Empty Bungalow Becomes Neighborhood Battleground

By Jorge Casuso

It is an unlikely setting for a neighborhood battle -- a quaint, but termite-chewed, empty bungalow court tucked between million-dollar homes near the northwestern edge of the city.

But on Monday night, the first shots were fired when the city's Landmarks Commission voted unanimously to halt the demolition of the nearly 80-year-old, 13-unit rent-controlled building to determine whether it is worthy of preservation.

"It's a great Craftsman bungalow and there are none that far north in the city," said Commission chair Scott Page of the apartments at 211 Alta Avenue.

The final vote, which will likely come next month, is expected to pit the owners -- supported by nearby residents who want to see the structure replaced by a single-family home -- and at least three of the city's neighborhood groups.

The groups, lead by the North of Montana Association, lobbied at Monday's meeting to save the quaint bungalows with gabled roofs, which are a throwback to residences popular in resorts such as Pasadena and Santa Barbara at the turn of the century.

"We definitely are for preservation," said NOMA chair Doris Sosin. "It's in beautiful shape. It's gorgeous."

The building's manager Michael Gallivan counters that although the exterior of the U-shaped bungalow court has been freshly painted, a quick tour shows that many of the hardwood floors are worn and warped, the woodwork is termite eaten and the walls are water logged.

In addition, the owners note that the immediate neighbors, who are the most affected, support the demolition, which would give them a respite from the noise and parking generated by the 13 tenants and their families.

"The neighbors all hate it," said attorney Rosario Perry, who represents the owners, Marvin and Alice Mack. "They want a single family."

In order to demolish a rent-controlled building, the owners first had to empty the building under the state Ellis Act (which allows landlords to go out of the rental business), Perry said. But now that the building is empty, the Landmarks Commission could halt the demolition altogether.

"They have an empty building," said Perry, who threatened to file a lawsuit because the building is losing money in rent. "The owner's in a Catch-22 position."

(Activist Chuck Allard, who said he conducted a door-to-door survey, contends that most neighbors oppose the demolition.)

To assure that the building can be demolished, the owner must first request that the Landmarks Commission determine the status, Perry said.

"That would be suicide," Perry said. "That's crazy. Why would an owner go in there and spend money to get a designation? It's nuts, it's all nuts."

Planning Commissioner Darrel Clark, who spoke at the Monday's hearing, said that the only issue before the commission is whether the building is worthy of landmark status.

"It's quite rare and very special to the neighborhood," Clark said after the vote. "The issue is does it have merit?"