Box 3, Folder 4, Document 51

Dublin Core

Text Item Type Metadata


July 24, 1969
To: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
From: George Berry

Subject: Attached letter from Mr. Roy LeCraw

Ihave reviewed the background of the In Rem proceedings which resulted in the
demolition of the structure at R-297 Prospect Place, N.E. in which Mr. LeCraw
has an interest. Mr. A.C. Waddell in the Housing Code Division has a complete
file on the subject, including photographs of the property which indicate that the
improvement was badly deteriorated and appeared to be unusable. It was a small
brick warehouse type sfructure,

The In Rem proceedings started back in 1967, <A public hearing was held on

June 28, 1967 at which Mr. LeCraw was present representing the owner. He
requested more time to correct the deficiences of the property. After the

hearing, a letter was sent to the owner of record (Mr. LeCraw signed the

registered mail receipt) giving him 90 days to either correct the deficiences

existing in the building or demolish the structure. Later that year, on November 22,
1967, the owner took out a permit to demolish the structure. No action was taken,
however, and the permit was allowed to lapse.

There is some correspondence in the file between the Building Department and
Mr. LeCraw regarding the ownership of the property. There seemed to be some
question as to the owner of record. A Mr. Jack Fagan is involved, but it seems
that Mr. LeCraw represented either Mr. Fagan or whoever was designated as
owner whenever the City took any action on the matter. Investment Holding
Corporation of which Mr. LeCraw is President was finally designated owner of

When it was evident that the owner was not going to take any action on the
structure, the City instituted its regular in rem proceeding. The Ordinance
was passed on January 17, 1968. A contract was let on October 23, 1968 and
it was demolished in November of 1968. A lien was entered on the record
in the amount of $485.00 plus interest.

Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
Page 2
July 24, 1969

Mr. LeCraw's statement that the City went out to the place "without his knowledge"
is hard to explain in view of what is in the file. It could be that he thought he was
due some additional notice prior to the time that demolition began in view of the time
lapse since the hearing was held, notice was sent, etc.

In my view, this is a pretty air-tight case and there is no apparent evidence that
the Building Department did not act in accordance with their established policies
and in accordance with what is expected of them.


public items show