Hotel of Terror owners again turn to referendum process to overturn eminent domain

SBJ FILE

The Hotel of Terror was established in 1947 and operates downtown during the Halloween holiday season.

The owners of the Hotel of Terror haunted attraction, which faces potential seizure by the city of Springfield through the legal process of eminent domain, submitted a stack of petitions to City Clerk Anita Cotter on Jan. 9.

Springfield City Council approved the use of eminent domain in a meeting Dec. 15 to demolish the downtown Halloween seasonal attraction. Doing so would make way for replacement of the Main Avenue bridge – rated “poor” by the Missouri Department of Transportation and closed to heavy buses and emergency vehicles. City officials say the bridge replacement is not possible without damaging the building.

The bridge is at the west end of the first phase of the Renew Jordan Creek project, which is creating a parklike amenity along a restored, once-buried stream.

The petition clock started ticking after the council vote last month, and Hotel of Terror owners Sterling and Melissa Mathis had 30 days to acquire 1,499 signatures to get the item on an upcoming ballot, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting. That number is based on turnout from the single-issue April 2025 election, which had a 7% voter turnout, according to past SBJ reporting.

Mathis turned in roughly 2,400 signatures, which must now be verified by Cotter. It’s a process the clerk said would be completed within 20 days, and some deficiencies can then be corrected in an additional 10 days, if needed.

This is the second time Mathis has made a trek to the fourth floor of the Busch Building to turn in a stack of petitions seeking a ballot initiative to repeal council’s action. The first time was in March 2023, when he submitted 2,100 signatures but fell short of the 1,568 verified signatures he needed. On April 10, 2023, he submitted an amended petition that was deemed sufficient for a referendum.

A month later, council voted to repeal its declaration of eminent domain.

The city saved $250,000 by avoiding a ballot issue in 2023, then City Attorney Rhonda Lewsader said at the time. Councilmember Craig Hosmer has said he would rather spend money toward resolving the issue than paying to have an election.

If the petition drive is successful, the referendum on council’s decision to use eminent domain could appear in a future ballot, or council may once again decide to repeal its own measure.

Cotter said various considerations determine when and if a ballot issue appears before voters, some based on the verification process and some based on council’s actions in response to the petition.

“That depends on a lot of different factors – when the certification’s complete; if it’s complete; if City Council opts to repeal or if they opt to send it to the ballot,” she said.

Mathis has said he and the city had accord at one time when the city was offering $2 million for his property in May 2024.

“We thought it was over and done,” he said. “We were trying to rebuild, and we’re not the ones that threw a wrench in this deal.”

Mathis maintains that the city changed requirements for him to renovate another haunted attraction he owns – Dungeons of Doom, a converted mill at 701 W. Wall St – to accommodate the fright features and other contents of the Hotel of Terror. He said his plans received preliminary approval when the price was $2 million, but then the city upgraded the code requirements for the attraction. Mathis said this meant he wouldn’t be able to use wood in construction, and the facility would have to be accessible to people with handicaps.

“How do you do a haunted house that’s wheelchair accessible?” he said.

The changes boosted the cost of the relocation, Mathis said.

“It’s real simple – all we want to do is continue what we’ve been doing for 47 years,” he said. “We’re not looking for anything else. We thought it was over and done.”

The council bill authorizing eminent domain directs the city attorney or a designee to initiate legal proceedings to determine just compensation to acquire the property. It adds, “The officers of the city are further authorized to exercise any and all powers necessary to carry out the terms of this ordinance.”

If a price is not agreed to, a judge can appoint a three-member panel to set a value for property acquisition, according to past SBJ reporting. If either side objects to that price, a jury could make the final determination.