As I mentioned during our discussion, I represent Christopher Bennitt in this matter.

The undisputed facts

leave significant questions as to the Citys motive and strategy in requiring the immediate displacement of
eight commercial tenants at the property based upon alleged hazardous and dangerous conditions that
the City claims pose an immediate threat to the life, limb, health, safety and welfare and constitute an
emergency. In fact, the City has been claiming the existence of the alleged violations for over the past
five years and, prior to June 7, 2017, NEVER advised my client or any of his tenants that ANY of the
alleged violations constitute any life or safety threat. Indeed, the actions of the City clearly suggest quite
the opposite.

The City and my client entered into the attached legal agreement dated August 19, 2016, which, largely
due to significant delays on the Citys part, took almost two years to define, negotiate the scope of terms,
and finalize. That agreement identifies notices issued to my client, resulting from several City
inspections, dating back to 2012. The legal agreement between my client and the City expired in March,
2017. The City denied my clients March 8th request for an extension without giving any reason for such
denial, despite the agreement contemplating that such extension may be requested and given. The City
failed to respond to a letter dated March 27, 2017, from my office requesting that the City reconsider its
denial of the requested extension. (See attached).

The last inspection took place on April 26, 2017. At that inspection, an attorney from my office had a
discussion with two City representatives and requested that, if there were any issues that posed health and
safety concerns, they let him know so that they could be fixed immediately. No mention of any such
health and safety concerns was ever made, until my office received a fax from the City on the morning of
June 7th advising that the tenants were being required to evacuate immediately due to hazardous and
dangerous conditions located throughout the building that pose such an immediate threat to the life,
limb, health, safety and welfare of the public at large and the occupants of this property as to constitute an
emergency. The City scheduled an 11:00 a.m. meeting that day between City representatives and the
tenants of the property. After City representatives stated at that meeting that they have been trying to get
my client to repair the alleged violations for over the past 5 years, they were asked what triggered the
need for immediate evacuation. City representatives responded by stating that they have been going
through the regulatory process necessary for the evacuation ever since the agreement expired in March,
and that such process has taken months. Despite evading the question, if the City truly believed that any
alleged violations posed a risk to life and limb and otherwise constituted an emergency, it would
stand to reason that the City would certainly have done something prior to June 7 th. For the City to have
done nothing not a single prior suggestion to the tenants that their lives are in danger or that they should
prepare to evacuate, not a single notice alerting the tenants that a regulatory process was underway and
would eventually result in mandatory and immediate evacuation, and not a single word to my office or my
client as to any hazardous and dangerous conditions the City now claims have existed for years that
suddenly require immediate evacuation reveals nothing short of a blatant and disingenuous abuse of
power.

In short, there is no doubt the City could have handled this much differently. Its decision to resort to such
an ambush strategy is a big step backwards for a local economy that continues its struggle to survive the
consequences of the Citys recent bankruptcy. With that said, my client remains ready and willing to
expeditiously resolve this matter with the City.