Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Douglas Manor relocation, cites 140+ code violations; court date set Oct. 8
Summary
Council and staff described the recent relocation of Douglas Manor tenants, HUDrelocation assistance extended to Oct. 6, roughly 7to 8 residents remain to be permanently rehoused, staff cited more than 140 code violations, and the city has scheduled a court date Oct. 8 to pursue compliance or other remedies.
Webster Groves City staff and council members on Sept. 16 provided an update on the Douglas Manor housing situation, describing a multi-agency effort to remove residents from unsafe conditions and begin the path to compliance or other remedies for a building with more than 140 code violations.
Dr. Peebles and council members thanked emergency responders, the planning department and community partners, including Webster Rock Hill Ministries, for coordinating relocations and support. "As a city, we went above and beyond what I think a lot of cities would do for our most vulnerable residents," Dr. Peebles said, praising staff and volunteers who helped move residents and organize services.
Staff said HUD extended the relocation program until Oct. 6 to help tenants find interim housing. The city reported that 6 tenants had relocation specialists assigned and that most relocated residents were staying with family or in hotels in North County. Staff estimated there are "no more than 7 or 8 residents" still needing permanent housing placement.
Planning and code staff described the enforcement path: the owner must obtain permits, complete required work, pass inspections and secure occupancy permits before units may be re-rented. Planning staff noted the building presently does not meet minimum standards and that, given the extent of violations and show-cause orders, restoring the prior configuration of 42 apartments is "unlikely." A court date to address outstanding housing and code issues was set for Oct. 8.
Council members discussed whether a future owner could seek permits and rebuild at arm's length, emphasizing that promises must be proven by inspections and permits rather than informal assurances. The council also highlighted the strain on staff who assisted with moving operations and the need for clearer emergency-preparedness policies.
No formal policy decision to raze or seize the property was announced; staff said the immediate goal is compliance and a legally enforceable path forward through court.
