"a) “Super Block" Activity and

Performing Arts Center,

including parking lots 103,

entire site..."

(3) Demolish and remove

structures deemed

obsolete, structurally

unsound, or

105

environmentally

incompatible

with essential elements

of the Project. Such

demolition is anticipated

in relation to the

Project elements known

as:

(a) "Super Block sites

for exhibition and

parking facilities.”

On page 14 of the Plan are

proposed projects listing the

following:

"Activity Center Downtown,

$15,500,000.00 including Parking

Sites #1 (Fourth, Perry ~ &

Pershing)

#2 (Third & Perry)

#3 (Perry, Fourth &

_ Fifth)

The Plaintiff contends that Site

106

1 i r _

‘ i : + > )] s

1 > ) - |

+ > )

+ —T +

; ; + + . +

Va . - ° 7

se)

a4 q )

7 q c fi ‘ ~~ a”

al '< v

be a ey 0 J .

re m ) } ‘ > 10) )

3 A 74 a4 c , ~

- 1 4

> y~ >. > c ‘

i) J ~

l ~ —~ , r 4 ;

: j -

- a 4 iu ont + ~ > +

7 ¢ _

( tt ; ps

~ < (| .

~~ - a 4 + | = 5 ae | ’ mt 0 - é

rn A ro = se ‘ C

) } : a ‘ .

“al +. f c+ i

| ) »

O g q i y ‘ : 4 C » 7 rP~ 4

' “ r+ f

- ~ |

O, - . L ‘ + at aad —~ roa o~—~4

r4 > ls , . U

r lam / ‘ ‘ v 0

YY) . P x » 7 - \ go ; © :

c and di 2 + Ad . 0 1

pd4 +7 +4 ’ z : —

- . A , ,

“ = a! ( C .

= + J + ~» re - = - Fr .

‘re (rt | - mn t ; < ) )

® © —t rot if - ’ , “i : ,

- 4 i, ; j ¥4 a4 ‘ | ¢ 4 +

¥ a w ‘ \ b 4 Ly >

+/ ro > | TH = 7 2 <

rp 4 ‘ ) ; E 0

Ss - Ty - 4 ; ) Vy) r -

ot r~ O25 ~ Uv = eq ; Fr ye

Can 7 ia =

a S ’ : 5 , O

{ ~ - ~ sie 1 O sd

c : 3 s u f , 4 r-

= 5 rt

~~ . J ~ = . . . "

a Ae ~ - T ) © @ -

~ 7] “3 18) : ( .

ro ze anh 4 -

a4 + + ‘ Ji yet , 7 : 0

» iJ aie { ° . - |

) > c ame | ‘am s -

48 SX : rey , 7

4 a4 oat 7 ©) : i

‘ and n 5

9 , . , : | ‘ 1 . — > 4

se rn = Ul -. ; ) , ) 7

L 4+ c. + - e

ct aa i. ‘ 4 0 :

ong J as +4 1 W ¥

) ( a :

+ ort r j 1 ~ ; ‘ a }

) + :

re c 1 :

4 ~ ‘ :

, a! ~ ey

y ct * A r - -

Jl = ry A, ct ; O : (

y ? 1 = ‘ r+ r at

) rj ad - — :

. ° : :

- sh ; ; ad - , : ;

> a” i ) r- ” ( ' l 5

1 ry

- 2 + +

Vv — a aed r~ : ~ 2

(rt ‘“ cre - . + = 1 ° 0

: Q, : j 4 y ° +

bes fr — > a : ~ pt

“ by . “ ) 4 ¢ > j 4

ramp on the site, Of course, Mr. Testa

denies that he ever said that the City

wanted the ground for parking. But Mr.

Testa states that he met with Mr.

Palmer in 1983, Mr. Palmer states his

only contact with mr. Testa was by

telephone prior to the January 16, 1984

council meeting. mr. Palmer has no

interest in this lawsuit. Plaintiff

believes that his testimony is the most

credible regarding this conversation,

All of this evidence establishes

the City's need for the ground for

parking. But, did the City really try

Co take the Plaintiff's ground without

Paying for it?

Mr. Hancock testified that if the

building were demolished and the cost

were assessed against the Ground, he

would probably lose it by a tax deed to

the City in about 3 to 4 years. This

coincides exactly with mr. Testa's time

108

table for building a parking ramp on

the site.

Mr. Testa's involvement with this

project must be reviewed.

On August 25, 1983 Phil Testa

orders an inspection of the Vale.

On August 25, 1983 the City

inspectors invade the Vale.

On September 1, 1983 Phil Testa

first discusses demolition of the Vale

at a City council meeting.

On September 7, 1983 Jim Conway of

the Downtown Davenport Development

Corporation prepares a plan for parking

on the Vale site.

On September 15, 1983 Notice to

Appear mailed to Thomas J. Hancock in

Arizona.

On January 10, 1984 Phil Testa

prematurely orders the water service to

the Vale abandoned.

On January 12 or 13, 1984 Phil

109

Testa tells Dan Palmer that the City

will use the site for surface parking

for 4 or 5 years and then build a

parking ramp.

On January 15, 1984, Glen Hancock

moves back to Davenport.

On January 16, 1984 City Council

holds first hearing on the Vale.

Spring of 1984 City sells bonds to

raise money to demolish the building.

Jim Conway is clearly an agent of

the City. He is downtown coordinator

of the Downtown Davenport Development

Corporatoin (DDDC). The DDDC is under

contract with the City. It advises on

expenditures of the Civic Center Bond.

In the 1983-1984 City Budget

Summary showing actual expenses, the

debt service for the Civic Center is

$600,788.00 for the first fiscal year.

(Budget pp203-204).

Bruce Romer testified that the

119

OF WY W W 45 i ’

fe : ~ , J

a ‘< - 4 M4 4 4 an

+- i.e) ev uv

lan > rx (4 +

4 aun > . * 7 -

wv oy © 1 ‘e - ]

uv) O n OU 4 qt ne = 4

- a) () ' ‘

- Pp 1 )

gf & O RN ie ' 4 Ly

n\ 4 - - r ~ al

— WY Y = : = fe M4 1°

C) c ry 4 ~ 4 Cc) s

rH - “ > a " L T /

al O P W W * ) om = n

ms YH , () -) fad et = ’

“_ +

+ a

O — W) hy — - (

1) XY)

Pies © O my 7, WY) = a

”) fo) a GC 4 a ale

(rt O a | 4) ) ) et {

— - L + 0 ~

cs v + Y C J Q ~ > Y

- , ~ r a\ m~ a pw

M4 N = a oe O = tA = _ °

as “4 ms = Q = 8 2 & 2 . ' 4 ox

| | a on, —_

. ~ ‘ ( : os ) U oe (

3 ° or ~ U 0 “j

mo w ry rt Oo ol a on re

- on 40} © oma es) : = vs

W VU) mi = } = U See ) qi)

ro n\ o + e! a — — ~

rd) ) “ r .. a Ba

@ ~ v oO OO N | ve) i 2 4 _

VY VU YS | » : rr

= a oO pe ~| > W4 J re)

a ond 4) q Te) “ | at ot My Ly

~ “ » ie 4 ’ VU

O 0) vt Ss RT a} a ~ ’

= P e aq Th = “

Ey > i a a ~ Pi: rae Vv -* ~ o

ais a m4 oS o>) | © >. VY a) Ly

r— as ©) oO co uy) | <r hy rad

v uae 4 ~~ oO NM ” v 9

4 > -4 iJ tf} 1] if m4 qd ~

O O cA ¢ U . O

i 4 ©) © U fH a3 C)

rvice

111

leb

Center

city tax money. It controls the funds

in the urban renewal tax fund collected

by the City. Furthermore, Conway,

Testa and Bruce Romer all testified

that Conway works with City Planners.

Phil Testa's duties include

planning. He works with Conway.

The preponderance of the evidence

indicates that a decision was made

September 1, 1983 to tear the Vale down

for a parking lot. There is absolutely

no other reason why on September 7,

‘1983 James Conway would draw his map

for parking at the Vale site. (Mr.

Conway testified that the DDDC has

drawn no plans for parking on other

sites in the downtown area).

The City could have exercised

emminent domain to take the Vale for

parking. Of course, it would have to

pay the fair market value for the

ground and the building and it would

}12

1 }

} <TC - y " 4 _} om . + 7a 117 “NY

nave to pay € fair market alue for

t i

+ ’ + k lA Yr) . -

ho y my 7 IAA y ne ;

J11€ alid mm Gt MULLULITIO ana de Ue

Wonlkia h IVOQ r 7 la’ be Tne who | Q COST + f

WYULU Lica ~ u ; A) | -iili@ WilLVJ ILE w/o LL J i

ame ls+#4 “rT

AW il 7 ate alee Nr oe NIJ LL gg

T + rho _ + , Ir " q aam co -ho

i> dh Wil J y VV 4 Ah WA AC l il iit

— .

r 7 | ;I),NWrT mmric a i = co Ieto co a ; ~ -

MULILIUILIIG uUnader | DOLICE YOwWer as a

, lqcann 1+ . nN cocroce + Fr : @lat-s na cy Ff

Miuilsa — : a a ~OULC assess Lille COst DI

7 . .

’ smc tT 45 a ~~ Iinat 3 b > li —», q , 4 L. .

€ MILL LL OF) 24a LIISC LIleé LaLlIO ., mh & the

Wnar na . ner redeaam the ] >]

AWiliCL A A i aD Cs i. MAccill =F F de CE ch

_o scorn ~ + ~~ } ’ {ft4 + 7 “17 1 s > a

a55e€ssmen lle roe Re Ba, WOULA a LAA

1 va. , 11+ , c + ~ ~Y ty tha

4eed in 1 & (joa: s LO?! JTILY eat

COYSa’ Ta Cr) T rion ] 7 = a rnc +7 an tT Fr ; i +

. JOL)DO oe & AT 11 de de We oe WLI aii1U Wa y il Bal i\4 4

+ } rr no Fan | r } c ala

SB an 4iiU ar A DUuUl J li 1 «

_ + ~~ + 8 = se ] { 4 - 4— LL.

¢ > ’ c ¢ } Cc} ( : r)

Set te Lactcs WOULOG LOIrCe isa

such a desperate gamble?

“VYING f lingdeaerctannA hic ar x7 !

wnen trying to understand the ity s

actions one mu always look at money,

Where is the revenue coming fron nd

ynere j it e snded?

Plaintiff's Exhibit #4 , shows t

che Hotel/Motel 1984 Actual Tax was

first applied to +*he Civic Center

operating loss in the amount of

$125,196.67. The balance of

$259,972.11 went toward the debt

abatement on

114

$224,021.89 Revenue Shortfall

+125,196.67 Civic Center Loss

$349,217.56 Total Center deficiency

There is actually $349,217.56 in

1983-1984 fiscal year which had to be

covered from other sources in the

general funds.

Recall that the City had a

projected site acquisition costs for

buying the ground for its ramp across

the street of $840,000.00 and that Mr.

Romer stated that they have no money

budgeted in 1984-1985 to buy that

ground. There is , in fact, no money

left to buy that ground and there is

none available in the foreseeable

future.

In conclusion, the City has run

out of money. Revenues were less than

expected and operating expenses were

greater than planned. In desperation,

the City attempted to confiscate the

Plaintiff's property.

It is now up to the Court to stop this

action by the City. Plaintiff asks

that a permanent injunction be entered

prohibiting the City from condemning

his property. He further requests that

he be awarded his expenses of defending

his property and under 42 USCA Section

1983 that he be awarded any other

damages that the Court believes are

appropriate. John Flynn.

DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

PORT OF DAVENPORT, 404 MAIN STREET,

DAVENPORT, IOWA 52801

September 7, 1983

Robert Oaks

Trust Department >

Davenport Bank and Trust

203 West 3rd Street

Davenport, Iowa 52801

RE: Burtis Kimball House

NE: Vale Apartments

Dear Bob:

I enjoyed talking with you about the

subject property this week. I'm

enclosing some materials which may be

of interest to you. Please review the

117

information which I got from the City

Assessor's office, particuiarly with

regard to the size of the building.

In friendship,

James D. Conway

Downtown Coordinator

4 Ob —e————

o— Vie — or —o 4 —- - (RS Ee ee >

amnee ne ae ©...

pee 1+ Rt

} ‘ 5 ed | om)

"a [ weudd “ An ie |

i. ee eS-¥ beeen

4 - ,Lu 2b OS 7 ——? | 20160 .

ae er, ek Bek ae ee | a ee are oi

’ Pd Sons ata | ‘ ! ' | | ‘ o> [ae

- « a ' ' ' x . ' | | ; a ° ont

eae ee ee ji —

’ : ’ wG) ’ : ‘

J t : J ox! a, - . - 4 i | 3 | ae ee | a oon a |

, ¥ / i) poy t au Cl) oy Si at Lad ! ee

‘ ‘ P ra —— r | i

a - a i n £2) ese S47 XS Migs 411 &. oh «72UOL ; t —

. ‘ ' ‘ ome, —— -<—

' j opie. OL d med stat

} v— a “s -\- i d OF Soret ola b = Iw" —

| ae. Ss forbs ead pis H * —_—————4-- MATis CC'S pees 6 boets - 101 7

" ‘ we Se : ' : inary j | » canak aT) pororm a ciseae = W91 ;

" s . H ' 4 — Dee: F ti 4a57 : a

| : “soot | ‘ Ces 5 pouvyngarvoo asasvs Cf)

4 ~ ‘ *wese€ : . T i ; . reas sd SW smvrow © ‘

iL . ty t '. (07 omy ove eevirssy T handheld

| ‘ : % > z-1v1 moy fr ;

te 9725 01 10 Ta a. - st x rns 7 'e 2D

‘A ( i EE ee Be 4 sad | 5, “py % bh th bb fh pic *

om he ee

rrr ae 3711 se " 0 re) t ei c 7 f¥ .

‘ s

! fe) ¢) 6 9 /

i“ ’ bh b % o.UC ” =

| Cee 3380) “eee li €! a ei: \e

ee ee oe ae , 2 ia

cere- $0 2 OE ad ; 2 * £ © 32H 7

3ce~ TNE WS zr = g 7011d0 ss ot » 9 SI $é _

} heat ve107_cre? 6107 C19) wir i

*. a . ;

DOWNTOWN DAVENPORT DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

PORT OF DAVENPORT, 404 MAIN’ STREET,

DAVENPORT, IOWA 5280]

MEMO TO: Bob Oaks

FROM: James Conway, Downtown

Coordinator

DATE: January 10, 1984

RE: Urban Renewal Law Section

403.7/403.8 Condemnation/

Disposition

In my estimation, the City of Davenport

isn't currently anticipating any legal

action against 210 E. 4th Street other

than condemnation of the existing

structure. However, as I mentioned to

you, the City's urban renewal plan for

the area, which includes this property,

allows the City to acquire and dispose

of such properties in a manner similar

120

to its other authorities for eminent

domain. At the same time Iowa Urban

Renewal Law is the only legal means

available to the City to take such

action on behalf of a private

developer.

The two referenced sections are

attached with key points’ underlined.

As an example, should the City be asked

to help redevelop a property, say the

Vale Building through condemnation, the

developer would need to follow the

procedures in the law. As would be the

case with any open bidding process,

it's conceivable someone else could

submit a more attractive alternative

plan. However, availability of

funding, ability to proceed quickly and

an existing, and often approved project

plan tend to minimize the risks for the

developer who initiates a condemnation

request to the City. 121

Again let me state that I am not aware

of any intent, rumored or otherwise on

the part of the City, or any private

party to begin any actions under the

referenced sections of the code

IDC/mis

a? a

Sic i . 2s

IN THE

IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

SCOTT COUNTY

GLEN ©. HANCOCK, )

Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF'S SECOND

vs. ) MOTION FOR

CITY OF DAVENPORT, ) SEPARATE

et al., ) ADJUDICATION OF

Defendants. ) LAW POINTS

) LAW NO. 70078

Hancock,

John T.

Darland,

Motion

Points,

follows:

—

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Glen O.

by and through his attorney,

Flynn of Brubaker, Flynn &

Fits and for his Second

for Separate Adjudication of Law

pursuant to Iowa Rule 105 of

, states to the Court as

The eta Housing Code

adopted by the City of Davenport

(Section 15.32.170) adoptes the Uniform

Fire Code.

Zs The Uniform Fire Code, Section

14.102 applies to unoccupied buildings.

as On September 4, 1984 the Vale

Apartment Building was an unoccupied

buildina as defined by the Uniform Fire

Code.

4. That on September 4, 1984, the

Vale Apartment Building complied with

Section 14.102 of the Uniform Fire

Code.

-- That no other section of the

Uniform Fire Code applies to unoccupied

buildings.

DATED this 20 day of February,

1987.

124

Copy to:

GLEN O. HANCOCK

By:

Jonn T. Flynn

BRUBAKER, FLYNN &

DARLAND, P.C.

620 Union Arcade Building

Davenport, Iowa 52801

(319) 322-2681

Michael J. Meloy

226 W. Fourth Street

Davenport, IA 52801

George B. Norman

P.O. Box 1

a f

Rock Island, IL 61201-1117

125

DAVENPORT CODE SECTION 15.32.170

UNIFORM FIRE CODE

(¢) Section 14.102. Occupied and

Unoccupied Buildings.

(1) Vacancies. When any portion of

a building containing occupied dwelling

units and/or guest rooms is vacant such

vacant portions shall be maintained

secure and under control of the owner,

his agent, or other responsible person

in order to prevent entry by

unauthorized persons. Failure to

maintain such security shall be

immediate and sufficient cause for the

Building Official or Fire Marshal to

issue a citation.

(a) Failure to maintain security

shall include but not be limited to the

following:

(i) Unsecured exterior openings into

126

vacant portions of a building

immediately accessible to the public at

grade or unsecured openings into vacant

portions of a building immediately

accessible by means of landings, roofs,

stairs, fire escapes, porches,

platforms, or other areas which are

accessible to the public from _ grade

level.

(ii) Unsecured hatchway doors,

scuttles, ventilation openings, or

other readible means for obtaining

entry to vacant portions of a building.

(iii) Broken or cracked glass.

(b) Unoccupied Buildings. Whenever

an entire building remains unoccupied

for a period of more than 30 days and

is not maintained as provided in

subsection (a) ca2, it shall be

immediate and sufficient cause for the

127

Building Official or Fire Marshal to

issue a citation.

(2) The citation shall be punishable

by a fine imposed by the magistrate not

to exceed $100.00.

128

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT

COUNTY

(Filed July 22, 1987)

GLEN O. HANCOCK, )

Plaintiff, ) EQUITY NO. 70078

vs. )

CITY OF DAVENPORT, ) MEMORANDUM IN

et al, ) SUPPORT OF

Defendants. ) TESTIMONY

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Glen O.

Hancock pro se, and submits the

following:

z. The Trust Department of

Davenport Bank and Trust Co. testified

under oath that Glen 0O. Hancock was

behind on payments to the Vale Estate.

ra Robert Oaks received exhibit 1

(one) on or about August 26, 1983. The

payments to the Vale Estate were

current to September 22, 1983.

a Mr. Oaks explained to the jury

129

that the map of the Vale Apartments was

drawn as ae parking lot due to payment

arrearage.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff, pro se

submits this memorandum.

GLEN O. HANCOCK

Glen O. Hancock, pro se

P.O. Box 1106

Davenport, Iowa 52805

(319) 323-1209

Copy to:

Michael J. Meloy

Legal Department

226 West 4th Street

Davenport, IA 52801

130

John T. Flynn

630 Union Arcade Building

Davenport Iowa IA 52801

John D. Stonebraker

3432 Jersey Ridge Road

Davenport Iowa 52807

George B. Norman

208 18th Street

P.O. Box 1117

Rock Island, Ill. 61201-1117

Mark E. Liabo

P.O. Box 998

Ceder Rapids, Iowa 52406-0998

131

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT

FOR SCOTT COUNTY

CASE NO. 70078

(FILED: June 24, 1988)

GLEN O. HANCOCK )

Plaintiff )

vs. ) “Motion for

CITY OF DAVENPORT, et al ) new trial

Defendant ) by Plaintiff

) Pro Se"

DIVISION I

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, Glen O.

Hancock, and for cause of action against

the City of Davenport, respectfully

states to the Court as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff, Glen O.

132

Hancock, iS a resident of Davenport,

Scott County, Iowa.

2. That the Defendant, City of

Davenport, iS a municipal corporation

epenitine under and by virtue of the

laws of the State of Iowa.

3. That the City of Davenport is

operated by it's duly elected City

Council.

4. That Glen O. Hancock was the

owner of certain property traditionally

known as the Vale Apartments Building

located at 210 E. 4th Street, Davenport,

Iowa.

5. That on September 5, 1984 at the

regular meeting of the City Council of

the City of Davenport, by roll call

vote, adopted a resolution dated

September 5, 1984, condemning the

133

property known as the Vale Apartments.

6. That on September 5, 1984 at the

regular meeting of the City Council, the

City Council voted upon a_— second

resolution and approved the award of a

contract to Gravenmeyer Contracting Co.

to demolish the Vale Building commencing

on September 10, 1984.

7. That the actions of the City of

Davenport were illegal and in violation

of the Plaintiff's rights, including but

not limited to the following specifics:

A. That the actions of the City

of Davenport denied Plaintiff due

process of law as guaranteed by the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution and Article

I, Section 9, of the Constitution of the

States of Iowa and Title 42 U.S.C.A.

134

Section 1983.

B. That the Defendant, City of

Davenport, illegally exercised summary

abatement proceedings to demolish the

Plaintiff's property on the basis of the

allegations that the building

constituted a "public nuisance" but with

no evidence an emergency condition

existed in violation of Article III,

Section 1 and/or Article V. Section 6 of

the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of

the Iowa Code.

C. That the actions of the City

of Davenport constitute a condemnation

of the Plaintiff's property by the City

of Davenport for undetermined purposes

without payment of just compensation

therefore in violation of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the

135

Constitution of the United States and

Article I, Section 18 of the

Constitution of the State of Iowa and

Title 42 USCA Section 1983.

8. That the actions of the City of

Davenport as set forth above, have been

the proximate cause of damages to the

Plaintiff Glen O. Hancock.

9. That the Plaintiff, Glen O.

Hancock, has suffered damages in a fair

and reasonable amount to be determined

by a jury as a proximate result of the

actions of the City of Davenport, Iowa

for the following injuries:

A. Depreciation of the Vale

Apartment Building;

B. Emotional distress;

C. Pain and suffering;

D. The cost of defense of the

136

actions brought by the City of

Davenport;

E. Loss of wages past, present,

and future;

F. Loss of rental income, past

present and future;

G. Loss of developmental

potential of the Vale Building;

10. That pursuant to Chapter 613

A.2, the City of Davenport is liable for

the actions of the members of the City

Council who illegally voted to condemn

and demolish the Plaintiff's neencey,,

and the actions of the employees and

agents of the City of Davenport, namely,

Phillip Testa, James Conway, and Bruce

Romer, who while acting within the scope

of their employment or duties,

wrongfully prosecuted the Plaintiff in

137

this action for civil wrong incurred

upon Glen O. Hancock, and the injury to

his personal or property rights based

upon their negligence, or errors and

omissions, or breach of duty, or perjury

under oath, or denial of any right under

any constitutional provision, statue of

rule of law.

ll. That this action was’ filed

within the proper time frame by former

Attorney, John Flynn, of Davenport,

Iowa, and within the six month parameter

of the constitutional infraction

according to 613A.5 of the Code. The

petition was filed in equity March 4,

1985.

12. That Plaintiff is entitled to

his damages and his legal fees under

Title 42 USCA, Section 1983, Section

138

1988, for violation of his

constitutional rights.

13. That on August 20, 1986, the

named defendants were found in violation

of the constitutional rights guaranteed

to the Plaintiff by federal law by the

Supreme Court of the State of Iowa,

Hancock vs City of Davenport 392 N.W.2d,

472 and that decision in regards to

damages’ for these illegalities was

"without prejudice to Hancock's right to

assert that claim in a separate original

action."

14. That on June 26, 1987, a final

judgement of a jury trial in a equity

action was filed by the trial court in

the form of Special verdict, returning a

unanimous verdict against all

defendants, except James Conway, and an

139

award was entered of $17,235.00 in

damages under 42 USCA Section 1988.

Judge Burns signed the judgement entry.

15. Liability was established by

jury of all the defendants for said

infliction of constitutional infraction

with the exception of James conway.

16. Grounds for this Motion for a

New Trial are based upon the following

facts:

A. As per a letter dated 4/4/86

by Attorney Flynn, Flynn had established

earlier in a communique to Attorney John

A. Hellstrom, to whom the letter was

sent, (attached Exhibit A), his decision

of non representation to Glen 0.

Hancock, and further, according’ to

(attached Exhibit B) Flynn illegally

represented to the court he was the

140

attorney of record and sought withdrawal

through court and was granted same.

B. No notice of Flynn's

representation denial was received by

Plaintiff, Glen 0. Hancock, either

certified or by regular mail. Exhibit A

was received by Plaintiff's mother Jane

Hancock, in Phoenix, Arizona, and the

contents of which, showing Flynn's

statement of non representation, was not

discovered by Plaintiff until at least

two months after trial. Jane Hancock

will supply an affidavit under penalty

of prejury to the court if requested.

Cc. The attorney who entered an

appearance, Mark Liabo of the Tom Riley

Law Firm in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in this

case on March 2, 1987, did so under the

auspices of Attorney John Flynn, as

141

Stated by Plaintiff and filed in Denial

of the Bill Particulars. (Exhibit C)

Liabo had no contract with Plaintiff

assuring his representational

credibility and at all times’ was

representing Flynn, and furthermore as

provided by affidavit, (Exhibit D) made

false claims of any fee or

representation with Plaintiff; and later

did so file said waived claims on lien

July 28, 1978 (Exhibit E). Plaintiff

also has in his possession, and upon

request of the court, demonstrate a

video tape made showing Liabo's waiver

of attorney fee arrangements. (Exhibit

F (Video) to be supplied upon request of

court). Plaintiff asserts herein that

these elements, but not limited to these

elements are material evidence newly

142

discovered and could not have been

reasonably or diligently produced at the

trial pursuant to Rule 252, Iowa Rules

of Civil Procedure and give rise to a

Motion for a new trial within the one

year prescribed by Rule 252 (B) (F).

D. Pursuant to Rule 252 F

I.R.C.(. as filed by Plaintiff, July 22,

1987, and designated Memorandum in

Support of Testimony, Plaintiff's

locating of the existing evidence that

serves to demonstrate perjury in a court

of Law and jeopardized Plaintiff's

rights to an impartial jury through the

hearing ae perjured evidence. This

check was not located until after

testimony of Bob Oakes during the trial

and Liabo would not introduce this

evidence upon strenuous assertion by

143.

Plaintiff. (Exhibit G)

17. Attorney Martin for the City

Stated through his most recent Supreme

Court briefing for the defendants, that,

this case 70078, is an action at law.

Plaintiff denies the applicability of

this conjecture on his part, but without

disclaiming the right to appeal and

leave the final- determination of that

question in the judgement of the higher

courts through extensive and complete de

novo review of the entire proceedings

from the inception of the matter,

Plaintiff presents Exhibit (H) copy of

docket, case 70078, and pursuant to Rule

252 IRCP (a), points out to the court

that the docket is designated below

under "kind of action" as a equity

case. Plaintiff invokes his

144

constitutional rights of appeal to the

Supreme Court in this matter as to the

determination of the conjecture opinion

of Attorney Martin, or the possible

designatory error of the clerk,

Plaintiff denies legal error, but the

Matter was plead by the defendants and

the appeal process will discover the

legal question. The lower courts ruling

Shall have no effect on the _ legal

question of this point in controversy of

the possible application to 252 (a) IRCP

to the disposition of review by the

Supreme Court, Plaintiff hereby requests

an entire and comprehensive court review

of the authentication of transmitted

records and existent docketing of, but

not limited to all motions and services,

exhibits of trial, jury instructions,

145

court orders, all resistances and liens

and notices as pursuant to Article XI

Rule 901 (a) Iowa Rule of Evidence, Rule

901 (B) 10. In other words, this pro se

representative respectfully requests

Scott County docketing and court

authentication guidelines of

impartiality to be applied, in the name

of fair justice, to all the evidentiary

records of this litigation in light of

the controversy of docketing and the

entries therein represented in case

70078 being expressed in the Supreme

Court of Iowa.

18. Attorney Liabo has not returned

into the possession of Plaintiff any

records of this case received by him

through Flynn or from the courts

Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 166 IRCP

146

reserves the right to perpetuate the

depositions taken in this matter of all

parties deposed by both sides of the

litigation. Pursuant to Rule 402 "all

relevant evidence is admissible"

Plaintiff seeks to use this evidence

perpetuated, but not exclusive to only

this evidence, if a new trial is

granted. Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule

802 (14), but not limited to that

Subsection, seeks to receive

confirmation through deposition all

alleged hearsay in this matter, and also

seeks his rights to the entrance of

former cadkinnns of actors in this

matter pursuant to Iowa Code Section

622.97 and Rule 144 IRCP also 12

IRCrim.P and Rule 804 (b) (1).

Plaintiff also seeks the application of

147

any proper Disciplinary Rules and

Ethical Considerations as they apply to

the attorneys in this matter, not

limited to Plaintiff's alleged

attorneys.

19. Acquiescence to representation

at trial is not proper defense to the

actions of these attorneys, Liabo and

Flynn, in that this action (70078) was

enjoined with a companion USC Section

1988 attorney fee claim and by essence

of the prejudicial verdict award of the

jury, Plaintiff would have no cause to

know the outcome of awarded fees to

these people until after the trial, and

therefore establish yet another criteria

for evidence not through’ reasonable

diligence discovered. IRCP 252 F.

20. Claimed prejudice (Exhibit I) of

148

the (jury offering) of Scott County and

Davenport exascerbated by negative Quad

City Times Articles has ripened in

several ways and constitutes underlying

public record proof of material evidence

not discoverable through trial: 1)

There have been more negative and

damaging articles after trial, (evidence

supplied upon court request) 2) In an

editorial the foreman of the jury made

statement of presupposed opinion of the

Plaintiff's property after trial

(evidence supplied upon request of the

court) 3) Activity as of December in

the mbdiace vicinity of Plaintiff's

property proposing the razing of the Lee

Enterprises building for a parking ramp

and the dealing with Project Rejuvenate

Davenport and the City of Davenport,

149

specifically Tax Increment Finance

District (3.36.020) approved May 4th,

1988, is material evidence that could

not with diligence have been presented

at trial. Plaintiff's original claim as

cited in case 68966, was to the effect

that the adjacent landowners needed his

property for recoup on their Superblock

investments, in the form of parking or

otherwise, and used the City through

James Conway, but not limited to him, to

illegally obtain same. 68966 gave rise

and substantiation to cause 70078.

21. Defendants filed cross appeal

July 28, 1978 and dropped same April ll,

1988. This was filed frivolously in

that it was filed only to hamper legal

progress herein and confuse the issues,

it was dropped after the Plaintiff filed

159

his Brief to the Supreme Court of Iowa,

however, Liabo retains the records of

the contents of said cross-appeal and

Plaintiff knows not the terms objected

to by the defendants.

22. In the scope of the parameter of

the entire case of the legal and illegal

path the municipality of Davenport has

chosen with Plaintiff. Plaintiff hereby

includes his claim for malicious

prosecution in the evidentiary records

of case 71281, and 73265, and seeks a

fair, discovery in those actions, of

malfeasance to the current litigation to

be effected in the form of proof of mal

feasance or abuse of process or

malicious prosecution, but not limited

to that specific scope, and it's harmful

effect on this instant case.

15]

23. Pursuant to the evidence

submitted in case 68966, Plaintiff

requests all authenticated exhibits and

records of same and hereby specifies

they will show conflict of interest by

Attorney George Norman, as he was a

member of the Downtown Davenport

Development Corporation, and presently

represents James Conway. The DDDC was

the interface to the City of the

political vested interests that

controverted the City's action of

singling out Plaintiff's building for

selective enforcement and the

perpetrators of the neavy burdens

Plaintiff has had to incur.

24. Plaintiff requests this trial to

be on the issue of damages only, and a

retrial oon the liability of James

152

Conway. Plaintiff also asserts his

rights to remove this action from this

venue due to the entire prejudicial

circumstances of this case.

25. All before mentioned defects in

the alleged representative of Glen O.

Hancock shows’ serious’ violations of

Constitutionally provided protections to

Citizens of the United States. of

America.

26. Plaintiff files this motion for

a new trial for the expedient and fair

disposal of this litigation, and retains

his rights protected by the Constitution

of the United States of America and the

laws of the State of Iowa in his appeal

rights of findings of this court and any

interlocutory affect they may have upon

his current Supreme Court Appeal

153

presently being considered.

27. Plaintiff files this action pro

se and requests constitutional

protection to the matter of keeping

within the spirit of the law and within

a good faith boundary of representing

only the facts as they happened.

28. Plaintiff was denied proper

discovery of the application of federal

codes specifically the National Historic

Preservation Act 16 USC(470 F, commonly

referred to Section 106, The Department

of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4F

as they apply to a Nationally Registered

Historic Building.

29. Plaintiff requests a hearing in

a timely manner on these issues pursuant

to Iowa and Federal law.

[RA

Glen 0. MHancock-

pro se .

P.O. Box 1106

Davenport, Iowa

52805

Copy to:

Michael J. Meloy

City Hall

226 W. 4th Street

Davenport, Iowa 52801

George B. Norman

1790 Union Arcade Building

Davenport, Iowa 52801

155

In the Supreme Court of Iowa

(Filed January 11, 1989)

Glen oO. Hancock ) Appellants’ Reply

Plaintiff v ) Brief

City of )

Davenport, etal ) Scott County No. 70078

Appeal from the District of Scott County

Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge

From Pg. 1

Plaintiff through his appeal. has shown

evidence of, and demonstrated the

"hurried" activity of the Scott County

justice system in trying to force these

complex issues, to the destain of

Plaintiff. This impulsive style of the

local courts manifested itself throughout

the proceedings, jeopardizing the "real"

issues of discovery, and forcing Plaintiff

into court, vulnerable in an unjust and

untimely manner, without an attorney,

156

without financial wherewithal to carry on

in a fair progression of protecting his

civil rights. Plaintiff asserts that

misuse of

From Pg. 2

the system in Scott County assured his

financial instability for the use of his

rival litigants. Local courts failed to

allow impartial construction of justice

through these, but not limited to plead

transpiring.

From Pg. 2

_In considering this case, reviewing court

is made cognizant that actions after

Flynn's public statement by letter (App.p.

80. of his status to former client

Hancock, disallow the best interest legal

protection to Plaintiff and Plaintiff

fairly reserves the right to deny as

proper or just, any litigatory

subservience to Flynn's activities within

157

that time parameter, as it applies to this

entire lawsuit. Acquiesence till _ the

conclusion of trial is not’ enough

criteria, in this case, to establish

representational status of the attorneys.

This was a USC 1983

From Pg. 3

action with the overtones of a companion

USC Section 1988, known as a lawyers fees

action, and as stated by Appellee: "to

attorney's fees incurred" (Appellee brief

p.3) limits the scope of damages. Flynn

commissioned Liabo, as his own

intermediary, for recovering from the work

he had done on case 68966, and through the

ensuing trial. Plaintiff asserts the two

conspired with the defendants, in the

assured loss of rightful damage discovery:

presentation in open court of unfair

parameters of evidence, limited in depth

as to what had been previously established

158

before other courts, diverting an already

prejudiced jury, under the guise of

"expertise" and their "trial" strategy,

and usurping subsequent award to

Plaintiff. Mark Liabo had no contract with

Plaintiff and Hancock denies Appellees

ascertain (Appellee brief p.4) he was

represented by these attorneys throughout

most parts of instant case (App.p.47 item

2).

From Pg.5

Liabo has retained all records belonging

to Plaintiff (App.p.93,93). With the

appearance of such a major discrepancy, if

that is the truth of this case designation

argument, Plaintiff is compelled _ to

objectively verify authenticity of all

transmitted records, existence docketing,

motions, resistances, court orders,

depositions, trial transcripts, exhibits

at trial, jury instructions, but not

159

limited to these legal documentations of

the transpiring of instant case in Scott

County Iowa.

From Pg. 10

Second, the Quad City Times can _ be

directly linked through it's board of

directors as a political prominent of a

Parking Ramp (LETTER FROM LEE PRESIDENT-

Downtown News-Vol. 5 No. 5 March 1987) aed

Fund Raiser for the Adler Theater a major

part of the Superblock Development.

From Pg. 13

As to the question of "affidavit", it is

submitted to this court that the alleged

attorney, Liabo, made no effort to inform

or procure same and furthermore he made no

effort tc inform Plaintiff on his

constitutionally guaranteed rights of

Federal jurisdiction in instant case.

Monroe v Pape 365 US 167,183, Light v

Blackwell 472 F.Supp, 333. Flynn never

160

gave that timely advice either: why should

they make Plaintiff's cause more fair?

They were not representing him to the

first place. On the other hand they were

protecting the defendants by keeping the

cause local. Liabo premeditatively went to

court for the venue issue emptyhanded and

that is the reprehensible. (DR1-102 (5),

Canon 2, EC2-B, DR6-101(A) (2&3), DR 7-10

(A) (1&3).

From Pg. 14

The issues at the heart of this lawsuit

are 1) statutory protection of historic

properties and improper discovery of same

2) the right to protection by legal

council in a "closed" community due to the

circumstances of political contravention

3) subjection to malicious prosecution and

prejudice by local officials and the body

politic due to subversion and ignorance.

From Pg. 15 161

Plaintiff herein asserts that he was

totally unprotected as to the Statutory

Protections provided to Historical

Buildings by the Federal codes and denied

not only proper time for discovery of

same. (I.R. Evidence 103 (a) & 104 (b) but

the legal fortitude vis a vis fraudulent

attorneys (in this state).

From Page 15

Plaintiff herein raises a constitutional

issue as to the State courts disposal of

the matter in it's entirety

From Page 16

The historic Burtis Kimball Opera House is

adjacent by party wall to the Plaintiff's

property and may, in the opinion of the

Secretary of the Interior, constitute a

"historic district" where it applies

herein. It cannot be said that timely

raising of the "historical" significance

of Plaintiff's property has not been made.

162

It was raised by Flynn in his briefing on

68966 (rule 804(b)-1&5 I.R. Evidence and

citing of Chapter 303 of the Code of Iowa,

as well as reference to the placement of

the property on the National Register in

the Hancock ruling filed by this court.

All parties know and had cause to know.

From Pg. 17

Certain protections are awarded National

USC Code 470 F. The federal agency cannot

passively rely on other agencies to

Satisfy it's responsibilities. Hough v

Marsh 557 F. Supp. Supp. 74, 87-88 without

due process notice or any flagging of

proposed planning the city undertook the

Superblock development and did not provide

Plaintiff on the Federal government, to

the best of Plaintiff's knowledge, with

any compliance to Federal law if there was

indeed federal money involved in the

163

undertaking. On the contrary the city

built the convention center in close

proximity to the Historic Burtis Kimball

House without any interface with the

Plaintiff as to plans or obstruction of

riverview, including the closing of Perry

Street to facilitate the "rivercenter"

building. (Department of Transportation

Act 4-F) There was no NEPA or

Environmental Impact Reviews undertaking

even though the building was listed on the

National Register at the time of the

Superblock construction. Discovery of

federal monies or approval was denied

proper redress due to the lower courts

procedural history in instant case. Fair

and legal investigative discovery in this

case in the state of Iowa.

From Pg. 18

under the umbrella of Federal

Constitutional compliance, may well

164

necessitate a Section 106 review.

From Pg. 18

The property is located on the rail line

connecting the Rock Island Arsenal, an

"undertaking" may involve military

operations, that adjacent line is active.

Romero-Bercelo v Brown 643 F.2d. 835. When

a federal agency funds or gives it's

conditional imprimatur for a project it

may trigger a section 106 review. National

Center for Preservation Law v Landau 496

F. Supp. 746, Save the Courthouse

Committee v Lynn 408 F. Supp 1323 Elv

Velde 497 F2d. 252. By closing off the

street. Perry Street directly across from

the Landmark, involvement of federal

subsidations of streets of roadways is

necessitated for discovery of potential

106 and not limited to that action as the

Davenport Department of Transportation Act

and Stop H-3 Association v Coleman 533

165

F.2d 434. If the federal government holds

discretionary authority over a project,

such as funding of roads or subsidation in

the downtown area of Davenport, 106 must

be complied with through every phase.

Morris County Trust for Historic

Preservation v Pierce 714 F.2d 271, Wi''CH

v Harris 603 F.2d. 310 Thompson v Fugate

374 F. Supp. 120.

From Pg 19

The archaeological significance of the

location of Plaintiff's property was also

passed over in fair discovery. Indian

tribe existed along the Mississippi in

ancient ties, and any agency of federal

attachment or funding must comply with the

Archaeologic and Historic Preservation Act

36 CFR 800.1. The SBA was involved in

certain fundings of the Blackhawk Hotel,

owned by Davenport Bank and Trust and

directly across the street from

166

Plaintiff's property. Discovery of the

specific allocation of fundings and monies

spent may also trigger a 106 review. This

presents credibie weight to any perjury by

an officer of Davenport Bank and Trust,

especially in light of the fact Mr. Dakes

had "memo" level discussions of

Plaintiff's property, without Plaintiff's

knowledge indefinite violation of

fiduciary responsibility (App.p. 73 to 76)

From Pg. 20

On January 10, 1984-Phil Testa orders

termination of the water service to the

Vale: on January 12 or 13 1984-Phil Testa

telis Dan Palmer (owner of Burtis Opera

House) that the city will use the site for

a surface parking for 4 to 5 years and

then build a parking ramp: (conflicting

testimony); on January 16, 1984-city

council holds it's first "hearing" on the

"Condition" of the Vaie: Spring of 1984-

167

city sells bonds to raise money _ to

demolish the building.

From Pg. 21

There was no contract with Liabo, there

was no notice of non-representation by

Flynn; the court ordered us into trial

(App. p. 27). Was the Plaintiff expected

to give up? Was the Plaintiff expected to

file his own motions that may have

severely crippled his case as a layman?

Was 30 years of Plaintiff's family

holdings to be lost to unscrupulous

behavior? (Appellee brief p.15) Ponder the

Federal protections just cited. He was

prepared to win his Section 1988 case for

Flynn. That transpired.

From pg. 22

(Appellee brief p.18) Plaintiff asserts,

that ultimately this action can be

enjoined to the level of class action

under Federal Code (Section 106) Residents

168

of a town are considered users of the

property and beneficiaries of the

environment that it's unchanged character

produces. Legal interest in preserving the

property thereby accrues to each of the

residents. Edwards v First Bank of Dundee

393 F. Supp. 680, River v- Richmond

Metropolitan Authority 481 F2d 1280

From Pg. 23

Also Urban Renewal Projects undertaken

with HUD is a major federal action

requiring nepa compliance Aertsen v Harris

467 F. Supp 117 at 118.

From Pg. 23.

Application of these federal codes and

protections provided by federal law are

submitted for this court as to the

constitutional application to Chapter 303

of the Code of Iowa. This case happened in

the State of Iowa and probably is the most

Significant Historical Preservation case

169

in Iowa. It is a fact that according to

Mr. Ray Christian, the SHPO of the state

of Iowa, (Rule 804 I.R. Evidence), a

Section 106 review has not transpired in

the state of Iowa. Discovery of breach of

federal law in the violation of

Plaintiff's rights will clarify the

serious level of tort-feasance as it

applies to a municipalities improper and

illegal activities. Crosby v Young 512

F.Supp. 1363, Colony Federal Savings and

Loan Ass'n v Harris 482 F. Supp 296,

National Center for Preservation Law

From Pg 24

v Landrieu, supra.

From Pg. 24

The jurors deserved to know evidence from

the 68966 action to fairly reach a

verdict, absent prejudice. In 68966,

Defendants Exhibit 1-Plaintiff wrote a

good faith letter in early 1984 explaining

170

his approach in the preservation of the

building to the city, and specifically

stating that if feasibility was not

possible he would tear the building down

and create a private parking business.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 3-The Convention

Center Feasibility Study (RERC)

specifically calls for 90 to 100

additional hotel rooms when Superblock was

to be completed; as expected, the study

favored the addition of those rooms to

either the Blackhawk Hotel oor’ the

Mississippi Hotel, which houses the Adler

Theater. (p 8 RERC) This verified the

hospitality industry

From Pg. 25

Feasibility in 1984. Also the study

concluded an additional $800,000 annually

would be spent in food and beverage near

Superblock; a good location for a hotel

restaurant). On p.12 of RERC, the study

171

says "A supporting element vital to the

success...2000 space deficiency within 600

feet of the center. Is this the tort

"incarnate"? Plaintiff's exhibit (2) ;The

parking study spells out the money recoup

per space and demands. (P.43): if

feasibility as per that letter would not

have been possible, a parking expert was

arranged to establish that 100 to 115

"valet" spaces on an asphalt lot would

create a successful parking "going

concern", recouping hard cash for several

years by now.

From Pg. 25

the Marcou O'leary Study noted: "In the

year of greater recognition...downtown

presents a collection of historic

structures not found in other areas of the

community." Number 1 objective: preserving

the buildings of historic and

architectural integrity. Did ‘the city use

172

this study and falsely represent to the

Federal government. HUD and UDAG, to

receive funding downtown?

173

In the Supreme Court of Iowa

(Filed on or about January 20,1989)

Glen O. Hancock ) Applicants Application

Plaintiff v City) for Further Review

of Davenport, )

et.al. ) Scott County No. 70078

Appeal from the District of Scott County

Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge

From Pg. 2

When issues of basic’ constitutional

safegaurds are raised, under principles

laid down in applicable federal and state

From Pg. 3

decisions,such issues r2quires a court to

make it's own evaluation of the totality

of the etreuetances under which those

constitutional rights was made. Dickenson

Co v City of Des Moines Iowa 347 NW2d 436

Schneckloth v Bustamonte 412 US 218, 225

Sheppard v Maxwell 384 US 333,362..

174

From Pg. 4

Within the public psychological

determination the Plaintiff Glen 0.

Hancock, cannot be separated from the

"presumed public eyesore quality" of

historic building, an consequently the

public mind would not isolate or separate

Glen Hancock from erroneous blame, it

would be an integral part, a "play within

a play". "When the spotlights glare comes

to rest on a certain individual in a

matter of large public interest involving

widespread and intensive publicity of a

prejudicial nature..."quoting Pollard v

District Court of Woodburry County 200

NW2d 519 at 521)

From Pg. 5

The sequestered voir dire of jurors "is

not unusual or view with suspicion" In

re:Greensboro News Co, 727 F2d, 1320,1323

(4thcir. 1984) 175

From Pg. 6

When the exercise of free press rights

actually tramples upon 6th amendment

rights (in this case 14th amendment equal

protection of the law) the former must

yield to the latter. Justice Frankfurter

observes "trial by newspapers" too often

differs from the real trial court.

Pennekamp v Florida 328 US 361.

From Pg. 7

It is alleged the story not told by the

Quad City Times is that they are directly

involved with the downtown power players

by their location geographically at the

very least, and "voice"a clever "negative

tone" to the destain of the plaintiff and

confusion of the body politic. It is a

fact and mentioned in Plaintiff a motion

for new trial (see Motion for a New Trial

herein Annex p.6 subsection 20-31), that

the present building of Lee Enterprises is

176

to be razed to facilitate the much need

parking lot for Superblock. "In a civil

case, an issue may be proven

From Pg. 8

by circumstantial evidence if it is such

as to make the theory of causation

probable, not merely possible, than other

theory" State v Williams 179 NW 756

From Pg. 9

The Court of Appeals erred in it's initial

conclusion of fact regarding evidence

submitted in Plaintiff's appendix. The

Court of Appeals states that it's review

of news articles was limited to

exclusively a "pair of prejudice" as a

result of the "newspaper articles" shown.

It is clearly indicated by Plaintiff in

his Appendix Table of Contents that page

58 is designated as "Public Notice-Fee

Award.

177

From Pg. 9

It is asserted again in Plaintiff's brief

that the only notice he received regarding

the facts surrounding the payments of

attorneys in this case was through the

newspaper. Page 58 is a copy of a press

release by Plaintiff's brother (a copy was

sent to Justice Wolle in February 1988)

and further proof that the intention was

not to exclusively submit only these

articles is clear in the article appearing

on the bottom. That specifically was from

the Des Moines Register, that newspaper

never have been alleged as to prejudice or

conflict of interest in instant case.

From Pg. 12

Evidentiary issues were not preserved for

appeal where they were not raised in the

motion for new trial. Goodrich v McCannel

382 NW2d 235 It is now alleged the trial

court erred in the ruling on that Motion

for New Trial (see Order Annes p.8) for

178

these reasons: 1) The original notice was

served to the clerk and mailed to the

defendant's attorneys Meloy and Norman, if

the service is indeed errant as Judge

Briles alleges, the maid defendant, the

City of Davenport, has been duly served

proper notice through the legal department

and Mike Meloy, and point 2) Judge Briles

should have disqualified herself form

participating as has ben alleged by

Plaintiff in his brief she made a

derogatory remark about him in chambers

within the presence of a witness whose

name Plaintiff will supply herein:

Attorney John Hoekstra, 1705 2nd Avenue,

Rock Island, Illinois, 309-788-5661.

Participation is adwerse to Canon 3 (C)-1

(a) Judicial Conduct. "Only when the

evidence clearly shows an abuse of

discretion by the trial court will we

interfere with a ruling upon a motion for

iva

a new trial. "Waddell v Festa Feeds 266

NW2d 29.

From Pg. 13

It is alleged in Plaintiff's briefing and

now preserved in the evidence annexed

herein (Annex p. 10-exhibit A) Attorney

Flynn, former council to Plaintiff who

withdrew tow weeks before instant trial

state in a letter discovered after the

fact of trial (Annex p.3 under sub-section

16-b) this paragraph: As I mentioned to

you previously, I will no longer be

representing Glen Hancock..." This

instrument is dated April 4, 1986 and is

clear evidence that the entire matter was

falsely brought. It was stated in Hancock,

supra instant action was "dismissed by

necessary implication" and required a

"separate original action".

From Pg. 14 180

Flynn failed to prepare for this complex

litigation, yet he lead Plaintiff to

believe he was involved in this litigation

by making various filings. Plaintiff

alleges these actions were part of a

larger conspiracy to keep this cause

local. In State v Hendron 311 NW2d 61

(1981) the conduct wad equated with

failure to make a defense. Presently the

court applies the "cause and prejudice"

standard adopted in Wainwright v Evkes 433

US 72.

From Pg. 14

By failing to court in the hearing on the

change of venue issue with "any" evidence

including affidavits and prejudicial news

articles

181

From Pg. 15

nothing, he left Plaintiff totally

compromised and within the jurisdiction

necessary to see his damage issues totally

destroyed.

182

In the Iowa District Court for Scott

County

(Filed March 17, 1987)

Glen O. Hancock ) Defendant Conway's

Plaintiff v City ) Response to City of

Davenport ) Supplemental

et.al ) Interrogatories

) Propounded to

) Defendant

From Pg. 13

List any and all feasability studies and

planning studies prepared for the City of

Davenport in the last fifteen years and

state how they are funded and whether any

federal funds were spent in obtaining

them, including but not limited to; a)

Marco O'leary - 1975 b) Wilber Smith -

parking study 1981 c) Real Estate Research

183

Corp. Study- 1981 d) Wilber Smith Updatec

Parking Study

ANSWER: Defendant Conway has no knowledge

of any such items. The City of Davenport

has copies of , The Marco O'leary Study,

The Wilber Smith Parking Study, The Real

Estate Research Corp. Study, The Wilbe.

Smith Updated Parking Study.

184

In the Supreme Court of Iowa

(Filed March 21, 1988)

Glen O. Hancock ) Appellants Brief

Plaintiff v City) and Argument and

of Davenport ) Request for Oral

et al. ) Hearing

Supreme Court No.87-1022 Scott County No.

70078

Appeal from the District of Scott County

Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge From Pg. 8

It is common knowledge that the

Plaintiff's building is located directly

across the street from The Blackhawk

Hotel, the River Convention Center, and

the restored Adler Theatre. The vested

185

interest in these properties were members

of the board; James Conway was’ the

director of the Downtown Davenport

Development Corporation and has_ been

stated by him in at least one record of

this case that the board of directors

establishes policy and he administers

policy. Mr. Conway also worked with city

officials

in a capacity of coordinating downtown

projects. It is also common knowledge that

the Times Newspaper and Lee Enterprises is

located within close proximity to

Plaintiff's property, (within two blocks),

and that newspaper is well established as

the Quad Cities major daily periodical.

186

From pg.9

Plaintiff's alleged attorney, John Flynn,

withdrew on the "eve" of the civil rights

trial (App. p.25) and was replaced by Mark

Liabo of the Tom Riley Law Firm in Cedar

Rapids, Iowa. Flynn agreed to proceed in

the case as the witness. Plaintiff did not

have a contract with the Tom Riley Law

Firm and specifically Mark Liabo. Flynn

was authorized by the judge to withdraw

and be a witness at the same time

Plaintiff was given only seven days to

secure consul (App.p. 27) or Flynn's

position would be reconsidered; Plaintiff

was again seeking proper consul as the

clock ticked rapidly toward March 11 at

5:00 p.m. the close of discovery. (App.

p.27)

From Pg.9

In early March, 1987, Plaintiff was at the

court house in Scott County and only a few

187

days before the trial was served with a

notice of sheriffs sale for approximately

$20,000. to be paid within about thirty

days. This note overdue was drawn on a

bank in Denver, Colorado and arranged by

Mr.Rick Reagan, son of Donald Regan, the

secretary of the treasury, U.S.

Government. The case is numbered 72181,

Scott County.

From Pg. 11

There was significant assertion of that

right based on the fact that newspaper

coverage of the condemnation was

substantial, and did not paint a clear

picture toward the Plaintiff's property.

These articles are public record and

Plaintiff includes them here with the

following citation. (App. P. 77,78) Storer

v Brown 415 US at 738-740 "to assess

188

realistically whether the law imposes

excessively burdensome requirements. ..upon

facts which do not appear from the

evidentiary recording the case." These

articles generally accentuated a "wrecking

ball" mentality. Again the source is the

Quad City Times and Lee Enterprises.

From Pg. 14

The jury was lead to believe that the

Plaintiff was behind on his payments to

the Davenport Bank and Trust Company, Vale

Trust Dept., Mr. Oakes stated in open

court a false statement and although

ee ee by Plaintiff to object

and set the record straight, Mr. Liabo

discredited the weight of Plaintiff's

assertions. Plaintiff was not behind in

his payments to the bank. (App.p.50.60).

189

This error enhanced the already existent

prejudice by the jury. Rutten v Investors

e ns. Oo. Oowa, 1966, 258 Iowa _

749,140 NW2d. 101

This very important misstatement of the

facts carries deeper significance: it is

relevant to crucial evidence regarding

Plaintiffs theory of conspiracy, that

defendant James Conway, was acting on

behalf of the DDDC (Downtown Davenport

Development Corporation) to secure

Plaintiff's property for a parking lot or

other unspecified usages. To secure

exactly for who, is still open to

investigation. If the building was to be

condemned for a parking lot, in the

September 7, 1983 letter (App.p. 73-75)

please consider the verbiage:

",.,.particularly with regard to the size

of the building." Jacobson Supra, State

190

Supra.

In the January 10, 1984 letter (App. p.76)

please consider the middle

paragraph:..."tend to minimize the risk

for the developer who initiates a

condemnation request to the city." Kilroy

v Board of Review of Benton County, 1975,

226 NW2d 814, Rouse v Rouse 1970, 174 NW2d

660

From Pg. 15

Once again Plaintiff would like to say

that the Superblock project, and

developments across from Plaintiff's

property, were essentially developed and

funded by Davenport Bank and Trust Co. in

conjunction with Blackhawk Hotel, and the

River Center, was a joint city-private

sector venture; inclusive they both had

severe parking shortages at the time of

191

municipal illegality. The vested interests

in those properties, including the Adler

Theatre, were members of the board of

directors of DDDC, James Conway's

superiors. "...unless the preponderance is

very great, or so strong as t justify an

inference that the court was mistaken, or

was influenced by passion, prejudice or

corruption, or failed to consider all

evidence. Robinson v Poe, 1881, 56 Iowa

73,8 NW 751, White v White, 1882, 60 Iowa

203,14 NW 253., State Supra

From Pg. 22

The presidential connection is not vague,

and it only serves to enhance greatly the

value of the building the Plaintiff was

cheated from developing. Mr. Reagan's

roots as a radio announcer were part of

192

the history of this building. His

technocratic artistry in the 1930's as a

radio sportscaster and subsequent rise to

show business fame, takes away the

carnival macabre of an actor being elected

to the United States presidency. Radio was

a new medium at that time; he was a

pioneer. This is the history and important

beginnings of a president to pass on

preserve. Plaintiff asserts if the vested

political interest did not own it they

would wield the force of the city to

a it. Or as in Conway's) letter

(App.p.76) abscond with it knowing the

potential.

From Pg. 23

The Iowa "hear say" provisions are vaguely

understood by this pro se appeal but

Plaintiff will mention that on December

193

20, 1985 and with two witnesses Judge

Briles called the Plaintiff a "deadbeat".

From Pg. 24

A presidentially connected landmark

building will not go unnoticed in

Washington and the local power contingent

Know this. Time Magazine, November 23,

1987 spoke very realistically of the

benefits of historic preservation all

across this country.

From Pg. 39

It was not until late February, when Flynn

withdrew of record from the case, that

Plaintiff was served with a sherriff's

sale of the Vale property to cure that

default

194

From Pg. 39

This action was undertook against the

Plaintiff on the eve of trial against the

city of Davenport by the Asst. Scott

County attorney Mr. Oddison. This abuse of

process was a direct slap in the face to

the rights of the Plaintiff to fairly seek

his claims of damage. Three Lakes

Association v Whiting 255 NW2d 686.

From Pg. 42

The public relations value to an

established and redeveloped hotel

connected to a President in office are

substantial. The opportunity of that

quotient of damage determination is valid

yet Mr. Reagan leaves office in 1989.

Plaintiff bears the burden of that loss of

attached revenues.

195

From Pg. 43

President Grant was also a guest at this

hotel, but the fact remains that a

president in office would enact

substantially more national and

international coverage and positive public

relations value to the hotel insuring

great notoriety favorably affecting the

revenues recouped. The city of Davenport

Iowa effectively absconded with that

possibility by their illegal actions.

Hancock Supra.

From Pg. 49

The City's actions have substantially

deprived him of the use and enjoyment of

his property and constitutes a taking of

his property without due process of the

law. These actions constituted "inverse

Condemnations." Osborn v City of Cedar

Rapids, 324 NW2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1982)

yar

State v Osborn, 154 NW 294, 171 Iowa 678,

692 (Iowa 1915); and Dawson v McKinnon,

285 NW2d 258, 226 Iowa 756, 770 (1939).

See also Horton v Gulledge 277 NC 353, 177

SE2d 885, 890-891, 43 ALR 3d 905 (1970).

197

In the Supreme Court of Iowa

(Filed On or About January 20, 1989)

Glen 0. Hancock ) Defendants Resistance

Plaintiff v City ) to Application for

of Davenport ) Further Review

et al. )

) Supreme Court#87-1022

) Scott County #70078

Appeal from the District of Scott County

Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge

From Pg. 4

Giving all benefit to Hancock's argument

it might be instructive to determine if

the Court independently reviewed the

publicity. Regardless of whether or not

this is actually required of the Appellate

Court under rule 167, the Court of Appeals

clearly made its own analysis of the

denial of a change of venue and found no

198

basis to determine that the trial court

had abused its discretion

From Pg. 8

Even assuming misconduct of counsel

perhaps the jury after hearing the

evidence determined that $17,235.00 should

not be considered a victory by definition,

this is not prejudice; the jury made up

its mind after hearing the evidence. This

quote, however, makes it very clear a

different result would not have been

probable. The jury believed his rights

were violated, but that renovation was not

feasable.

From Pg. 10

There has been showing that sufficient

grounds exist under Rule 402 (c) IRAP

which requires further review by this

court. As a practical matter, final action

199

by this court mearly puts the parties back

to where they were in 1984. The Vale is

still there. No matter what action either

party takes next, Hancock, regardless of

his belief, will have the benefits of

procedural protections as previously held

by this court. John Martin - Corporation

Council.

200

The Iowa District Court Scott County

(Filed September 3, 1986)

Glen O Hancock ) Law X no.70078

v City of Davenport ) Equity

et.al. ) Probate

) Filed by Plaintiff

Trial Certificate

1) The above party believes the issues are

joined and states that such party is (a)

is ready for trial, or (b) will be ready

for trial by February 1, 1987

2) Discovery has been completed except as

follows: Depositions of the individual

defendants 3, 4, 5, [deleted]

John Flynn

201

In the Supreme Court of Iowa

(Filed June 1, 1988)

Glen O Hancock) Appellee's Brief

Plaintiff v ) Supreme Court #87-1022

city ) And Arguement

of Davenport, )

et.al. ) Scott County No. 70078

Appeal from the District of Scott County

Honorable J.L. Burns, Judge

From Pg. 23

Hancock raises the issues of temporary

taking (Appellant's Brief p. 25) and

inverse condemnation (Amendment To

Appellant's Brief p. 44) specifically for

the first time on appeal.

GLEN O. HANCOCK

P.O. BOX 1106

DAVENPORT, IOWA 52805

319-323-1208

Tom Riley Law Firm August 11,1987

Mark E. Liabo

P.O.. Box 998

Cedar Rapids, Iowa 54206-0998

Dear Mr. Eisbo:

Thank you for the letter of August 5,

1987, and the Notice of Appeal, there were

other filings sent to you that day

concerning representations of the Civil

Rights of Glen O. Hancock, denial of your

second bill, (we have never received a

bill from you, and from your presentation

no bill for services would ever be

presented), the lien placed on our assets

and other matters. Please confirm that you

received the other filings in Case 70078

including, but not limited to the

continuance.

From Pg. 93

You became aware of our problems in the

first meeting. The City and other lawyers

served an illegal notice of sale of the

Case 70078 and the Vale property in late

February, 1987. As you agreed, they were

operating illegally concerning procedure

trying to stop the suit from going to

trial. Your advice cost the Hancock Family

204

close to $20,000.00, and exhausted all

monies.

From Pg. 93

We have requested on numerous occasions

that you return our complete file C OD at

the following address:

From Pg. 94

Again, why did we not enter’ the

ordinance(s) involved including, but not

limited to the following:

City Legal ordinance states: "...the

city attorney must keep records."

This case would never have gone to

trial if we had the records we

requested.

These records (Housing and Fire reports)

were never submitted to us for persual.

The City Attorney was hiding the evidence.

204

Mr. Liabo, you to were hiding the evidence

to protect the attorneys. Entering the

evidence as requested would have proven

that the City could not demolish the

building. The City Attorney stopped our

progress early in the case for benefit of

the lawyers!

From Pg. 95

We requested per Judge Kelly's

instruction that the Housing and Fire Code

ordinances for a VACANT building be

entered into this trial. In addition, we

requested: 1) Recommended Provisions and

Commentary for Existing High-rise

Buildings, and the uniform code _ for

building conservation be entered in this.

case. These buildings codes are part of

the International Conference of Building

9N4

Officials and are part of the Davenport

Ordinance.

From Pg. 96

Speak to me concerning the Real Estate

Appraisals. There, as explained to you,

were never any appraisals completed. Mr.

Liabo only looked at the January 1984

preliminary consultation. We agree there

was no viable use at that time under those

assumptions. However, the value next

preliminary consultation by the = same

appraiser showed a value of $500,000.60.

Remember, this was only a working tool for

us. Also, Mr. Fisher stated under oath

that the dicvicscaeiann package could never

be completed. We told you this in February

1987. As stated in your hearsay letter

(contents are denied by me) of April 2,

207

1987, the assumptions on a project can

make or break a development. Please

identify any development in the Central

From Pg.97

Business District that has four to five

times the total square footage of floor

space for parking. There are only 29

developed blocks in the Central Business

District of Davenport. We challenge your

interpretation of Mr. Fisher's comments.

From Pg. 97

The fact is, Mr. Liabo, we were at all

times cooperating with you. You or your

firm discussed our case 70078 with Mr.

John Flynn before and after your entrance.

In reality, you allowed the City to close

discovery on or about the time you entered

with no objection. You stated, and we

quote "This a young case and will not go

218

to trial in the near future".

From Pg. 97

The City Housing Inspector that you would

not depose or call to trial as requested

was quoted as saying "We (the City) are

going to condemn all of your property" on

or about February 1, 1984. The refinanced

money was not identified with Industrial

Development Bonds.

From Pg. 98

As a professional, please state the

requirements for a professional

development of Real Estate, specifically

the Vale Apartments. The first and

foremost is legally the City.

209

From Pg. 99

You did not allow any evidence concerning

the money damage that we have incurred to

be introduced at trial. We asked on more

than one occasion to amend the petition

that John Flynn filed to include money

damage. You never did so. You had wno

authority to drop part of the suit against

the City, but you dropped the money parts

that we may have prevailed on.

91Nn

The Iowa District Court Scott County

(Filed May 1, 1987)

Glen O Hancock ) Motion for #70078

v City of Davenport ) Change of Venue

et.al. )

)

1 and 2 [deleted]

3) Virtually every city counsel meeting in

which the Vale Apartments was discussed

were reported in the papers or _ on

television. Plaintiff will submit with his

is brief and support of this motion copies

of dozens of newspaper clippings dealing

with the controversy surrounding the Vale.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8 {deleted}

Mark Liabo

Attorney for Plaintiff

eli

MailGram of Public Record Western Union

7149953775TDRN Anaheim, CA 271 06-08-87

O658PEST

Mrs. Nancy Reagan

c/o Mr. Jack Cortamache

The White House

Washington D.C. 20005

From John Hancock

2704 West Ball Rd. Apt. 6-F

Anaheim, CA 92804

Mail Gram of Public Record Western Union

4-0219088303002 10-30-87ICSIIPMRNCZ

CSPSNAB

17149953775MGMTDRN Anaheim, CA 10-30-87

0155PEST

Attorney General Edwin Meese

c/o Justice Dept.

Washington D.C. 20530

From John Hancock

PUT mAT YT rITAI- DACLTC weoor DOANL LAT COPY

ing FOLLOW ING PFAULS WE. OOR HARD I

_ FII So oa >~r awry, TTrKy a

‘ “i | > . 2 \

f + Leb baa . a rovers, Willi a

a>? nT NOTA TWIT A WOT? van iie a

. 2, . a ba

nin BE OBTAL VED, AA Asie rs bids

Letter from Lee president

EDITOR'S NOTE: The feiiew-

ing is a copy of a letter from

Schermer,

When I assumed the responsi-

bility to be chairman of the fund-

raising drive for the

Theatre, I had several objectives

Quad-Cities’ No. 1 prior-

ity is jobs Cultural and educa-

tional facilities are very impor-

tant to firms seeking new plant

locations.

2 To put together a project

that would be truly Quad-Cities

in scope.

3% To stimulate cooperative

leadership between the public

and private sectors of the Quad-

Cities hoping this would be the

first of many projects to impor-

ved the quality of life for our

communities and to help attract

businesses that will give our citi-

sens 8 meaningful employment.

4 To set a example of what we

RiverCenter. That facility is

being used far beyond its expec-

tations by thousands of people

from in and around the Quad-Cit-

jes.

Davenport Bank & Trust

has made a major contribu-

tion when if remodeled the

Blackhawk Hotel Before the

hotel was renovated, Lee Enter-

prises had serious studies under-

way to move its corporate head-

quarters to another city because

of inadequate hotel and meeting

room space. We could have io-

cated our headquarters in any

one of 50 communities and qual-

ity of tWe was an important con-

sideration.

Communities grow because

213

there is leadership that helps

therm grow and this must include

& cooperative effort between the

public and private sectors. Take

@ look at Cedar Rapids or Des

Moines for example. Davenport

bas not just stood still; it is going

backward.

International Harvester, JI

Case and.Caterpillar are gone. I

have a hunch Deere & Co was se-

riously wounded in this last stri-

ke, too. If the parade of jobs

marching out of our community

continues, you're not going to

have

streets, much lessprovide other

vital commuuity services. °

I don't see much hope for this

community with the kind of lead-

ership you have displayed.

We have a fine leader in Mayor

Thomas Hart It's a pity you

don't give him the support he

needs.

Liord G. Schermer

Lee Enterprises

‘D’Autremont predicts

favorable council reaction

The Davenport City Cor cil is as the River Center and the Adler

likely to react positively tothede- Theatre.

velopment plans that were an- Alderman Jim Hancock, D-

nounced this morning, Alderman 2nd Ward, also was enthusiastic

Larry d’Autremont, D-at-large, about the project. The parking

said. ‘ramp would serve the 6,000 em-

D’Autre- ‘ who work downtown dur-

mont, chair- ing the day, and also provide

manofthe / for ial events, he said.

city’s commu- It also will help get parking off

nity develop- the which will improve

ment commit. Claire Park, he said.

tee, said he’s Several other council members

excited about and council members-elect also

the project be- ‘ said they think rg) ae will -

causeitcould — "Autremont much to encourage downtown

lead to even - . velopment. :

more downtown development. ‘-. Mayor Thom Hart said the

“I can’t speak on the council's . council he has talked to

behalf, but I think they will react favor the plans, and said he thinks

positively,” he said. they will approve the agreement.

He said the proposal for a City Administrator Bruce

parking ramp is different than the Romer said the parking ramp the

plan that the council defeated in city would build probably would

' February because the Times loca- have at least 500 spaces. The

tion would allow a new ramp to. nearby ramp at Perry and 2nd

serve the whole downtown as well streets has 341 spaces.

214

Lee again

demonstrates

commitment

and the Times is an important

step in downtown development.

“This agreement solves a

ing the

In addition, Lee contributed ° $1 a year to lease its facility at

$300,000 to that effort, and ite , Brady and 2nd streets.

board of directors created and Gottlieb also praised Rejuve-

Foundation to support program- ; ting the expected deal together.

ming. The theater was renamed in . “They are doers. We need

honor of E.P. Adler and his son, ‘ more like them and they need the

Philip, longtime publishers of the community's support,” he said.

Times. Philip Adler also later be- He also expressed appreciation

came president of Lee. to Mayor Thom Hart and aty of-

Ron Rickman, former Quad- ficial for their positive attitudes

City Times publisher and now Lee” in the discussions to date.

215

Meme

ayes

Oley

-—,

Daniel K. +.

editorial page editor

editor

Jonn C. Gardner

Pubitsher

William K. Johnston Daniel J. F

general manager

es Sl Se or Et ee -f Anew

seid GML a ny

val He 7 iH i ,

ta He leat ab if P

“ee.

eee

e owner —

victory

I was e prey Ea

oat Saas Coes

win

-! jiises

Juror: Val

| didn t

The White House

Washington

September 9, 1983

Dear Mr. Kell;

Thank you for sending the Argus article on

the Vale Apartment building. It did

recall many happy memories. However, it

is always sad to see a fine old building

deteriorate. Perhaps that is why happy

memories are so important -- they never

get shabby and run down! It is very kind

of you to share this article with me.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

Mr. Ellis E. Kell, Jr.

Rock Island Argus

P.O. Box 6

Rock Island, Illinois 61201

217

. ink

Wunaran

NO sweet socvyrow

I reycice that the oki Vate Apartnwnts, the ugly

uray @ephant in downtown Davenjpert, must zo

down. Thal pucige whe row is smart He must

have been peti theapnt waves fron thagh

Downs, the eniient ote chats cede) thank much

af the place, eiber (hur what thud s worth)

A couple vears ave Hine was vrciing Daven.

prt fer se I sayin ee, ened Cheats Wis Olive

or Gallesgne bested tae far bubbly and eheese

thigh, aa architecture

loli, was davenye at the

Biockhaws llotel and

ee bt that in-

evestibke tak (ine Vale)

; ’ that bv out my noted

mm ~ - ) wewdow™ Why ws ab

‘ "og bowel te Shimi in your

. 4 ee Puretiv civ’ What real

Lae te "iv theew Thanh was the

: ue i aS “py marty toot Tht boots

4 os

. tke Somuttung from a

beet vA eravy hase

a wien Vole) thal (he tp

Hugh Lhowns once turned off, and

what was ket was aliawed lo stand, Downs

Shrug Tink yominess fb tneuyht you just

heed drunken brieklayers in Davenport.”

PERSONALLY, Lefore they tear ihe old place

down, | want to yo roller skating in those whoop

SV disy colliog corners, wilh Ther wavy shapes

thal wort when the tnikliay was snaked (rom

Lenn Ue Loeod tenery Chuan annge Ot Poage fares

218

SOF OE SE

an Ome ae

tie pie ae ee

hn a

p naenstrcerieaensasiiel” AEE

seracicarne manne | VTICS

EROaanaeer canorial saan echet Serving the entire

pege

“ Quad-Cily area

COMMUNITY

@1. Develop # Quad-City strategy.

2. Create more Quad-City jobs.

3. Encourage ‘can-do’ leadership.

@4. Overcome our ‘image’ problem.

AGENDA ‘87 @5. Fund our vital institutions.

He hes rebuffed them at every turn.

. Hancock has repeatedly said he has plans to renovate the

, 110-year-old structure where Reagan once slept. He has re-

~ peatedly failed to produce any. The city has repeatedly tried

“to force him to do something — through negotiation,

through council action, through the courta. And it has re-

=peatedly been unsuccessfil.

... A few months back, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that

‘the City Council failed to follow its own ordinance when it

_ Dyrdered the building demolished.

= The court eald the city did not give Hancock a list of epe-

oie probleme he would have to cervect in order to prevent

“demolition. To anyone who followed the city's lengthy ef

=Torta; however, it was almost laughable to suggest that the

“Owner wasn't made aware of the city's specific concerns.

= Nevertheless, demolition is off for now and Hancock is in

court suing the city for damages he aays he oulfered in the

“legal fight.

= All of that might persuade city officials to give up on

“aaa

fp eye

= What they should do is give Hancock one more chance —

+ rastrating as that might be — to come up with a renovation

=plan. And it abould be a good faith effort on the city's part.

lf the guy would put the money he's spent on lawyer fees

"into a remodeling plar, perhaps he could save the building.

= But if Hancock doesn’t produce a plan within some rea-

* sonable time, say three to six months, the city ought to start

“over again on demolition proceedings — making sure this

“time that it follows the law to the letter.

~- The Vale has been No. 1 long enough.

219

G GUAD-CIVY TIMES Friday Jury 19, 1985

Juno GC Gartner

7 Daher

‘es LS. Grae City j sora

a = ale x borrest Rumer

amok. Paw ee ri On a, , ——

AS bn 4a, ery Wiaim Wundram

n independent eae ylive editur assiniale edilor

newspaper

Ha Nan e Daniei J Folny

{ Ounloral payo culo Managing cUior

_ ~

Ve SG’...

baal ° . i

An overaue aceision

y! ; The Vale Apartments in

D oir | Davenport — once an elegant

vot Mak holed and now a condemnable

a 74 | evesure — have hung too long

“Ti se \A4 5 between fix-up and teardown.

av \5'4 The five-story, H1-vear-old

a if AN?) Dring at 71018. 4th St. is now

“ti Pr . oat ens

ee { mont a ley Sep away from being

mn “ia ewe 4 , . raves, which wouldn't be a bad

\ ie weet tiny for a community trying

He, sitet \ to service its downtown Super

Block deveropment

The city of Davenport is myrht to press for a decision on the

buiding that was ordered closed in Jk2 because of code

shortcomings. Owner Gien Hancock has been delaying a

wrecking-ball execulion while offering nothing Dul a faint

hope of renovating Ihe buildin, llowever, the only solid thing

on the table is a court reyection of liancock’s request for a

permanent injuncuon to keep the city and demolition away

from the Vale door Time is running: out.

This push-and shove toward demolition comes with a

heavy heart — and understandably so When thal building was

known as the Kimb:all House, is visitors included Ulysses S.

Grant, Al Jolson, Ralph Waldo bimerson and Surah Bern-

hard President Reayan later ved in the buildings That 1s

strony history — bul not enouyzh te held up walls of such a de-

lenoraling siructure.

So, as the city has been sayiny, fia itup or tear it down

Surely, the property cun serve the community in betler ways

than a boarded eyesore.

220

Vale issue to a head

Who cun biame the Davenport City Council for pressing

the owner uf Vaie Apartmenis, Glenn iancock, for a $200,000

bond lo ensure the deteriorating and vacant duking on East

4th Street will eather Le renovated or torn dawn? The owner

simply has run out of tume for this overdue decision. And the

cily understandably ran out of patience as reflected by a $1

vole requiring, the bond by Murch 22 that could stay the

demolition by one year.

A sensible deferral sgreement had been worked up to

serve both the eily und lManeock, but the owner's call for a

ume extension to raise tne bond threatened to knock every

thing off track. So by Murch 22, the cily showd know whether

Lhe owner intends lo fix up ihe property or have it torn down,

Clearly reasonable in selling the bond requirement next

month. The bail is in the owner’s court — and he knows ‘

time around thatil cun be a wrecking ball

a1 Kb

e2i

VYelle demolition

is OX wills fucige

By Eill Theobaid

QUAD-CITY TIMES

The city of Davenport ts free to

tear down the Vale Apartment! Dud

ing because an lowa Supreme Court

justice has dismissed a request by

the owner to Dicch demoulion

Bul the wrecking crew wont be

oul today

Buuding owner Glen !lancock

had requested thal the court Diock

demoluon pending hus appea! of the

enture issue Although his request

was rejected he stu can yo forward

with hus appeal a

if he would win that appeul and

the city had torn down the budding in

the meantime, the city might Nave lo

puy damages

The decision, duled Friday, from

Mid-80s Thursday

Tonight will De partly Cloudy

with lows in the upper 00s

Thursday will be partly Cloucy

with highs in tne mid-60s

— PAGE 2

Weatherline: 326-5174

index

Quau-Cities Pages 11.12

Business hugs 8.9

Classified Payers 30-36

~~ " pP ~

Mowes NO!

Outuares Poge4

ports Pages 15-16

Supreme Court Justice Mark MeCor-

mick comes on Hancock's appeal of

a Scott County District judses muung

thal said the citv could proceed with

plans to demolish tne 111-year-old

downtown landmark al 20 & 4h St

The budding has Leen cited nu-

merous umes for housing am fire

code violations and Iie d.spule be

Lween the city and Ifancock has been

going on for absoul SIX yeurs

Hancock claims the city does not

have the authorily to tear down the

building and has announced plans to

restore tt mto a 19h century-style

country inn

The judge's ruling sLiles that the

“court is concernel stout Wie evi-

dence that the Building Constitutes a

havurd to the public safety” and de

mics Hancock's rejuesi for an order

blocking demolitien unt the a, peal

is decided. A cecusion on ihe uppeal

may take (fom sux to 12 ihenif.

Michuel Meloy, with the cily’s

legal stuff, suid the cily could pro

ceed with demoluon, dul if Hancock

won hus appeul the cily migat have to

puy damages On the other hand, if

the cily duesn’l tear down the build

ing and il catches on fire and dam

aues surtcundina property, the city

nught abo oe Lable, Meloy seid

he city received « 3b se) Did

last year fur the ad mouuon and We

contractor has uy Teed to Nonor al

Dif despite Lhe lony delay, Meloy

ii -

it Mayor (natles Peart

Piavectys

Sud ne expect, ine issuc will be dis-

Ciined bis Ua ily (Ouncd fatofe 3

OCCinwwA & UlaGe ON how lo oF ceed

6 QUAD-CITY TIMES Monday, Aug. 25, 1986

John C. Gardner

liniies ‘pina

Daniel K. Hayes Bob Nangie

An independent = a

newspaper Oaniet J. Foley. managing editor / 19 edibon

on Graeme, pom pd —

Same Vale mission

The Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous in telling the

city of Davenport that it didn't go about the planned demo!-

ishment of the Vale Apartments, 210 E. 4th St., the right

way. So be it. No use contesting such lopsided legal rebuttal.

The city’s resolve now should be to try again to get a com-

mitment on the property's restoration or push demolish-

ment the right way.

The city’s clear task is to either have Vale owner Glen

Hancock fix up this downtown eyesore or take the proper

steps to get it removed. This setback to square one is regret-

table, but if the city can live with that building for 112

years, it can manage stil] another.

The Vale, empty since 1982, has a listing in the Nationa!

Its heyday of providing a roof for such celebrities as Sarah

Bernhardt and Al Jolson, even Presdient Reagan, is past. Its

brick and wood frame has held up a past — but what future

for a building more than a century old? Renovation plans

have never materialized.

If the city has failed to pay legal respect to its own laws

and due process as the court contends, then make the neces-

sary corrections and continue to force action on the Vale. A

legal decision does nothing to strengthen the aging materials

that hold this building together. It's still a matter of fix or

nix.

Oiay Cour. action?

Since the city of Davenport

icin eee a | nas done Gwie well dumny tne

ss ye + | first 111 years of the Vale

ones arm, ' Apartments at 210 & 4th St, at

siete! N shouidn’t have any trouble xet-

ee nner : \ ; ling alonys for another year

ea, |i, >... even though the eyesore struc-

aot we % ogi t ws ture appears late lor a renova-

ea Tee os ean ee Lion or raving.

Oe OR ce meen Oe Buikuuy owner Glen

| j tiuncock doesn't want lo give

usted in Use Nutional Neier of Historic Places and once

pruvided 4 ruof over the need of such celeurues as Surah

up on the property that is :

Bernhardt aad Al Jolson. Inaved, it’s tough to et go. But the

bWkUNY .s NG 400d as iL ow stands, compicte with Ilancock's

window },caffiuy, “I have just Legun to fiynt.”

That {iiht, an aternpt to keep the cily from clobbering the

buildanj: wilh a wrecking buu, now goes Lo (he lowa Supreme . -

the safety and dispos.uon of the buildin, And legal wheels .

aren't very zippy.

It’s Loo bud Davenport has to yo this route when Hancock

hus had ample opportumuity to serve the situation by present- ~

in renovalion plans und money. The cow lest regretiably .

wii lake ume. That dvesn’t help a coromunity stuck with an .

uy Gownlown landmurk. Nur does it necessary help

hancuck or a budding that ulready has nad more time Wan its ;

+- old bmck-wood frame can obviously Lake. ae

* sy

Ave /} Oras TrmlS

224

Appraiser:

Vale is

worthless

Says renovation

can’t be justified

By Karl Oxnevad

QUAD-CITY TIMES

A real estate appraiser hired

in 1984 by Vale Apartments

owner Glen Hancock testified

Tuesday that the 114-year-old

building is worthless.

J.T. Willits, of Davenport, tes-

tified as a witness for the city of

Davenport, the defendant in Han-

cock’s damages suit against the ~

city.

Willits said he told Hancock in

1984 that he could not make

enough money from the com-

pleted renovation of the building

to justify either of Hancock's $3

million or $1.8 million proposals

for restoring the building, 210 E.

4th St..

“It was my opinion then and

now that the building renovation

could not produce enough income

to support the renovation,” Wil-

hits said.

“So the value of the building

was zero?” asked John Stonebrak-

er, attorney for the city.

“Zero, yes sir,” Willits replied.

Willits said only the lot the

building stands on has any value.

—— not estimate a value on the

Hancock is suing the city for

unspecified damages, saying the

city's efforts to tear down the

building has caused potential in-

vestors to back away from his

multi-million dollar plans to turn

the building into a downtown

hotel. .

29c

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF QUAD CITY TIMES

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (INCOMPLETE)

September 4, 1977 Business (Picture)

December 1977 Loans Top Grant Spending

March 19, 1987 Here Comes an Auto

Comeback Trail for Faded Vale

February 15, 1981 Reagan Days (Picture)

September 2, 1983 Building May be

Leveled

November 11, 1983 Vale Owner Warned: Fix

it or if Feasee

February 10, 1984 Vale Owner May Get

Another Year to Fix it.

January 17, 1984 Vale Owner Gets 30 Days

to Decide

January 13, 1984 Council Decides: Will

Vale Fall

Febru-ry 15, 1984 (Editorial) Agreement pn

Vale

February 16, 1984 Council on Vale: Time 6

Put up or Shut Down

226

February 17, 1984 (Editorial) Vale Issue

to a Head

March 20, 1984 Face Lift for Vale

Building?

March 19, 1984 New plan for Vale:Turn it

into an Inn

March 22, 1984 No Talk on Vale:Both

Sides Proceed

April 13 1984 (Official Notice) Bid to

Demolish

March 25, 1989 Vale Owner Sues to Stop

Demolition

May 12, 1984 Vale Obtains Lease of Life

May 17, 1984 Vale Ducks Demolition

August 30, 1984 Wrecking Ball Swings

Toward Vale

September 5, 1984 Another showdown for

Vale

September 6, 1984 Council:Raze Vale

September 8, 1984 Vale on Hold Again

227

January 8, 1985 Inspectors get look in

Vale

January 12, 1985 (Soundoff) The Ghost

January 10, 1985 Tour of Vale Draws

Crowd

January 10, 1985 Showdown at Vale

January 16, 1985 Boarded up But Not Down

January 17, 1985 Hot Battle Ignites in

Court

January 18, 1985 Vale Owner: Nearly Set 6

Renovate

January 23, 1985 Vale is Full of Holes,

City Says 7

March 5, 1985 Vale Owner Sues Again

May 18, 1985 No Room at Inn (Picture)

July 1, 1985 Will Vale Prevail?

July 1, 1985 Last Chapter Still Not

Written to Tale of Vale

January 11, 1985 Replace Vale with

Parking Lot

July 17, 1985 Judge: Vaie Must Go

228

July 18, 1985 Vale Owner Vows Appeal

July 19, 1985 (Editorial) An Overdue

Decision

July 22, 1985 (Editorial) No Sweet

Sorrow

July 30, 1985 Vale Demolition Delayed

Again

August 1, 1985. (Editorial) Only Court

Action

July 30, 1985 Appeal Puts Vale on Hold

September 17, 1985 Vale Owners

The Top

September 4, 1985 Vale Demolition is OK

With Judge

August 3, 1985 Save Vale for History

(Soundoff)

August 3, 1985 Vale Remains in Limbo

September 17,1985 Vale Owner Fires Off Nw

Appeal

eeo

October 4, 1985 Vale Gets Reprieve From

Court

October 3, 1985 Vale Gets Reprieve

October 22, 1985 Vale Owner Files High

Court Motion

October 23, 1985 That Says It All

(Picture "I Have Just Begun to

Fight!")

November 8, 1985 Vale Owner Must Pay Or

Else

November 24, 1986 Bill Wundrum

December 19, 1986 Council Lacks

Leadership

December 21, 1986 High Court Backs

Recent Vale Order

June 16, 1987 City Worker: We Wanted Vale

Fixed Up

June 21, 1987 Reagan Slept Here

(Picture)

June 25, 1987 Man of steel Clears Bix &

Finish Area (Picture)

230

June 16, 1987 Testimony: City Didn't heve

Secret Plan for Vale

June 31, 1987 Vale Deed Changes Hands

June 26, 1987 Vale Owner Suit Nets Only

$17,000

June 9, 1987 Davenport v Vale

June 1987 Appraiser: Vale is Worthless

August 25, 1986 Same Vale Mission

August 20, 1986 Back to Square One [In

Fight Over The Vale

_ July 31, 1987 Cheers and Jeers

December 28, 1987 Bright Idea In Vale of

Gloom

January 12, 1987 What Next For Vale

October 1, 1987 Is The Vale Worth Jail

September 2 1987 Davenport Will Pay

$48,000 for Lawyer

231

Brubaker, Flynn & Darland, P.C.

Attorneys at Law

630 Union Arcade Building

Brady Sreet

Davenport, Iowa 52801

Telephone (319) 322-2661

April 4, 1986

Mr. John A. Hellstrom

Attorney at Law

811 Kahl Building

Davenport, IA 52801

Re: 221 E. 7th Street, Davenport, Iowa

Dear John:

I spoke with you on April 3, 1986 about

a problem that has developed resulting

from a judgement which you took against

Jane T. Hancock on March 24, 1986 for the

property upon which first Federal Savings

& Loan Association has a mortgage at 411

232

E. 13th Street, Davenport, Iowa.

Prior to this judgement being entered,

Jane T. Hancock had entered into an Offer

to Purchase with Terry McDonald wherein

Terry McDonald agreed to purchase the

property located at 221 E. 7th Street,

Davenport, Iowa for the sum of 2,200.00.

A copy of this Offer to Purchase is

enclosed with this letter. Unfortunately

Mr. McDonald paid the entire $2,200.00. to

Mr. Glen Hancock upon the execution of the

Offer. Mr. McDonald was waiting to have

the abstract brought up to date and have

his attorney exam it prior to closing. The

abstract was continued through March 10,

1986 and we were in the process of

obtaining a deed from Mrs. Hancock when

your judgement in favor of First Federal

went on record on March 24, 1986.

Mr. McDonald was buying this property

subject to an accumulation of back taxes

ro |

in excess of $1,000.00 and in an "as is"

condition. The property needs renovation

in order to meed City Housing Code

Standards.

Mr. Dennis Jasper represents’ Terry

McDonald in this purchase and he is

preparing an affidavit to be signed by Mr.

McDonald indicating the sequence of events

in this transaction.

From Pg. 80

I would request that upon receipt of

Mr. McDonald

s affidavit verifying the facts in this

letter, that First Federal release the

judgement lien contained in the

foreclosure action against 411 E. 13th

Street, Davenport, Iowa, as it pertains to

the property being sold to Mr. McDonald.

I realize that First Federal may well

refuse to release this lien and there is

very little that can be done to force them

234

to do so. However, the only person who

would be hurt by this situation would be

Mr. McDonald, who is an innocent third

party to the disputes between First

Federal and the Hancock family.

As I mentioned to you previously, I

will no longer be representing Glen

Hancock, but because this matter was left

hanging, I feel a moral obligation to

Dennis Jasper and Mr. McDonald to do what

I can to resolve this problem.

I appreciate your consideration.

Very truly yours, John T. Flynn

239

Trial Transcript Testimony

of Bob Oakes (of the trust Dept. Davenport

Bank and Trust Co.) Case 70078 [Tr.Trans. }]

From Pg. 61

BY MR. NORMAN:

Q. Mr. Oakes, does your bank belong

to the downtown Davenport Development

Corporation?

A. Yes, I know it does. ;

Q. Does your bank own or manage other

property in downtown Davenport besides the

Vale property which you once managed?

A. We have some property in downtown

Davenport, yes.

Q. Are you acquainted with James

Conway, one of

From Pg. 62 [tr. trans. ]

the defendants in this action?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever had occasions to

visit with Mr. Conway about the

236

prospective uses of downtown real estate

that your bank would have an interest in?

A. Yes, we have had several

conversations.

Q. Referring to the summer of 1983,

—

do you recall talking to Mr. Conway about

the possible uses of the Vale Apartment

Building in case the bank, for some

reason, had to --

A. Yes.

Q. --take possession? I would like to

show you a copy of a letter addressed to

you and ask you if you recall seeing that

before?

A. Yes.

Q. And the letter has three

attachment: to it which purport to be

diagrams of downtown real estate in the

area of the Vale. Do you recall seeing

those before also?

A. Yes, I have them in my file.

MR. NORMAN: I would like to offer

as Defendant Conway's Exhibit--I don't

have any number--Defendant Conway's

Exhibit--

MR. STONEBRAKER: I don't think we

have reached --perhaps we will call it

Exhibit 101. I

From Pg. 63 [(tr.trans. }

I believe, counsel, you have seen a

copy of this.

MR. LIABO: No objection.

MR. STONEBRAKER: No objection.

MR. NORMAN: We would like to

introduce this into evidence. I will leave

it here with you Mr. Oakes.

THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, there

was no objection to the instruction? Okay.

101 will come in.

MR. NORMAN: Thank you, your Honor.

Q. Mr. Oakes, the letter from Mr.

Conway indicates that you had had a

238

telephone or personal visit previously and

he wrote you this letter subsequent to

that conversation or visit and enclosed

those documents, one of which was a sketch

of the Vale property showing it as a

parking lot with seventy-three parking

places, I believe, and that particular

sketch was dated September 7, 1983, which

was one week before the date of the letter

itself to you; is that correct?

A. I believe, yes, that was --

Qo. And that you do recall receiving

that letter and those exhibits from Mr.

Conway?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that particular time, do

you recall was the payments on the Vale

building--were they in defauJt or in

arrears at that time--do you recall at

From Pg. 64 [tr.trans]

that time?

A. In September of 1983, yes.

Q. So the purpose of your

conversation with Mr. Conway was

presumably to analyze possible moves in

the event the bank should become the sole

possessor of the property?

A. Possibly, yes. _

MR. NORMAN: I don't have any

further questions.

From Pg. 66 [(tr.trans]

By Mr. Liabo

Q. Mr Oaks, you did consider

utilizing the Vale.

From pg. 67 [Tr. Trans. ]

or the property in which the Vale sits as

a parking lot, did you not?

A. Among other uses, yes.

Q. And the diagram that's attached to

Mr. Conway's letter to you of September 7,

1983, was drawn up as a plan for the Vale

as a parking lot, correct?

240

A. It's drawn, yes, it is.

Q. Was that drawing made by Mr.

Conway or somebody in the City, as far as

you know?

A. I don't know who made the drawing

up.

| Q. Did you ever make a statement to

Sandy Vale, one of the heirs, that the

Vale estate would own a parking ramp on

the Vale location?

A. I don't understand the question.

G. Did you ever make a statement to

Sandy Vale, one of the heirs of the Vale

estate, that the Vale estate would own a

parking ramp on the site of the Vale

Apartments?

A. No.

Q. You deny that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if Mr. Figge--John

Figge is president of Davenport Bank--made

241

a statement at a fund raising group in the

middle of 1983, that the Vale would be

torn down for parking for the Adler

Theatre?

From Pg. 68 [Tr. Trans.] 70078

A. I did not know that.

Q. You don't know that.

A. Yes, I did not know that.

Q. Is the Davenport Bank--or does the

Davenport Bank have any financial interest

in the Blackhawk Hotel?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the nature of its

financial interest?

A. That's a very technical question

which I can't answer.

Q. Does it hold a mortgage on the

Blackhawk?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know if the directors of

the Davenport Bank

had signed notes wherein they are

personally obligated for the debts of the

Blackhawk Hotel?

A. I don't know that.

MR. STONEBRAKER: Excuse me, your

Honor, we are getting in

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.