Rosewood, Cedarwood residents fight eviction in court

Residents of two low-income housing developments testified yesterday about the harm they say they would experience from having to relocate to make way for luxury senior apartments.

A temporary injunction hearing was held before Judge Joshua Christensen of the 31st Judicial Circuit Court in the case of Ramona Teeter et al. v. Zimmerman Properties LLC et al.

The court heard testimony from three of the four plaintiffs and other residents of developments formerly known as Rosewood Estates and Cedarwood Terrace. Those two housing facilities are targeted to exit the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit so that the properties, which have been sold, can be made into upscale senior housing.

Developers Mitchell and Amanda Jenkins, who also are the founders of mixed-use development company Elevation Enterprises LLC, led the purchase of Rosewood and Cedarwood in February 2024 through the entities Cedarwood Terrace LLC and 604-1120 Sunset LLC.

Since the purchase, Rosewood Estates is now the Villas on Sunset, 604-1120 E. Sunset St., while Cedarwood Terrace is now Pickwick Place, 2244 N. Cedarwood Lane.

At the heart of the case brought by residents is a failure to follow a LIHTC requirement to provide three years’ notice to tenants when a property is set to move out of the LIHTC program. This requirement was not met, as acknowledged by both sides in yesterday’s testimony; however, that change was the requirement of the seller of the properties, Wilhoit Properties Inc., the defense team maintained.

Mitchell Jenkins testified that he performed due diligence to confirm the status of the properties before making the purchase. He said he was advised by the Missouri Housing Development Commission – the state office that administers the federal LIHTC program – of the property’s release.

“We relied on information they provided us to make an informed decision,” Jenkins said on the stand.

Residents, who include families and people with disabilities, are facing eviction in August but are seeking a preliminary injunction that would allow them to stay in their homes until the lawsuit is adjudicated or beyond.

Witnesses for the plaintiffs described the sense of community built over years in the housing facilities, as well as features of the units that served them well and would be hard to replace. As an example, plaintiff Jami Johnson, age 55, who has been dependent upon a wheelchair since she was a teen, said she brings in $1,274 per month in Social Security, her sole source of income, to pay for a unit with no stairs, lower countertops, accessible bathrooms with raised toilets, accessible showers, higher electrical outlets and doors she can get through.

Johnson said she felt panic when she first received notice in 2024 that she would have to move following the property sale. She told the court she wondered where she would live and what she would do, as well as whether two years would be enough time to find disabled housing that is affordable.

Expert witness Amy Blansit of the Drew Lewis Foundation Inc. testified for the plaintiffs that Springfield is short about 22,000 housing units of all types and 12,000 short of housing units for people classified as very low income, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. City of Springfield figures place the shortage for very low income people at just under 9,000. She said there is generally a 1 1/2- to three-year wait for affordable housing locally.

The defendants pointed to the risk of bankruptcy from the loss of income that an injunction of six months would cause.

“That’s a decision that would have to be made,” Jenkins said.

The plaintiffs’ legal team was working pro bono through the nonprofit Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom.

A decision by Christensen is pending, and additional written materials are to be submitted by both legal teams.

An expanded version of this article is scheduled to appear in Springfield Business Journal’s April 6 print edition.