Court Upholds City Plan to Raze Hotel

A state appellate court gave Anaheim officials the green light Thursday to tear down the 61-year-old Pickwick Hotel, opening up a key parcel of downtown land for redevelopment.

The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld the authority of cities to redevelop blighted areas and severely limited the power of state courts to review decisions on eminent domain.

Owners of the historic but rundown Pickwick Hotel, directly across Anaheim Boulevard from City Hall, had stymied city building plans for four years.

The Pickwick, which caters to transients, is in the middle of a seven-acre redevelopment area. All work on the parcel had been halted during the Pickwick litigation.

“With the lawsuit, it’s not only difficult, but impossible, to develop,” said Norman J. Priest, executive director of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. “Acquiring this would allow us to open a seven-acre parcel.”

Hotel owner Frank A. Dusek had persuaded a Superior Court judge to dismiss the city’s lawsuit because it did not contain specific reasons for taking the property.

In a long opinion by Justice Edward J. Wallin, the appellate court found that state law allows a judge to interfere with condemnation proceedings only if the city has committed “a gross abuse” of discretion.

No such conclusion could be drawn in this case, Wallin wrote.

The case drew widespread interest.

The cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Santa Barbara filed papers in support of Anaheim.

The decision was an important affirmation of the power of cities to redevelop by condemnation, according to R. Bruce Tepper Jr., attorney for the cities.

“It’s significant,” Tepper said. “If the (lower court) ruling had been upheld, you’d really have a big increase in the expense of condemnation, and you’d end up wasting a lot of time.”

The city contended that the entire seven-acre project was necessary for the public welfare, Tepper said. Dusek had said, in effect, that the city should be required to go through the same procedure when it condemned each parcel making up the larger plot. Dusek also said the city should have specified what would be built on the hotel site, rather than merely stating that it was needed for an unspecified future project.

Earlier, Dusek had sued the city, alleging its findings that his building was in a blighted area fit for redevelopment was not based on a proper environmental impact statement. The court of appeal rejected that claim two years ago.

The mission-style, 49-room hotel was built in 1926. It caters to transients and limited-income residents.

Wallin’s decision ordered the reinstatement of the city’s condemnation lawsuit.

Priest declined to disclose how much the redevelopment agency had offered to pay Dusek for the hotel. Neither Dusek nor his lawyer could be reached for comment Thursday.