近距离内射合集

The owners of the now-defunct Lindy鈥檚 Diner have sued the city of Albuquerque for its handling of the demolition of the historic Bliss Building.

Attorney Michael Cadigan, representing Lindy鈥檚 Diner owners Steve and Dawn Vatoseow, alleges the city did not need to demolish the building and rushed the Vatoseows into doing so.

The lawsuit was filed in 2nd Judicial District Court in Albuquerque on Sunday.

鈥淭he Bliss Building was fixable, but the City of Albuquerque demanded that the building be demolished, repeatedly giving the owners varying and conflicting timelines to complete the work,鈥� the suit states.

In a Monday statement sent to the Journal, the city said it gave the Vatoseows time to address the situation and make whatever decision fits them.

鈥淭he City understands the historic importance of Lindy鈥檚 and the impact of losing the Bliss Building, but when a building becomes a threat to public safety, we act,鈥� wrote a city spokesperson. 鈥淲e made the difficult decision to remove the unsafe structure to protect downtown businesses, residents, and visitors who use Central Avenue and 5^th Street every day.鈥�

Demolition began on the Bliss Building roughly two months after a portion of the historic building crumbled in late April, leaving a slew of debris and building materials in its wake.

State Farm, the building鈥檚 insurer that provided coverage for seven years, is also being sued. The complaint alleges the insurance company was aware of the 120-year-old Bliss Building鈥檚 age and condition and still provided coverage, only to later deny claims that the Vatoseows filed.

 It is unclear if State Farm has an attorney yet.

Cadigan, a former city councilor who served from 2001 to 2009, including one term as city council president, said that city officials denied the Vatoseows due process by denying the family the time to make a decision or consider other options before demolishing the building.

"The government can't decide that your house needs to be torn down because it's not safe and not give you any due process rights,鈥� he said. 

He added that the city rushed the process due to the Bliss Building鈥檚 location and because of the Route 66 Centennial, which has brought various events to the area.

鈥淭he most shocking thing that I think the city did in this is they just ignored state law and their own city law on how you condemn a building,鈥� Cadigan said. "There was a political decision to tear it down and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.鈥�

鈥淚 understand that this is downtown and the Route 66 festival is coming up, but it's an interesting question,鈥� he added. 鈥淚f this building had been at the corner of Eubank and Lomas, would the city have acted like this?鈥�

The demolition timeline

Demolition on the building began June 30 after officials announced that the city would begin the process of razing the building after the Vatoseows "failed to follow through on their promise to demolish the collapsing building,鈥� states a June 30 news release.

Officials said the city chose to step in after it became 鈥渃lear that they are unwilling or unable鈥� to perform the deconstruction of the Bliss Building in what the city deemed was a timely manner. 

A lien was placed on the property to allow the city to recover demolition costs, potentially through a future sale of the site. The suit alleges that the lien is invalid because an order from a zoning hearing officer is required before a lien can be placed.

Since a portion of the property鈥檚 wall collapsed on April 27, sections of Downtown Albuquerque have been closed as officials worked to sequester the debris, voicing concerns about the building harming people or other nearby businesses.

The Bliss Building had been red-tagged and shut down by the city just one week before the building partially collapsed.

On April 30, a structural engineer deemed the property unstable and said it would need to be demolished. The Vatoseows requested a two-week extension on May 15, stating they would perform the demolition themselves.

Roughly one month later, city officials state that the agreement between the Vatoseows and a construction company had 鈥渄issolved.鈥� The following day, Code Enforcement sent a letter requesting immediate action to get the demolition back on schedule, though the Vatoseows did not respond.

The lawsuit alleges that the city caused further harm to the building after they 鈥渞ecklessly pulled down the remaining wall and roof,鈥� adding that if the city had hired an engineer and worked with the owners to stabilize the building, it could have been saved and eventually rebuilt.

鈥淭he City used heavy equipment to push the debris from the collapsed wall off the sidewalk and into the building and to pull down a section of the wall that had not yet collapsed,鈥� the suit states. 鈥淭his caused a larger portion of the wall and roof to collapse, which contributed to the building becoming a total loss.鈥�

Additionally, the suit states city officials violated the Inspection of Public Records Act by failing to produce all requested documents relevant to the Bliss Building.

Cadigan said the issue mimics a similar situation that happened in New York City recently, in which thenearly collapsed after a severe structural failure.

He said in that case, however, the city provided aid to the building owners rather than place all the responsibility on them.

"The city came in and they helped the owners stabilize the building,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey didn't come in and tear it down. They found engineers before they started messing with it.鈥�

Nakayla McClelland covers crime and breaking news. Reach her at nmcclelland@abqjournal.com or at 505-823-3857.