Juneau residents urge alternatives as Telephone Hill demolition plans advance

Dozens of residents packed the public-participation period and told the City and Borough of Juneau assembly they want alternatives to a proposed large-scale redevelopment of Telephone Hill, arguing the project endangers historic homes and lacks disclosed financial analysis.

The most sustained theme came from neighborhood residents and preservation advocates. Joshua Adams, who identified himself as an incremental developer, asked the assembly to require a Section 106 review before demolition, saying three of seven remaining Telephone Hill houses are pre-territorial and represent “a snapshot in time” of Southeast Alaska’s built history. Mark Whitman recounted local history tied to an early Chinese baker known locally as China Joe and said, “If we’re going to preserve history, we want more than just signs.”

Speakers raised financial objections. Larry Talley presented an independent pro forma and said CBJ has not published its own pro forma for the redevelopment; he estimated a $66 million construction cost, $52 million projected value and a $14 million feasibility gap and said the city planned roughly $9 million on demolition and site preparation for 13 housing units. Mary Alice McKean cited a market analysis pointing to a $16–$22 million development gap and asked whether the city had received an alternate 87-unit proposal that would differ from the publicized 155-unit, 20% affordable plan.

Several residents urged a different approach. Catherine Fritz and other testimony supported “Concept D,” an incremental-infill strategy intended to increase density while keeping neighborhood scale. Fritz said incremental infill could avoid “$5,500,000 of public money” for demolition and speed delivery of smaller housing projects. Local architects and commenters argued infill would keep work and tax dollars local and avoid creating a long-term visual “wasteland” on the hill.

Speakers also pressed procedural and engagement concerns. Susan Clark said the Telephone Hill survey was not statistically significant despite multiple public meetings and warned that a lack of clear communication had contributed to litigation. Tony Tangs accused past decision-making of being steered by city management without adequate public hearings; he said the process felt “corrupt.”

The assembly did not take new formal action on Telephone Hill during the meeting; members repeatedly heard public testimony and were asked by multiple speakers to publish pro formas, disclose any alternate proposals, and to put any substantial change to the publicly described project before residents before proceeding with demolition.

What’s next: many speakers asked the assembly to provide more transparency and for staff to answer specific questions about ownership, subsidy levels, who would build and who would pay. The assembly continues its review process; no demolition action was recorded at this meeting.