The temporary restraining order placed on the City of Chandler regarding the St. Cloud buildings has been dissolved, and the motion for a preliminary injunction has been denied, according to court documents filed on July 9.
It was one of four decrees and orders issued by District Court Judge Joseph Dobry. He wrote in the filing that the plaintiff, John Givens, failed to persuade the court that the case met the generally considered factors in a motion for a preliminary injunction. Additionally, he wrote that while the court is reserving judgment on the issue until the merits in the cause are considered at trial, he wasn’t persuaded at this time that the “challenged condemnation and demolition order is not a proper and necessary exercise of the Defendent’s police power given the evidence thus far presented as to the current condition of the subject structures and that the subject structures’ current condition arising from many years to decades of neglect fails to meet Defendent’s minimum standards so as not to endanger the health and safety of Plaintiff, neighboring properties and the general public at large.”
The filing said evidence presented so far showed that major repairs and renovations are needed for the buildings. Still, the plaintiff hadn’t demonstrated that he had “much likelihood of succeeding on the merits.” Dobry also determined that Givens is the title holder for both 1214 and 1216 Manvel and bears the burden on his request for a preliminary injunction.
Chandler City Manager Jason Orr said at this time, the City is still discussing the outcome with the City Attorney’s office.
The filing came after both sides submitted written closing arguments on July 2, following a hearing on June 25. In the plaintiff’s argument, attorney Zachary Privott argued that the City of Chandler did not give Givens enough time to fix the issues on the property and asked the court to issue a temporary injunction, saying that the value of the property is from its historical nature and any monetary judgment or future building would not restore the plaintiff.
“John Givens should be given time to resolve the pending issues with the Property pending further hearing by this Court,” Privott wrote.
City Attorney Larry Lenora argued in the defendant’s brief that there isn’t a “substantial likelihood of success” regarding Givens’ ability to fix the serious issues with the building. Lenora also wrote that an injunction, if continued, would be detrimental to public welfare, considering how long the conditions have existed.Additionally, he said any threatened injury outweighs the damage of demolition, and the plaintiff won’t suffer “irreparable harm” if the buildings are torn down.