Juneau residents urge pause to Telephone Hill demolition, warn of financial, cultural risks

Dozens of residents, preservation advocates and service providers pressed the Juneau City and Borough Assembly on April 6 to halt plans to demolish homes on Telephone Hill until the city lines up workable redevelopment plans and developer commitments.

Community members said the assembly’s request for bids to demolish seven historic houses—paired with an estimated $5.5 million demolition and site‑preparation cost—risks producing a vacant lot if no developer follows through. Joshua Adams, an incremental developer from Juneau, invoked New London, Connecticut as a cautionary example: “You cannot build a future by erasing your past,” he said, urging the city to require enforceable developer commitments before demolition.

The appeals were consistent: speakers asked the assembly to pause the demolition bid and use the RFQ/RFP process to test what developers can realistically deliver. Molly Emerson, a project developer on Capitol Avenue, told the assembly that “demolition without first knowing what development is feasible or likely exposes the city to significant risk,” and urged the city to issue an RFQ/RFP and run pro forma models before spending public funds on irreversible work.

Why it matters: residents and several advisory bodies contend Telephone Hill is a tangible historic neighborhood with pending National Register work and extensive advisory input. Multiple speakers also provided cost estimates and a market‑feasibility analysis that they said the assembly should consider before proceeding. Mary Alice McKeen summarized numbers she said are in the market analysis and city FAQ: the construction feasibility gap for a 155‑unit scheme without parking is cited as roughly $137,000 per unit (about $21.5 million), not including the previously noted demolition and infrastructure tallies.

Developers’ and nonprofits’ concerns intersected: speakers representing social‑service agencies warned that large capital outlays for demolition and infrastructure would compete with funding for nonprofits that deliver housing stabilization, food and mental‑health services. Joan O’Keefe of Southeast Alaska Independent Living and others described how CBJ‑administered grants leverage multiple dollars in outside funding and said cuts to that funding would reduce critical services.

Assembly response and next steps: After public testimony, Assembly member Brooks moved to place further consideration of Telephone Hill on the committee of the whole agenda so members could examine options—pausing the current demolition solicitation, modifying the scope to allow phased or partial approaches, or keeping the solicitation as written. The motion carried 6–2. The Assembly did not order demolition to stop immediately; instead it directed staff and members to return options for the committee to consider, including potential revisions to the RFB and the timing of any demolition work.

What speakers asked for: repeated requests included (1) pause the demolition bid until RFQ/RFP results are in; (2) run independent pro formas to quantify the public subsidy required; (3) consider adaptive reuse and sensitive infill alternatives recommended by the Historic Resources Advisory Committee; and (4) ensure any transfer or disposal terms protect community goals (affordability, historic retention) before property moves to the private sector.

A note on numbers and evidence: speakers cited a range of technical figures from city packets and market analyses (demolition/site prep approximately $5.5 million; road/utilities estimates cited in testimony around $3.5 million; feasibility gaps cited by speakers ranging from $21.5 million to higher totals when parking and other costs are included). Assembly members and staff acknowledged those figures in public discussion and asked for clearer documentation and staff analysis to bring to committee.

What’s next: The committee of the whole will take up the topic in the coming weeks. The Assembly’s direction signals it will not yet commit to irrevocable demolition without additional vetting; staff will return options and factual clarifications for members to weigh against community feedback and fiscal considerations.