Preservation Pittsburgh asks for expedited hearing on Igloo appeal
The Igloo could make its final entry in the history books starting at 6 a.m. Monday unless a federal appeals court grants Preservation Pittsburgh's request for an expedited hearing aimed at stopping demolition.
A federal judge's 10-day stay on the wrecking ball expired on Thursday.
In response to the group's request for an emergency injunction to stop the demolition, the Sports & Exhibition Authority filed a letter with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday saying it intends to begin tearing down the exterior of the Civic Arena next week.
Preservation Pittsburgh's basic claim is that the authority's demolition plan violates the National Historic Preservation Act because the agency has sought federal highway funding to help in the site's redevelopment. U.S. District Judge David Cercone ruled on Sept. 9 that since no federal agency or funding was involved in the project to demolish the arena and redevelop the site, he didn't have jurisdiction to stop demolition.
Cercone issued the 10-day stay on Sept. 12 so the group could appeal his ruling. The group claims in its motion for the emergency injunction that Cercone ignored evidence that the authority "closely coordinated" its efforts with the Federal Highway Administration in a so-far unsuccessful attempt to get federal funding for the redevelopment.
The group wants the appeals court to halt demolition while it pursues legal efforts to save the arena.
The authority hadn't filed its response to the emergency injunction request by yesterday evening, but Samuel Braver, the lawyer representing the authority, said the response would be filed before midnight.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.