New Fines, Old Drama At Blighted Lot

A long-vacant Winchester Avenue property that a developer and the city have fought over for two decades is the subject of $6,300 in new anti-blight fines — and a new ​“final” foreclosure date set for next month. 

That’s the latest with 235 Winchester Ave., a 0.16-acre empty lot that has been owned since 2003 by a holding company controlled by NFL cornerback-turned-housing developer Kenneth Hill.

An 18-unit brick apartment building used to stand on that property. After years and years of building decay and city-developer disputes and neighbor complaints and public-private investments elsewhere in the neighborhood, the Elicker administration bulldozed the remains of the blighted structure in February 2023. And in April 2023, a state judge entered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of a lender called Stormfield Capital Funding over an overdue multi-million-dollar loan for Hill’s properties at 201 and 235 Winchester.

All the while, 235 Winchester remains fenced off, overgrown, and devoid of any new building.

The years-long grind over this property popped back into public view earlier this month during a Livable City Initiative (LCI) hearing officer proceeding held in a third-floor office of City Hall.

Volunteer municipal hearing officer Julie Bernblum approved a total of $6,300 in anti-blight financial penalties for Hill’s company and 235 Winchester. It was the latest instance of LCI’s quasi-judicial process for fining landlords whom the city’s anti-blight and housing code enforcement agency finds to be in violation of local law.

LCI attorney Sinclair Williams presented the case to Bernblum. He noted that, in early October, LCI sent a civil citation to Hill’s MBMB LLC describing his failure to address a number of anti-blight violations at 235 Winchester.

The civil citation, as filed on the city’s land records, states that a Sept. 3 notice of violation found that Hill’s company needed to repair damaged fencing and to cut and remove overgrown vegetation. Hill’s company didn’t address those concerns within 10 days of receiving the notice of violation; thus the civil citation.

Each civil citation makes clear that the landlord shall be fined up to $100 per day for each day the violations continue. The document also states that the landlord can contest the LCI findings before a hearing officer. If the landlord does not proactively request such a hearing within 10 days, however,​“you will be deemed to have admitted liability, and the Hearing Officer may assess the fine without further notice.”

According to LCI, Hill didn’t request the anti-blight civil citation. So Williams requested that he be fined a total of $6,300 — and Bernblum approved.

Hill now has 30 days to appeal that finding, or else LCI can file a lien on the city land records and seek a civil judgment in state court.

This isn’t the first time LCI has sought to fine Hill for blight at 235 Winchester. The agency placed a $9,985 lien on the property in March 2022, and then another $9,985 lien in May 2022. 

Meanwhile, in the ongoing Stormfield Capital Funding foreclosure case, state Superior Court Judge Alayna Stone entered a new judgment of strict foreclosure on Nov. 4. In that order, she reset the ​“law day” — or the last day by which a borrower can pay off outstanding debts in a foreclosure case before potentially losing the property — for Jan. 13.

The most recent submission by Stormfield in this case — a so-called motion to reset law days, from Oct. 18 — states that the court had previously entered a strict foreclosure judgment on July 15, with a law day set for Aug. 12. The defendants appealed that judgment in August; Stormfield moved to terminate the automatic stay related to that appeal in September; and in October, the court approved Stormfield’s motion to terminate the appellate stay.

“Without a stay in play, the Court is permitted to implement its July 15, 2024 judgment,” Stormfield’s lawyer wrote. ​“Once this Court sets new law days, Stormfield will move to have the pending appeal dismissed as moot.”

The most recent court filing in this case by Hill’s company was a Sept. 23 objection to Stormfield’s motion to terminate the automatic stay – a motion that the judge ultimately sided with the plaintiff on. In that filing, among other arguments, Hill’s company’s lawyer states that they had found a buyer who was ​“ready, willing, and able to purchase 201 Winchester Avenue for nearly three times its appraised value, and Defendants are confident such a sale is still possible.” Under state law, the defendants ​“are entitled in equity to have the judgment opened and the law days extended, or at least have the opportunity to make their appeal as of right to so argue before the Appellate Court.”

Hill did not respond to a request for comment by the publication time of this article. He also declined an interview with the Independent in July 2022 for this article. He did say at the time that he hoped to resume construction, and said he had lost millions of dollars​“trying to do good things for the city. There is a lot of nonsense going on downtown. I have gotten totally screwed.”

He has blamed the city for the stalemate — especially for forcing him, he said, to use a preferred, incompetent contractor to remove lead paint at 235 Winchester under a $168,000 city grant. That was back in 2004. Amid lawsuit threats from Hill, several LCI directors have sought to reach an agreement with Hill to resolve the issue, but came up short. In August 2021, the city did file paperwork signed by Mayor Justin Elicker releasing Hill’s company from any liability connected to the $168,000 lead grant.