Riot-Damaged Building Razed Without Owner’s Knowledge : Rebuilding: Surprised holder of title had planned to make repairs.

As a child growing up in South Los Angeles in the early 1960s, Norman Morris became fascinated with a lovely old apartment house across the street from his home.

He could never catch anyone leaving or entering the prewar building on what is now Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and it became a source of childhood mystery and intrigue. When he grew up and discovered the house was for sale, he had to have it.

But in the last six months, Morris has been dealt two painful blows:

His “strong, old building” was severely damaged by fire during the riots.

And while he was in the process of settling an insurance claim that would allow him to repair the structure, he received another jolt last week: Unbeknown to him, the building was torn down by a crew contracted by the city to demolish riot-damaged structures.

Morris, 42, says he feels he has been doubly wronged and that the city, in its haste to provide visible signs that riot-torn communities are on the road to recovery, needlessly destroyed a stately building that once was a neighborhood jewel.

“I guess to the city this is nothing,” said Morris. “But to me it’s a big thing. It’s going to be a tremendous loss to me.”

City officials have conceded to several bureaucratic errors in the case of Morris’ four-unit building.

The building’s demise was apparently hastened by passage of an ordinance in the wake of the riots, allowing the city to condemn riot-damaged buildings as public nuisances. Under the ordinance, the city only had to post its plans for the building for 10 days before demolition and make a reasonable effort to contact the owner.

But according to Richard Holguin of the city’s building bureau, the structure’s address was recorded incorrectly on the Fire Department’s list of riot-damaged buildings, so notice was sent to the wrong property owner, a man living in Baton Rouge, La.

After the address was corrected, no effort was made to contact the rightful owner, Holguin said.

“At the time there should have been a second check but for whatever reason that didn’t occur,” he said.

But Holguin said a notice announcing the city’s intent to demolish was posted on the building in July, and that Morris should have seen the notice. He said that city inspectors also determined that the building was not secured and therefore posed a threat to public safety.

But Morris disputes those assertions.

“I’ve been out there every week; insurance adjusters and fire inspectors have been out there and there was nothing to indicate that the city was preparing to tear the building down,” said Morris.

Morris also says he had the building professionally boarded up and installed gates to keep out trespassers.

He says he understands the city’s desire to remove as quickly as possible the vestiges of last spring’s painful civil disturbances. But he worries that what happened to him may happen to others.

“It’s especially important after the recent unrest . . . that the city publicize what the plan is going to be,” said Morris. “It could be as simple as saying something like ‘The city is in the process of destroying buildings damaged during the riots and owners should be aware.’ But instead there was nothing.”

Holguin said the incident was “unfortunate” but not likely to change demolition procedures.

However, Deputy Mayor Linda Griego said that some questions need to be asked and that perhaps some changes should be made.

“It sounds to me that if we don’t have a way of double-checking, this sort of thing could happen again,” she said. ‘Maybe there are some housing dollars available, some way to help put this man back in business.”

Standing near the small, fenced-in lot, Morris pointed out a large grapefruit tree, laden with yellow fruit, and a 20-foot tall ficus tree, which began as a sapling years ago and was planted as a gift to the tenants. Aside from a small undamaged garage, they are the only things still standing in the lot.

Before the riots, the building had undergone extensive refurbishing, including new carpeting, painting indoors and out and new plumbing, said Marvin Martinez, a maintenance man who had tended the building for three years.

Martinez said two sets of contractors had reviewed the damage and estimated it would cost approximately $200,000 to repair.

Morris is not sure what he will do. His hopes had been to get the building “back on its feet” and rent to low-income tenants.

He is not sure what his total loss is and says the destruction leaves his insurance claim up in the air. Nothing can replace the building, Morris said, but he is considering taking legal action against the city.

“I think the city made an error and now they are backpedaling,” said Morris. “But I’m going to fight. What they did was wrong.”